They should also look into lopping off one side of a baby girl's breast tissue... Cut that breast cancer rate in half while still being able to breastfeed!
I oppose circumcision of all infants regardless of their gender. That being said, a consenting adult has every right to do as he or she pleases with their own bodies. The only difference between so-called FGM and labiaplasty is the use of sterile equipment and anesthesia.
2 and 3 are basically the same thing, and both easily counteracted by simple effort.
4 is a matter of taste, and honestly is not true, as men are naturally attracted to female sexual organs, please grow out of your associate imbecility
5 female "circumcision" involves much the same procedure as lopping of the entire penis head of a man, rather than removing the clitoral hood, and the other option would be slicing off some skin.
Basically, to not be sexist men should mutilate their balls.
@TheAtheologian On 5; there's actually different degrees of female circumcision, basically how much and what parts can be removed range from the labia [meat-curtains] to the whole protruding parts [clitoris along with the clitoral-hood and the labia]. So your statement isn't entirely true. On 4: Yes, it's a matter of taste... and culture. Anyway, the big picture here is; circumcision for nobody. Cheers.
@ratonL I agree completely with the last statement. on five, I stated it as a whole as that is the most common practice, and it requires a higher degree of precision not to (I suppose, haven't tried, *shifty eyes*).
PS: because this is the internet I think I should make clear that "*shifty eyes*" was indeed a joke....
@TheAtheologian LOL, *shifty eyes*, I understand :D. Yeah, oops, got carried away I guess. I see you state pretty much the same thing I do, hehe. Glad to end on a good note. Cheers.
@ratonL Circumcision is JEWISH TRADITION you fat Goy bitch! How about you dumbasses mind your own business on what you dumb schmucks obviously have no clue about! Cheers
And are you seriously too fucking lazy to take half a minute each day to wash your dick? What other body parts should we amputate in the name of "good hygiene?"
@MrJewishWarrior Wow, nice representation of your people, very civilized. Especially after making them look like tribesmen. Tradition, seriously? That's your excuse? You can reason and have logical thinking [or at least I hope you do], please make use of those qualities. Cheers.
@ratonL Circumcision will never leave, get used to it putz, science proves it reduces STDs, increases intelligence and lowers rates for cervical cancer. So my logical thinking is way above yours Goy. If you don't like circumcision too bad. you need to move on.
Have no time to do such lovely video butt I have some more Ideas. Since man do not love smell under womans arm, lets remove our daughters arms. And to prevent fungus on feet (google trans) let's remove our daughters feet. And to improve hygiene of mouth eyes ears and hair let's legalize cutting off our daughter head, and kill all birds with one stone.
Was HIV infection amongst females reduced BECAUSE SEX WAS SO FUCKING UNPLEASANT THEY DIDN'T DO IT and so transmission of HIV was reduced? Here's a thought. Executing women reduces HIV transmission BY 100% amongst the affected group. I think that's a strong argument for executing women. What do you think?
how bout we all do whatever the fuck we want when we have children? If I felt a damn thing when I was a baby I don't remember it so I don't care. I am glad it was done when I was born.
@mykotron Well, I dunno about you, but I sure would love a quadruple amputee baby. I'm sure you will support my decision to have my children's arms and legs removed, it is after all my religious belief that quadruple amputees will be favored by God in the afterlife.
I am amazed that you accomplished exactly what you set out to.....BRAVO. All the excitement of these comments just goes to show you how stupid people can be. I don't see this video as truly in favor of legalizing FGM... but it is a wildly intelligent way to make the point that genital mutilation and it's touted "benefits" can easily GO either way! Amazing no one picked out the one phrase that clued you in.....laws against female circumcision and NO laws about male circumcision are not fair.
But the point behind it is to legalize it. Look at the user name. Also, it removes the genitals on teh female that relate to sexual pleasure and orgasm for most women. Men don't have their sexual organs removed. I wouldn't circumsize my baby boy either however.
@arepasheat Women are capable of vagina, anal, breast, and aural (sound) orgasm. While I'll admit the later two are rare, the former are less so... further, the foreskin is 25 square inches of skin, mucus membrane, and sexual nerve endings. Yes, 25 square inches. It's less in a baby, but justifying mutilation by saying the subject is a baby is stupid. I know that's not what you're saying, but the point is that there is no reason to compare them, both are wrong... which you already seem to get.
Legalizefemalecirc, Are you out of your friggin mind! Female circumcision is genital mutilation plain and simple!! It takes away a girls ability to experience pleasure, it destroy's the sex drive and its just plain disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself for promoting this garbage!!!!
@holocaustdefender33 Female circumcision has no effect on mormon levels, and thus none on the sex drive. Women are capable of vaginal, anal, aural (sound), and breast orgasms. The later two may be rare, the the former are much less so. That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong, however it doesn't make male circumcision right either.
@justkitteh, Actually many women who've undergone female circumcision have reported sexual disfunction and very painful intercourse, but you're right it doesn't totally destroy the sex drive and women are capable of enjoying sex. However female circumcision does mutilate the genitals.
@89990000 All of these are reasons used to justify male circumcision, do you say the same thing when it comes up, or... do you believe the lies when it's a baby boy.
Foreskin is harvested for women's cosmetic products and other things on the secondary market, and while it may not be as extreme, that does not make it a non-issue. You're on YouTube, so I'll assume you live in the first world. You think that this is disgusting, but have you ever fought male circumcision? No? Label yourself sexist.
It does not look ugly. If you say that you must be mad. What's more beautiful than the human body? Male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcision. By putting this point, youre just making more males suffer. So instead of saying that the world not fair (which it never is) why don't you go and post a video on why NOT to cicumcise?
Ok, let's look at the facts. It DOES NOT help stop HIV, AIDS or any other STI's. You can only get STI's if fluid (blood, sperm, spit) from one body comes into contact with another. The only way to prevent getting STI's is by using a condom. It does nothing to improve hygiene, if nothing else it makes it worse. It stops urine and blood from passing freely. And if you knew anything, girls NEED bacteria in their genitals. If we don't we get thrush.
Some men may like the way a circumcised woman looks better than one who is not circumcised, do they stop to think, would they prefer a non-circumcised woman to enjoy sex regardless of how he thinks she looks, or would he prefer the woman to have painful sex just because he thinks it looks better
A few years ago I interviewed Ron Gray (pro-male-circ. dr. at Johns Hopkins U.) & asked him if there were any studies showing a benefit from female genital cutting. He said no, the liar....
Seeing as how we're allowed to choose whether or not to circumcise our babies, why aren't we allowed to choose their sex after birth? How much harm could it really cause to go a few steps further and remove a baby boys balls and penis? Parents have "rights" to their kids bodies you know, so they should be able to change their babies sex, if they have a boy, but want a girl instead.
News services such as Slate don't cover female circumcision with a title "To Snip?" a cartoon of a girl holding her crotch and the use of the word "snip" to describe the procedure. With a little humor, a uniform campaign of infant and child circumcision could be continued such that every woman could be circumcised (clitoral hood and labia minora) at birth and never remember the trauma.
Let any one come near any child I have, male or female and try to circumcise them. I'll rip off their head and shit down their neck. And by all means, when they are 18 and pay for it, if they feel like slicing off tissue of the genitalia is a good idea... Well, let me know how that goes :)
Her body, her choice. If a woman wants to have parts removed for the supposed benefits, that's fine. But no forcing genital cutting on unconsenting minors.
And the same can be said of male circ. His body, his choice.
I am certainly for legal female circumcision... if they are retarded enough to want it when they grow up. No one should be allowed to augment their child's genitals, male or female, unless immediate amputation is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in order to preserve the child's life. This video is officially in the top ten scariest horror video's that I've ever seen. Just the bullshit that the creator of this video lists off as if s/he thought they justified female cutting, it's diabolical.
Ok this is so stupid 1 maybe the chicks had them paid more cuz they were forced to be circumcised then grubby social bottomfeeders with HIV might not be able afford her 2 I think if u don't have a clit what's the point let's take the head is ur dick not just the skin 3 less bacteria there would be more dipshit and ur number 5 we take some skin from ur dick maybe it's not right but ur keep ur head why should we lose the closest thing to it o and male circumsizing is a choice so go blame ur mom n
ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS??!!!! Some kind of love. Oh, it's so difficult teaching my child proper hygiene so I'll just CUT OFF PART OF HER BODY! You are a sick, twisted fucker.... And by the way, mutilating boys just because you are afraid they may jerk off...or because it's so hard to teach them proper hygiene (if you won't admit the real reason) should be illegal as well. How 'bout we cut off your head 'cuz it's too hard to teach you to THINK.
@TiniNormi oh and in case you needed more reports:
Female circumcision: obstetrical and psychological sequelae continues unabated in the 21st century. by Chibber, et al.
I think that a high rate of forcing a woman to deliver her child with numerous and painful complications that were precisely due to the FGM and even render her infertile is more damaging than male circ. for sexuality
It improves Smell, nice!! As an FYI to your wonderful subscribers, You can also prevent aids and infection of your daughter's pussy by just putting a sanitized bullet in your daughters brain rather than cutting off her clit and telling her to live in a bag. Either way, we beat the bacteria!
The person that made this video forgot to mention that female circumcision also reduces a womans drive for sex and reduces her pleasure during sex (or eliminates their ability altogether).
Also most cultures that practice female circumcision do it specifically to keep women from having sex and most of those cultures regard women as something that needs to be controlled because they directly "tempt" male sexual compulsions.
Really, find me a study that says female circumcision reduces/eliminates a woman's pleasure more than male circumcision. I've honestly never seen one.
While you're at it, find me the studies that say it's done "specifically" to keep them chaste, because I've seen sources citing other reasons. Also show me something that says it's done to control women, because I've seen statements by female proponents insisting that claim is western propaganda.
again great show - as i already mentioned at "FEMALE Circumcision Prevents HIV": "great video! it's provoking because it shows scientific facts! nice to see how emotional people react in their comments .that's human life!"
it helps prevent hiv? are u fuckin serious......wow im speechless....i seriously pray to god that u will never have children because a statement like that tells me that u r far from being intelligent ebough to raise a child in a proper way
@Somalivlogger Just to clue you in: The video is NOT seriously trying to tell people to circumcise their daughters. It is merely pointing out a double standard in America: Even though we think these are stupid reasons to mutilate the genitals of baby girls, many Americans justify doing it to baby boys for the EXACT SAME REASONS.
If this video is serious, then my reaction is that the music is entirely tacky and should be re-done. If this video is a parody, then my reaction is that the music is entirely tacky and should be re-done.
I don't think anyone who's a proponet of female circumcision gives a damn about sexism. In fact, I'd say they're much more likely to treat women as property than as people.
This is just a crass attempt to dress religious prudery as modern values.
@TheSpazzofMuffins Nope. There's demonstrable medical reasons for doing it to males- not that I'm saying they should. Just saying that tangible benifits exist in cases of male circumcision. People just do it to women to kill their sex drive.
Every one of these points can ostensibly apply to FGM and so can the existing reasons for its continuation. Male circumcision also gained historical impetus to kill their sex drive.
@geminyo All those benifits can be attained by regularly washing the penis (which everyone should be doing) and wearing a condom (Which everyone should be doing). There is absolutely no reason to mutilate unconsenting babies.
@McTaggStar: I haven't thought enough about this issue; I just stumbled upon it today. I need to reserve juIdgment. But I have been circumcised and I have no issues. But there has got to be a reason why female circumcision if illegal but male isn't.
@TiniNormi: No Normi, it isn't. It's because it's harmful and of no use to females. Is it sexist that female hockey leagues always exclude physical contact? No, it's not sexist. The point of the exclusion of physical contact in female leagues is to protect the breasts. Men don't have breasts, so it's fine for them. The difference doesn't derive from sexism, it just derives from inherent physical differences between the sexes. Go fuck yourself.
@TiniNormi: Funny, because what you just said actually has nothing to do with logic at all. The Logic Book, 5th ed., Merrie Bergmann, et al. It's a book I'm currently reading for my course on mathematical logic. I'm actually reading about formal syntax of a language, and the translation of arguments to a formal language. So thanks, but being that you don't even know the meaning of the word 'logic' I suggest you take Logic 101. Now, this is not a case of sexism. Treating men and women differently
@TiniNormi: does not necessarily entail a case of sexism. AS I SAID (but as you seemed to have ignored), women's hockey leagues prohibit physical contact while men's don't. Is it sexism? No. We dress our female and our male children differently from the moment their born. Is it sexism? No. It is not necessarily a case of sexism on the government's part. There are real reasons for why circumcision is allowed for males and not females. It is an issue I need to read about more, but it's absurd to
@TiniNormi: say it is because the government's policy makers are sexist. If it's just a case of sexism, why do women have the vote? Why are women entitled to equal pay? Why do women and females in general have all the same rights as men? If policy makers were sexist, why stop at circumcision? It's bollocks, that's why. As I said, treating the sexes differently does not, of necessity, entail sexism. End of story.
@TiniNormi: Your argument is deductively valid, but it is not sound. I would attack premise 2. I am quite confident that it is not arbitrary, there are real reasons for it. I need to read more about these - but I find it highly unlikely that the law set in place is purely arbitrary and that there are no medical/health-related reasons for it. If it is not arbitrary, and there is a real rationale for it, then it is not discrimination; if it is not discrimination, then it is not sexism.
It is arbitrary insofar as the ethical implications of genital mutilation do not and should not depend on a subject's gender. Unless medically necessary, which is almost never, forced genital mutilation violates a person's bodily integrity. The difference between doing it to boys and girls is one of cultural perception rather than pragmatism.
I am against female circumcision, but people have to see that circumcision of male children also is a form of mutilation. Yes there are forms of female circumcision which go far beyond what is usually done in male circumcision, but they are both procedures performed in the analogous organs in both sexes. In the West, in the vast majority of cases, male circumcision has no good medical reason, and even in the Third World, use of condoms make circumcision unnecessary.
cant believe the victorians forgot to start circumcising women... maybe they did not realize that women masturbate too... funny how people started circumcising in the US to stop masturbation, and today it carries on in the name of whatever justification you like. atleast mutilated american boys have something in common with muslims, jews and some african boys and girls.
You do realize that there are medical reasons for circumcising a male--you decrease the risk of fungal infections and prevent the build-up of smegma. Besides that, you're only removing a small piece of skin on the tip of the penis. Female circumcision not only has no proven medical benefits but is waaay more damaging than male circumcision. Removal of the clitoris is analogous to removal of the entire male penis, which THEN parents would object to.
@arrangement Then again, females do tend to produce more smegma than intact males (and it's not carcinogenic for either gender). You owe it to yourself to read more into this topic--the male foreskin is a lot more than just a tiny piece of skin. It makes up in some case up to half of the skin on the penis, and contains somewhere in the ballpark of 20,000 highly erogenous fine touch nerves (if you insist on these comparisons, the clitoris has somewhere around 8,000).
@1148BucksX2 Thing is, removal of the foreskin for hygenic purposes involves facilitating removal of smegma trapped between the head and the foreskin. The major issue, however, is that you can get develop infections if it's not cleaned out properly, which has been recorded in medical literature. Cleaning the vulva of the female body is much easier.
I'm not comparing nerve terminals--just because the peripheral nerves on somebody's leg may be damaged doesn't mean it's okay to remove it.
@arrangement "just because the peripheral nerves on somebody's leg may be damaged doesn't mean it's okay to remove it." Curious analogy, since it seems you're arguing the case *for* genital cutting, assuming that it's exclusively males who are the recipients. Once more, while smegma is not cancerous for either gender, I don't understand why you seem to believe that retracting and rinsing is such a chore compared to female hygiene, but that's your call. It's still not a good justification.
@1148BucksX2 look, if you look into primary medical literature, you will find many cases of men who don't freaking wash themselves as much as they should and the build-up of nasty leads to all sorts of infections. however, arguing that female circumcision to crush self-esteem and sexuality to eventually discourage them from having sex and thus coming into contact with STDs such as HIV is wrong on many, many levels.
I don't think you understand what FGM actually does.
@arrangement "I don't think you understand what FGM actually does." Maybe you're even right on this. But then again, I don't need to hear any kind of argument whatsoever (nor even be a woman) to understand why FGM is wrong. However, "men can still function fine" spells out pretty clearly that you don't understand what MGM actually does, either--and I just have to accept that you aren't likely to make the move to learn otherwise. Only wish that made you unique.
@1148BucksX2 OH, and if you think I don't understand what "removal of the foreskin" does, then why don't you go ahead and tell me the biological significance of the foreskin? In what way is it equivalent (biologically) to removing the entire vulva of the female?
Note that the foreskin is equivalent to the female clitoral hood (if you've ever seen one, you might recognize it...)at the embryonic stage, so removing the foreskin is equivalent to removing the clitoral hood of a female.
@arrangement "then why don't you go ahead and tell me the biological significance of the foreskin?" Mostly because you've already made it clear you aren't really listening, and would likely interpret it as an attack, anyway. One of my first replies was an attempt to account for the sheer number of erogenous nerves and up to half of the mobile skin on the intact penis lost to circumcision, yet you carried on without missing a beat. I cannot make a person see what they refuse to see.
@1148BucksX2 You ARE outright attacking me in every comment so it's hard for me to want to even continue discussing this with someone so antagonistic. Patter down, would you.
The foreskin may contain many nerves, but the clit has the highest DENSITY of nerves on the body. The video draws comparison between fem and male circ. but they are radically different in both anatomy and functional effects. I personally don't view the clit hood/foreskin as necessary in human sexuality
@1148BucksX2 Again, the foreskin is not comparable to the clitoris itself because the clitoris is significantly more sensitive due to the number of nerves per square centimeter. You can't compare the majority of FGM with male circumcision as this video is doing. Also, removal of the mobile skin of the penis is not comparable to removal of the clitoris/penis itself, which, again this video is doing.
@1148BucksX2 I'm not saying all males should be circumcised. I'm saying that I don't consider the foreskin/clitoral hood essential for human sexuality and that circumcised males are in no way inhibited when having sex or reproducing--your argument is that the foreskin improves sensation during intercourse. Okay. Still debatable because men w/o foreskins can't compare.
But that's not the same as removing the entire external penis/clitoris from a human, which I consider unarguably horrifying.
@1148BucksX2 Anyways, I'm beginning realize that you're not really reading my comments and that you're just singling out a statement and attacking my personality (rather than my position) and not presenting any scientific/biological facts to support your stance. In effect, you're not doing so much to convince me as antagonize me.
I know there's been this wave of men who are suddenly upset that their foreskin was removed without their permission and that they felt that they've lost something big
@arrangement "I know there's been this wave of men who are suddenly upset that their foreskin was removed without their permission" How dare they. The nerve of some people.
@1148BucksX2 In the end, the foreskin is not essential for male sexuality (unless all Jewish men are sexually dysfunctional?), and some people prefer removal for various reasons (religious, hygenic, medical, etc.). It's debatable about how much the foreskin contributes to male sexuality versus circumcision's medical benefits.
But I will be damned if it's comparable to fem. circumcision. That's the equivalent of removing your entire penis (so much for foreskin huh?) and your scrotum.
@arrangement "the foreskin is not essential for male sexuality" One could also declare the same thing about the clitoris, albeit at the overwhelming risk of being branded a pig and/or a monster for even the suggestion of such a thing.
"In the end, the foreskin is not essential for male sexuality" .... and the majority of mutilated women still enjoy sex and reach orgasm, so I guess the same goes for them. Oh, and before you rebut with the classic "but FGM removes all of it!" straw man argument, even infibulated (Type III) women can reach orgasm.
@TiniNormi well, we could also say penectomized men can reach orgasm, all due to the inner structure after removal of the external genitalia. but tell me...how much of the sexuality is removed with removal of the foreskin? how much of the sexuality is removed with the removal of the clitoris?
Think about the reactions of people if we were to remove a square millimeter on the foreskin versus the entire penis itself. You could even argue that the former is not even any removal of sexuality.
It all entails permanent alteration of a person's body without their consent.
Does it matter if you shoot one person in the foot and shoot another in the shoulder? Is there a fundamental ethical difference because one does ostensibly more damage? No, what matters is you just fucking shot someone. There is no intrinsic difference.
You could argue that circumcision is not a removal of sexuality, but you'd still be wrong.
@TiniNormi There is a difference for the person who got shot. If getting shot in the foot means you can't walk anymore, that's worse than getting shot in the shoulder and retaining normal function of your arms and upper body.
Well I think you're wrong in believing that cutting off somebody's penis is just as bad as cutting off a mm^2 of their foreskin.
So, in keeping with that analogy, should it be legal to shoot someone in the shoulder but illegal to shoot them in the foot, based on your arbitrary decision of which is more severe? Guess what: it's still unethical.
Apparently you know nothing about the foreskin so I'll go easy on you. It's far bigger than "a mm^2" and even as hyperbole that's incredibly insulting. The foreskin is known to be the most sensitive part of the penis and has multiple functions.
@TiniNormi Well, killing somebody versus injuring them incur different penalties.
I'm not talking about circumcision. I'm talking about literally removing a mm^2 of the foreskin and comparing that to removing the penis. You sound like you're saying both operations would be equivalent.
@TiniNormi Because body integrity could mean so many different things! And also, the reasons are really general and there are many, many reasons out there. There are both good and bad to both operations, but the bad can really outweigh the good in the penectomy.
Violating bodily integrity could mean that your parents force you to cut your hair. Violating bodily integrity could mean that you parents force you to cut off your arm. Should the former be made illegal like the latter?
@TiniNormi Well, you could say speeding 10 mph over the limit is illegal just like murder. Does that mean the person who commits both crimes should serve the same sentence?
@TiniNormi If you haven't realized it yet, I'm alluding to what extent we should tolerate religious beliefs.
If something is significantly harmful and traumatizing and definitively found to harm a person, then it should be outlawed without question.
I don't think we should jail rabbis or Jewish parents or Islamic parents for circumcising their children because of the mildness of the operation. If they believe that it makes them closer to God, so be it.
MILDNESS of the operation? Hundreds of neonatal males die annually as a result of circumcision, and hundreds more live with complications (myself included). A mohel performs it without anesthetic in a non-hospital setting. When metzitzah b'peh is implemented, he sucks blood from the baby's penis. I'm amazed you're okay with that.
@TiniNormi Well, they die precisely because the circumcision isn't done in a proper medical setting. If we were to dissuade trained doctors, as bodaciouscowboy suggested, from performing the operation and settle for home/religiously based operations, then complications would certainly ensue.
Note that the COMPLICATIONS are the problem--because they weren't done properly.
Are you willing to jail anybody who dares to perform a nonmedical male circumcision?
@TiniNormi "without medical necessity" would also apply to plastic surgery.
if an infant was born with a birth defect that still allowed it to function properly on a basic level (e.g. craniofacial defect), but would hinder it greatly from socially fitting in and the surgery would only get more painful as the child got older...the parents should be punished for choosing the surgery?
Yeah. I feel the same about forcing plastic surgery on someone - that's basically what circumcision is.
You have a really warped view of male anatomy. The foreskin is not a birth defect but a perfectly natural and healthy body part. Having one doesn't "greatly hinder" someone from fitting in, and with the current circ rate down to 32%, the cut guy will be the minority.
@TiniNormi My point is that, despite whatever world you're living in, sometimes plastic surgery is necessary for a child. Your statement is too broad and would punish parents for wanting surgery to fix their infant's cleft lip.
You should keep your views to circumcision only because I doubt you know much about the myriad of other plastic surgery-like operations that almost everybody would agree is necessary to allow for healthy social and mental development of an infant.
Yes, sometimes plastic surgery is necessary - keyword being NECESSARY. See the difference yet?
Having a cleft lip/palate causes problems.
Having a foreskin does not.
Christopher Hitchens was circumcised for the Jewish faith and grew up to be a hardcore atheist. That isn't fair to him.
Please show me an academic study saying FGM "abrogates" sexuality more than circumcision. That's like the #1 argument against it, yet I've never seen it substantiated beyond propaganda.
@TiniNormi having cleft lip causes social problems. a child can have normal physiological functions living with cleft lip, but we perform plastic surgery on them to integrate them into society--which is the purpose of most male circumcision worldwide.
what about the papers i cited?
search Defective sexuality and female circumcision: The cause and the possible management by Thabet, et al.--the pdf is online.
wiki has a list of papers about male circ effects on sexuality--most say no difference
Children with cleft lip/palate can have ACTUAL PHYSICAL PROBLEMS - feeding/breathing difficulty, ear infection and hearing loss, dental problems, and speech impediment. The social problems are constant.
Children with foreskins live normal, healthy lives.
@TiniNormi They can have those problems, just as NORMAL children can have those problems (do you know the procedure they use to solve it?--they just pull back the upper lip all the way so a lot of those problems still exist). The social problems are the main issue why parents get it fixed.
Children without foreskins also lead normal, healthy lives. Simple, huh? Do all circumcised men have abnormal sex lives?
Lol. "Well normal children have those problems too!" At the same rate and likelihood?
I've never seen anyone mourning the loss of their cleft lip/palate, and I'm pretty sure they can recreate one later in life. Circumcision... not so much.
Lacking a normal sex organ technically results in abnormal sex.
The study I asked for was one suggesting circ'd women consistently feel less pleasure than circ'd men. The former generally seem to enjoy sex from what I've read.
@TiniNormi They do. Look up asthma, speech impediments, stuttering, etc.
The plastic surgery doesn't "remove" the cleft lip/palate. It often just uses extra skin/bone to cover it up and make it look natural--doesn't actually solve the problem, and there is still a speech impediment--my cousin had it done. Again, it's PLASTIC surgery.
What proportion of circ'd men enjoy sex? What proportion of circ'd women? The clitoris is ten times more sensitive than the penis and foreskin--removing it?
"The clitoris is ten times more sensitive than the penis and foreskin"? I'm really gonna need a source on that. Last I heard, the foreskin contains 20,000 nerves + 4,000 in the glans. You're saying the clitoris has TEN TIMES more?
I specifically asked whether they have those problems "at the same RATE and LIKELIHOOD." You're basically saying harelips have no more difficulty or problems than normal children. Please show me where you heard this.
@arrangement "What proportion of circ'd men enjoy sex? What proportion of circ'd women?"
Women really love sex with richer men. Men have a much lower libidinous response to female wealth.
There aren't enough women with excised clitoral hoods in the US to compare. So, the WHO should start a pilot program with female volunteers for removal of clitoral hoods and track them over a few months to find out if they have more HIV infection.
@TiniNormi Anyways, I don't want to BEGIN to believe that you think FGM'd women mostly enjoy sex and lead happy reproductive lives like circ'd men. What did you get from the obstetrics paper I told you about?
Forcibly castrated men can lead happy, sexual lives, but the majority don't. Same principle applies for FGM. Is castration therefore the same as FGM?
Hell, why not legalize female circ!
I mean, what's good for the gander... right? ;)
They should also look into lopping off one side of a baby girl's breast tissue... Cut that breast cancer rate in half while still being able to breastfeed!
Yessiree Bob!
em745aa 3 weeks ago
@em745aa You antisemites crack me up, like this youtube garbage is going to stop us from circumcising? Guess again putz!
MrJewishWarrior 1 week ago
Damn what a disgusting bastard you are.
bary1234 3 weeks ago
I oppose circumcision of all infants regardless of their gender. That being said, a consenting adult has every right to do as he or she pleases with their own bodies. The only difference between so-called FGM and labiaplasty is the use of sterile equipment and anesthesia.
turtle4llama 3 weeks ago
@turtle4llama Do you oppose good hygiene as well?? you dirty Goyim pig.
MrJewishWarrior 1 week ago
2 and 3 are basically the same thing, and both easily counteracted by simple effort.
4 is a matter of taste, and honestly is not true, as men are naturally attracted to female sexual organs, please grow out of your associate imbecility
5 female "circumcision" involves much the same procedure as lopping of the entire penis head of a man, rather than removing the clitoral hood, and the other option would be slicing off some skin.
Basically, to not be sexist men should mutilate their balls.
TheAtheologian 1 month ago
@TheAtheologian On 5; there's actually different degrees of female circumcision, basically how much and what parts can be removed range from the labia [meat-curtains] to the whole protruding parts [clitoris along with the clitoral-hood and the labia]. So your statement isn't entirely true. On 4: Yes, it's a matter of taste... and culture. Anyway, the big picture here is; circumcision for nobody. Cheers.
ratonL 1 month ago
@ratonL I agree completely with the last statement. on five, I stated it as a whole as that is the most common practice, and it requires a higher degree of precision not to (I suppose, haven't tried, *shifty eyes*).
PS: because this is the internet I think I should make clear that "*shifty eyes*" was indeed a joke....
TheAtheologian 1 month ago
@TheAtheologian LOL, *shifty eyes*, I understand :D. Yeah, oops, got carried away I guess. I see you state pretty much the same thing I do, hehe. Glad to end on a good note. Cheers.
ratonL 1 month ago
@ratonL Circumcision is JEWISH TRADITION you fat Goy bitch! How about you dumbasses mind your own business on what you dumb schmucks obviously have no clue about! Cheers
MrJewishWarrior 1 week ago
@MrJewishWarrior -"Circumcision is JEWISH TRADITION"
Female circ is Muslim "tradition."
Foot binding is/was a Chinese "tradition."
And are you seriously too fucking lazy to take half a minute each day to wash your dick? What other body parts should we amputate in the name of "good hygiene?"
In other words, you're a fucking idiot.
Cheers!
em745aa 1 week ago
@em745aa Goy schmuck.
MrJewishWarrior 1 week ago
@MrJewishWarrior Wow, nice representation of your people, very civilized. Especially after making them look like tribesmen. Tradition, seriously? That's your excuse? You can reason and have logical thinking [or at least I hope you do], please make use of those qualities. Cheers.
ratonL 1 week ago
@ratonL Circumcision will never leave, get used to it putz, science proves it reduces STDs, increases intelligence and lowers rates for cervical cancer. So my logical thinking is way above yours Goy. If you don't like circumcision too bad. you need to move on.
MrJewishWarrior 1 week ago
Comment removed
freedom0speech 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrJewishWarrior
Hahaha! You are a laugh riot! Please, keep this up, it's damn funny :D
freedom0speech 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrJewishWarrior "science proves it reduces STDs, increases intelligence and lowers rates for cervical cancer."
(Properly) Source or GTFO, FGM is a disgusting crime that should be outlawed in every nation.
mancno1 6 days ago
Fuck this shit.
isostaticdreams 1 month ago
@isostaticdreams the clitoris is filled witch bacteria and stds.save our daughters today!
ffgftfgrtedtjlpoiifd 1 month ago
Have no time to do such lovely video butt I have some more Ideas. Since man do not love smell under womans arm, lets remove our daughters arms. And to prevent fungus on feet (google trans) let's remove our daughters feet. And to improve hygiene of mouth eyes ears and hair let's legalize cutting off our daughter head, and kill all birds with one stone.
Mrivanbager 1 month ago 2
Was HIV infection amongst females reduced BECAUSE SEX WAS SO FUCKING UNPLEASANT THEY DIDN'T DO IT and so transmission of HIV was reduced? Here's a thought. Executing women reduces HIV transmission BY 100% amongst the affected group. I think that's a strong argument for executing women. What do you think?
Gryffster 1 month ago
Awesome irony, making your point FGM is ridiculously inhuman!
roder59 1 month ago
how bout we all do whatever the fuck we want when we have children? If I felt a damn thing when I was a baby I don't remember it so I don't care. I am glad it was done when I was born.
mykotron 1 month ago
@mykotron If you were drugged and raped right now, would you care? After all, if you were drugged, you wouldn't remember it.
lisambofoh 1 month ago
@mykotron Well, I dunno about you, but I sure would love a quadruple amputee baby. I'm sure you will support my decision to have my children's arms and legs removed, it is after all my religious belief that quadruple amputees will be favored by God in the afterlife.
windigo77 1 month ago
@mykotron KISS KISS GURL XOXOXO GET REDDY FOR MY LUV:) CUM
SupaYahya 1 month ago
I want to take my like back D: didnt mean to like this !!
bockydo 1 month ago
Obviously a lot of these people dont get satire this video is pretty awesome good job man.
andynewen 2 months ago
stay away from my clitoris!
jessimaster 2 months ago
@jessimaster Stay away from my foreskin?
justkitteh 2 months ago
FUCK YOU
CHAOSin8bits 2 months ago
this is great i can use this vid to help prevent male circumcision
big504easy 4 months ago
I am amazed that you accomplished exactly what you set out to.....BRAVO. All the excitement of these comments just goes to show you how stupid people can be. I don't see this video as truly in favor of legalizing FGM... but it is a wildly intelligent way to make the point that genital mutilation and it's touted "benefits" can easily GO either way! Amazing no one picked out the one phrase that clued you in.....laws against female circumcision and NO laws about male circumcision are not fair.
SuperMare54 4 months ago 2
@SuperMare54
But the point behind it is to legalize it. Look at the user name. Also, it removes the genitals on teh female that relate to sexual pleasure and orgasm for most women. Men don't have their sexual organs removed. I wouldn't circumsize my baby boy either however.
arepasheat 3 months ago
@arepasheat Women are capable of vagina, anal, breast, and aural (sound) orgasm. While I'll admit the later two are rare, the former are less so... further, the foreskin is 25 square inches of skin, mucus membrane, and sexual nerve endings. Yes, 25 square inches. It's less in a baby, but justifying mutilation by saying the subject is a baby is stupid. I know that's not what you're saying, but the point is that there is no reason to compare them, both are wrong... which you already seem to get.
justkitteh 2 months ago
Legalizefemalecirc, Are you out of your friggin mind! Female circumcision is genital mutilation plain and simple!! It takes away a girls ability to experience pleasure, it destroy's the sex drive and its just plain disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself for promoting this garbage!!!!
holocaustdefender33 5 months ago
@holocaustdefender33 Female circumcision has no effect on mormon levels, and thus none on the sex drive. Women are capable of vaginal, anal, aural (sound), and breast orgasms. The later two may be rare, the the former are much less so. That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong, however it doesn't make male circumcision right either.
justkitteh 2 months ago
@justkitteh, Actually many women who've undergone female circumcision have reported sexual disfunction and very painful intercourse, but you're right it doesn't totally destroy the sex drive and women are capable of enjoying sex. However female circumcision does mutilate the genitals.
holocaustdefender33 2 months ago
ALL OF THESE ARE JUST NOTHING BUT LIES!
Mariana Erwin
89990000 5 months ago
@89990000 All of these are reasons used to justify male circumcision, do you say the same thing when it comes up, or... do you believe the lies when it's a baby boy.
Foreskin is harvested for women's cosmetic products and other things on the secondary market, and while it may not be as extreme, that does not make it a non-issue. You're on YouTube, so I'll assume you live in the first world. You think that this is disgusting, but have you ever fought male circumcision? No? Label yourself sexist.
justkitteh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Holy shit everyone please flag this video.
Typhoonbladefist 6 months ago
(Part two)
It does not look ugly. If you say that you must be mad. What's more beautiful than the human body? Male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcision. By putting this point, youre just making more males suffer. So instead of saying that the world not fair (which it never is) why don't you go and post a video on why NOT to cicumcise?
1997HighLander 6 months ago
Comment removed
ellaloure 4 months ago
(Part one)
Ok, let's look at the facts. It DOES NOT help stop HIV, AIDS or any other STI's. You can only get STI's if fluid (blood, sperm, spit) from one body comes into contact with another. The only way to prevent getting STI's is by using a condom. It does nothing to improve hygiene, if nothing else it makes it worse. It stops urine and blood from passing freely. And if you knew anything, girls NEED bacteria in their genitals. If we don't we get thrush.
1997HighLander 6 months ago
Don't do it. It's all a lie
Nwtrailspetsitter 6 months ago
Some men may like the way a circumcised woman looks better than one who is not circumcised, do they stop to think, would they prefer a non-circumcised woman to enjoy sex regardless of how he thinks she looks, or would he prefer the woman to have painful sex just because he thinks it looks better
princess8379 6 months ago
A few years ago I interviewed Ron Gray (pro-male-circ. dr. at Johns Hopkins U.) & asked him if there were any studies showing a benefit from female genital cutting. He said no, the liar....
ferdinandthecrow 6 months ago
1 lie
2 lie
3 lie
4 lie
5 both are as bad s each other are done for the same stupid lying reasons
jmm1233 7 months ago
@jmm1233 It's pretty hard to argue against 2, 3, 4 and 5
How about a comedic skit on female circumcision?
Elaine : Have you ever seen one? [uncircumcised clitoris]
Jerry : Boring. It's like a bride with a veil. All look the same
Kramer (vibrating hair) : I was down there once and wanted to call the Bat phone.
George : It should look like my shiny head !
George's Dad : Just a little clippety-clip of the lippety lips. I'll say no more.
feministsAreCorrupt 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck you, and FUCK this video.
oscarsverycool 7 months ago
Seeing as how we're allowed to choose whether or not to circumcise our babies, why aren't we allowed to choose their sex after birth? How much harm could it really cause to go a few steps further and remove a baby boys balls and penis? Parents have "rights" to their kids bodies you know, so they should be able to change their babies sex, if they have a boy, but want a girl instead.
AHappyAtheist 8 months ago
News services such as Slate don't cover female circumcision with a title "To Snip?" a cartoon of a girl holding her crotch and the use of the word "snip" to describe the procedure. With a little humor, a uniform campaign of infant and child circumcision could be continued such that every woman could be circumcised (clitoral hood and labia minora) at birth and never remember the trauma.
feministsAreCorrupt 8 months ago 4
y'all niggers posting on a troll video
foreverboner 8 months ago
卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐
lAMNOTGOOMBA 8 months ago
Let any one come near any child I have, male or female and try to circumcise them. I'll rip off their head and shit down their neck. And by all means, when they are 18 and pay for it, if they feel like slicing off tissue of the genitalia is a good idea... Well, let me know how that goes :)
dyslexicplaid 8 months ago 11
@dyslexicplaid
Great comment. Let adults decide about their own genatalia.
arepasheat 3 months ago
Her body, her choice. If a woman wants to have parts removed for the supposed benefits, that's fine. But no forcing genital cutting on unconsenting minors.
And the same can be said of male circ. His body, his choice.
AnnMarita 8 months ago
I am certainly for legal female circumcision... if they are retarded enough to want it when they grow up. No one should be allowed to augment their child's genitals, male or female, unless immediate amputation is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in order to preserve the child's life. This video is officially in the top ten scariest horror video's that I've ever seen. Just the bullshit that the creator of this video lists off as if s/he thought they justified female cutting, it's diabolical.
MacabreManifesto 8 months ago
Ok this is so stupid 1 maybe the chicks had them paid more cuz they were forced to be circumcised then grubby social bottomfeeders with HIV might not be able afford her 2 I think if u don't have a clit what's the point let's take the head is ur dick not just the skin 3 less bacteria there would be more dipshit and ur number 5 we take some skin from ur dick maybe it's not right but ur keep ur head why should we lose the closest thing to it o and male circumsizing is a choice so go blame ur mom n
MCRxICP 8 months ago
Comment removed
agent0sephiroth 8 months ago
Please circumcise your all kids weather male or female.
hussanali 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hussanali "circumcise your all kids weather male or female"
Alter the US federal ban on girl-only genital cutting to consistency. Either ban both male&female circumcision or allow both.
Personally, I think circumcised men should taunt, then reject, uncircumcised female sex partners.
feministsAreCorrupt 8 months ago
ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS??!!!! Some kind of love. Oh, it's so difficult teaching my child proper hygiene so I'll just CUT OFF PART OF HER BODY! You are a sick, twisted fucker.... And by the way, mutilating boys just because you are afraid they may jerk off...or because it's so hard to teach them proper hygiene (if you won't admit the real reason) should be illegal as well. How 'bout we cut off your head 'cuz it's too hard to teach you to THINK.
GottaStopKillin 8 months ago
What the FUCK!?!?
Creator, Go die in a hole.
Male circumsision is safe, Female circumsision isn't.
crazycake93 8 months ago
@crazycake93
Yeah circumcision is safe, that's why it results in hundreds of deaths per year and numerous complications.
Fucking sexist idiot.
TiniNormi 8 months ago 2
@TiniNormi male circ is safer if performed under the correct supervision--as in using an actual doctor rather than a religious figurehead.
arrangement 8 months ago
@TiniNormi oh and in case you needed more reports:
Female circumcision: obstetrical and psychological sequelae continues unabated in the 21st century. by Chibber, et al.
I think that a high rate of forcing a woman to deliver her child with numerous and painful complications that were precisely due to the FGM and even render her infertile is more damaging than male circ. for sexuality
arrangement 8 months ago
This is repulsive and inhumane. It's genital mutilation and sexual assault; there's nothing more to it.
mazuiface 8 months ago
I think you are absolutely right, girls should always be allowed to circumcise their penis
daganisoraan 8 months ago
It improves Smell, nice!! As an FYI to your wonderful subscribers, You can also prevent aids and infection of your daughter's pussy by just putting a sanitized bullet in your daughters brain rather than cutting off her clit and telling her to live in a bag. Either way, we beat the bacteria!
theclewis 8 months ago
The person that made this video forgot to mention that female circumcision also reduces a womans drive for sex and reduces her pleasure during sex (or eliminates their ability altogether).
Also most cultures that practice female circumcision do it specifically to keep women from having sex and most of those cultures regard women as something that needs to be controlled because they directly "tempt" male sexual compulsions.
Female circumcision =/= Male circumcision.
XenMonkey13 8 months ago
@XenMonkey13
Really, find me a study that says female circumcision reduces/eliminates a woman's pleasure more than male circumcision. I've honestly never seen one.
While you're at it, find me the studies that say it's done "specifically" to keep them chaste, because I've seen sources citing other reasons. Also show me something that says it's done to control women, because I've seen statements by female proponents insisting that claim is western propaganda.
Female circ ~ male circ.
TiniNormi 8 months ago
@TiniNormi search "female circumcision" by Horowitz, Carol, et al.
Female circumcision and obstetric complications. by Larsen U, et al.
go to the health science journal and search for female circumcision (hsj. jr)
arrangement 8 months ago
Um. Wow. The stupid -- it hurts.
evilotakuneko 9 months ago
WTF
paix221 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i love the fifth point! :)
again great show - as i already mentioned at "FEMALE Circumcision Prevents HIV": "great video! it's provoking because it shows scientific facts! nice to see how emotional people react in their comments .that's human life!"
grubshud 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube.com/watch?v=Q65vgiJenS4
Working together for an end to female genital cutting.
katunzel 9 months ago
the only reason why there might be less circumcised women with aids is cuz wtf have sex for if ú cant feel anything....
whytebytch2202 9 months ago
@whytebytch2202 Incorrect.
TiniNormi 9 months ago
it helps prevent hiv? are u fuckin serious......wow im speechless....i seriously pray to god that u will never have children because a statement like that tells me that u r far from being intelligent ebough to raise a child in a proper way
whytebytch2202 9 months ago
It's NOT 'equal rights' to maim someone without consent as a child...
Don't shield your fanaticism behind false claims of 'progressive thinking'...
This is as 'progressive' as chopping off arms for stealing an apple...
Orthodoxcrusader 9 months ago
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS THIS?!
Somalivlogger 9 months ago
@Somalivlogger Just to clue you in: The video is NOT seriously trying to tell people to circumcise their daughters. It is merely pointing out a double standard in America: Even though we think these are stupid reasons to mutilate the genitals of baby girls, many Americans justify doing it to baby boys for the EXACT SAME REASONS.
bodaciouscowboy 9 months ago 2
If this video is serious, then my reaction is that the music is entirely tacky and should be re-done. If this video is a parody, then my reaction is that the music is entirely tacky and should be re-done.
zaphod71828 9 months ago 2
189 people, just don't get it.
eyallev 9 months ago
I don't think anyone who's a proponet of female circumcision gives a damn about sexism. In fact, I'd say they're much more likely to treat women as property than as people.
This is just a crass attempt to dress religious prudery as modern values.
geminyo 9 months ago
I hope this video exists as satire to expose the horror of male circumcision.
christo930 9 months ago
Im from norway and there is perhaps 1% of the population which is circumcised. Lets answer those 5 reasons :)
1. 99% uncircumcised, 0,001% of the population has contracted HIV\AIDS.
2. Everyone uses the good thing called hygienic products when showering\bathing.
3. referring to answer #2!
4. The vagina doesnt look good circumcised or not! (personal opinion) :p
5. Herp derpy derp.
sensur1 9 months ago
This is hilarious. I'll bet if this was called "Top 5 Reasons to Circumcise Your SON ", those 183 thumbs down would be thumbs up.
Double standards, much?
TheSpazzofMuffins 9 months ago 15
@TheSpazzofMuffins Nope. There's demonstrable medical reasons for doing it to males- not that I'm saying they should. Just saying that tangible benifits exist in cases of male circumcision. People just do it to women to kill their sex drive.
geminyo 9 months ago
@geminyo
Every one of these points can ostensibly apply to FGM and so can the existing reasons for its continuation. Male circumcision also gained historical impetus to kill their sex drive.
TiniNormi 9 months ago
@geminyo All those benifits can be attained by regularly washing the penis (which everyone should be doing) and wearing a condom (Which everyone should be doing). There is absolutely no reason to mutilate unconsenting babies.
TheSpazzofMuffins 9 months ago 7
@TheSpazzofMuffins
Not actually...
Female circumcision is pretty much maiming, in the mildest expression that is...
Orthodoxcrusader 9 months ago
@TheSpazzofMuffins Seriously? Not at all the same dude.
theclewis 8 months ago
This is absolutely disgusting. You're fucking sick.
McTaggStar 9 months ago
@McTaggStar Are you in favour of male circumcision?
TheSpazzofMuffins 9 months ago
@McTaggStar: I haven't thought enough about this issue; I just stumbled upon it today. I need to reserve juIdgment. But I have been circumcised and I have no issues. But there has got to be a reason why female circumcision if illegal but male isn't.
McTaggStar 9 months ago
@McTaggStar That reason is sexism.
TiniNormi 9 months ago 6
@TiniNormi: No Normi, it isn't. It's because it's harmful and of no use to females. Is it sexist that female hockey leagues always exclude physical contact? No, it's not sexist. The point of the exclusion of physical contact in female leagues is to protect the breasts. Men don't have breasts, so it's fine for them. The difference doesn't derive from sexism, it just derives from inherent physical differences between the sexes. Go fuck yourself.
McTaggStar 9 months ago
@McTaggStar Logic 101.
Female genital mutilation involves permanently and needlessly damaging the genitals of minors without consent.
Male genital mutilation involves permanently and needlessly damaging the genitals of minors without consent.
Protecting only one gender isn't just unconstitutional, it's sexist.
End of story.
TiniNormi 9 months ago
@TiniNormi: Funny, because what you just said actually has nothing to do with logic at all. The Logic Book, 5th ed., Merrie Bergmann, et al. It's a book I'm currently reading for my course on mathematical logic. I'm actually reading about formal syntax of a language, and the translation of arguments to a formal language. So thanks, but being that you don't even know the meaning of the word 'logic' I suggest you take Logic 101. Now, this is not a case of sexism. Treating men and women differently
McTaggStar 9 months ago
@TiniNormi: does not necessarily entail a case of sexism. AS I SAID (but as you seemed to have ignored), women's hockey leagues prohibit physical contact while men's don't. Is it sexism? No. We dress our female and our male children differently from the moment their born. Is it sexism? No. It is not necessarily a case of sexism on the government's part. There are real reasons for why circumcision is allowed for males and not females. It is an issue I need to read about more, but it's absurd to
McTaggStar 9 months ago
@TiniNormi: say it is because the government's policy makers are sexist. If it's just a case of sexism, why do women have the vote? Why are women entitled to equal pay? Why do women and females in general have all the same rights as men? If policy makers were sexist, why stop at circumcision? It's bollocks, that's why. As I said, treating the sexes differently does not, of necessity, entail sexism. End of story.
McTaggStar 9 months ago
@McTaggStar
Sexism = discrimination on the basis of sex.
Arbitrarily giving legal protection to only one sex = discrimination on the basis of sex; ergo
Arbitrarily giving legal protection to only one sex = sexism.
It's perfectly simple.
TiniNormi 9 months ago
@TiniNormi: Your argument is deductively valid, but it is not sound. I would attack premise 2. I am quite confident that it is not arbitrary, there are real reasons for it. I need to read more about these - but I find it highly unlikely that the law set in place is purely arbitrary and that there are no medical/health-related reasons for it. If it is not arbitrary, and there is a real rationale for it, then it is not discrimination; if it is not discrimination, then it is not sexism.
McTaggStar 9 months ago
@McTaggStar
It is arbitrary insofar as the ethical implications of genital mutilation do not and should not depend on a subject's gender. Unless medically necessary, which is almost never, forced genital mutilation violates a person's bodily integrity. The difference between doing it to boys and girls is one of cultural perception rather than pragmatism.
TiniNormi 9 months ago
@TiniNormi: You could be right. I am reserving full judgment until I read more about the issue.
McTaggStar 9 months ago
Ahh I remember this video, I was tricked at first until I caught on to the fact it's parody.
mecher3k 9 months ago
Wow, 183 dislikes...I think some people don't understand the point of a parody...common, read A Modest Proposal
RhetoricalBullshit 9 months ago 3
@RhetoricalBullshit
Poe's law, bro. It's impossible to parody this position without looking exactly like the nutters who support it.
geminyo 9 months ago
How about letting the kid make this decision as a responsible adult before doing something irreversible eh?
Stupid, backwards, retarded, fuckwits
sapunec7854 9 months ago
I am against female circumcision, but people have to see that circumcision of male children also is a form of mutilation. Yes there are forms of female circumcision which go far beyond what is usually done in male circumcision, but they are both procedures performed in the analogous organs in both sexes. In the West, in the vast majority of cases, male circumcision has no good medical reason, and even in the Third World, use of condoms make circumcision unnecessary.
Untemperedsteel 9 months ago 3
Satire or Poe?
ixamraxi 9 months ago
You're an asshole. There's no good reason to ever circumcise a girl. If you hate women that much then go get yourself a sex doll.
Bluebelle9289 9 months ago
@Bluebelle9289
Idiot.
mecher3k 9 months ago
cant believe the victorians forgot to start circumcising women... maybe they did not realize that women masturbate too... funny how people started circumcising in the US to stop masturbation, and today it carries on in the name of whatever justification you like. atleast mutilated american boys have something in common with muslims, jews and some african boys and girls.
ballm0use 9 months ago
This is a joke right?
jiggyy 9 months ago
You do realize that there are medical reasons for circumcising a male--you decrease the risk of fungal infections and prevent the build-up of smegma. Besides that, you're only removing a small piece of skin on the tip of the penis. Female circumcision not only has no proven medical benefits but is waaay more damaging than male circumcision. Removal of the clitoris is analogous to removal of the entire male penis, which THEN parents would object to.
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement Then again, females do tend to produce more smegma than intact males (and it's not carcinogenic for either gender). You owe it to yourself to read more into this topic--the male foreskin is a lot more than just a tiny piece of skin. It makes up in some case up to half of the skin on the penis, and contains somewhere in the ballpark of 20,000 highly erogenous fine touch nerves (if you insist on these comparisons, the clitoris has somewhere around 8,000).
1148BucksX2 9 months ago
@1148BucksX2 Thing is, removal of the foreskin for hygenic purposes involves facilitating removal of smegma trapped between the head and the foreskin. The major issue, however, is that you can get develop infections if it's not cleaned out properly, which has been recorded in medical literature. Cleaning the vulva of the female body is much easier.
I'm not comparing nerve terminals--just because the peripheral nerves on somebody's leg may be damaged doesn't mean it's okay to remove it.
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement "just because the peripheral nerves on somebody's leg may be damaged doesn't mean it's okay to remove it." Curious analogy, since it seems you're arguing the case *for* genital cutting, assuming that it's exclusively males who are the recipients. Once more, while smegma is not cancerous for either gender, I don't understand why you seem to believe that retracting and rinsing is such a chore compared to female hygiene, but that's your call. It's still not a good justification.
1148BucksX2 9 months ago
@1148BucksX2 look, if you look into primary medical literature, you will find many cases of men who don't freaking wash themselves as much as they should and the build-up of nasty leads to all sorts of infections. however, arguing that female circumcision to crush self-esteem and sexuality to eventually discourage them from having sex and thus coming into contact with STDs such as HIV is wrong on many, many levels.
I don't think you understand what FGM actually does.
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement "I don't think you understand what FGM actually does." Maybe you're even right on this. But then again, I don't need to hear any kind of argument whatsoever (nor even be a woman) to understand why FGM is wrong. However, "men can still function fine" spells out pretty clearly that you don't understand what MGM actually does, either--and I just have to accept that you aren't likely to make the move to learn otherwise. Only wish that made you unique.
1148BucksX2 9 months ago
Comment removed
arrangement 9 months ago
@1148BucksX2 OH, and if you think I don't understand what "removal of the foreskin" does, then why don't you go ahead and tell me the biological significance of the foreskin? In what way is it equivalent (biologically) to removing the entire vulva of the female?
Note that the foreskin is equivalent to the female clitoral hood (if you've ever seen one, you might recognize it...)at the embryonic stage, so removing the foreskin is equivalent to removing the clitoral hood of a female.
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement "then why don't you go ahead and tell me the biological significance of the foreskin?" Mostly because you've already made it clear you aren't really listening, and would likely interpret it as an attack, anyway. One of my first replies was an attempt to account for the sheer number of erogenous nerves and up to half of the mobile skin on the intact penis lost to circumcision, yet you carried on without missing a beat. I cannot make a person see what they refuse to see.
1148BucksX2 9 months ago
@1148BucksX2 You ARE outright attacking me in every comment so it's hard for me to want to even continue discussing this with someone so antagonistic. Patter down, would you.
The foreskin may contain many nerves, but the clit has the highest DENSITY of nerves on the body. The video draws comparison between fem and male circ. but they are radically different in both anatomy and functional effects. I personally don't view the clit hood/foreskin as necessary in human sexuality
arrangement 9 months ago
@1148BucksX2 Again, the foreskin is not comparable to the clitoris itself because the clitoris is significantly more sensitive due to the number of nerves per square centimeter. You can't compare the majority of FGM with male circumcision as this video is doing. Also, removal of the mobile skin of the penis is not comparable to removal of the clitoris/penis itself, which, again this video is doing.
arrangement 9 months ago
@1148BucksX2 I'm not saying all males should be circumcised. I'm saying that I don't consider the foreskin/clitoral hood essential for human sexuality and that circumcised males are in no way inhibited when having sex or reproducing--your argument is that the foreskin improves sensation during intercourse. Okay. Still debatable because men w/o foreskins can't compare.
But that's not the same as removing the entire external penis/clitoris from a human, which I consider unarguably horrifying.
arrangement 9 months ago
@1148BucksX2 Anyways, I'm beginning realize that you're not really reading my comments and that you're just singling out a statement and attacking my personality (rather than my position) and not presenting any scientific/biological facts to support your stance. In effect, you're not doing so much to convince me as antagonize me.
I know there's been this wave of men who are suddenly upset that their foreskin was removed without their permission and that they felt that they've lost something big
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement "I know there's been this wave of men who are suddenly upset that their foreskin was removed without their permission" How dare they. The nerve of some people.
1148BucksX2 9 months ago
@1148BucksX2 In the end, the foreskin is not essential for male sexuality (unless all Jewish men are sexually dysfunctional?), and some people prefer removal for various reasons (religious, hygenic, medical, etc.). It's debatable about how much the foreskin contributes to male sexuality versus circumcision's medical benefits.
But I will be damned if it's comparable to fem. circumcision. That's the equivalent of removing your entire penis (so much for foreskin huh?) and your scrotum.
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement "the foreskin is not essential for male sexuality" One could also declare the same thing about the clitoris, albeit at the overwhelming risk of being branded a pig and/or a monster for even the suggestion of such a thing.
1148BucksX2 9 months ago
@arrangement
"In the end, the foreskin is not essential for male sexuality" .... and the majority of mutilated women still enjoy sex and reach orgasm, so I guess the same goes for them. Oh, and before you rebut with the classic "but FGM removes all of it!" straw man argument, even infibulated (Type III) women can reach orgasm.
TiniNormi 9 months ago
@TiniNormi well, we could also say penectomized men can reach orgasm, all due to the inner structure after removal of the external genitalia. but tell me...how much of the sexuality is removed with removal of the foreskin? how much of the sexuality is removed with the removal of the clitoris?
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement
It doesn't matter. Any forced removal of sexuality is too much. This isn't a contest, it's a human rights issue.
TiniNormi 9 months ago
@TiniNormi It does matter!
Think about the reactions of people if we were to remove a square millimeter on the foreskin versus the entire penis itself. You could even argue that the former is not even any removal of sexuality.
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement
It all entails permanent alteration of a person's body without their consent.
Does it matter if you shoot one person in the foot and shoot another in the shoulder? Is there a fundamental ethical difference because one does ostensibly more damage? No, what matters is you just fucking shot someone. There is no intrinsic difference.
You could argue that circumcision is not a removal of sexuality, but you'd still be wrong.
TiniNormi 9 months ago
@TiniNormi There is a difference for the person who got shot. If getting shot in the foot means you can't walk anymore, that's worse than getting shot in the shoulder and retaining normal function of your arms and upper body.
Well I think you're wrong in believing that cutting off somebody's penis is just as bad as cutting off a mm^2 of their foreskin.
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement
So, in keeping with that analogy, should it be legal to shoot someone in the shoulder but illegal to shoot them in the foot, based on your arbitrary decision of which is more severe? Guess what: it's still unethical.
Apparently you know nothing about the foreskin so I'll go easy on you. It's far bigger than "a mm^2" and even as hyperbole that's incredibly insulting. The foreskin is known to be the most sensitive part of the penis and has multiple functions.
TiniNormi 9 months ago
@TiniNormi Well, killing somebody versus injuring them incur different penalties.
I'm not talking about circumcision. I'm talking about literally removing a mm^2 of the foreskin and comparing that to removing the penis. You sound like you're saying both operations would be equivalent.
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement
Yes. But assault and murder are both illegal.
The operations are equivalent in that they're both violations of body integrity. Why is that so confusing?
TiniNormi 9 months ago
@TiniNormi Because body integrity could mean so many different things! And also, the reasons are really general and there are many, many reasons out there. There are both good and bad to both operations, but the bad can really outweigh the good in the penectomy.
Violating bodily integrity could mean that your parents force you to cut your hair. Violating bodily integrity could mean that you parents force you to cut off your arm. Should the former be made illegal like the latter?
arrangement 9 months ago
@TiniNormi Well, you could say speeding 10 mph over the limit is illegal just like murder. Does that mean the person who commits both crimes should serve the same sentence?
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement
All these false analogies are giving me a headache.
We're talking about genital mutilation vs. genital mutilation.
TiniNormi 9 months ago
@TiniNormi If you haven't realized it yet, I'm alluding to what extent we should tolerate religious beliefs.
If something is significantly harmful and traumatizing and definitively found to harm a person, then it should be outlawed without question.
I don't think we should jail rabbis or Jewish parents or Islamic parents for circumcising their children because of the mildness of the operation. If they believe that it makes them closer to God, so be it.
arrangement 9 months ago
@arrangement Oh.
MILDNESS of the operation? Hundreds of neonatal males die annually as a result of circumcision, and hundreds more live with complications (myself included). A mohel performs it without anesthetic in a non-hospital setting. When metzitzah b'peh is implemented, he sucks blood from the baby's penis. I'm amazed you're okay with that.
TiniNormi 9 months ago
@TiniNormi Well, they die precisely because the circumcision isn't done in a proper medical setting. If we were to dissuade trained doctors, as bodaciouscowboy suggested, from performing the operation and settle for home/religiously based operations, then complications would certainly ensue.
Note that the COMPLICATIONS are the problem--because they weren't done properly.
Are you willing to jail anybody who dares to perform a nonmedical male circumcision?
arrangement 8 months ago
@arrangement
Yes, just as I'm willing to jail anyone else who permanently alters an infant's body without medical necessity (re: FGM).
TiniNormi 8 months ago
@TiniNormi "without medical necessity" would also apply to plastic surgery.
if an infant was born with a birth defect that still allowed it to function properly on a basic level (e.g. craniofacial defect), but would hinder it greatly from socially fitting in and the surgery would only get more painful as the child got older...the parents should be punished for choosing the surgery?
i think you're pushing this too far.
arrangement 8 months ago
@arrangement
Yeah. I feel the same about forcing plastic surgery on someone - that's basically what circumcision is.
You have a really warped view of male anatomy. The foreskin is not a birth defect but a perfectly natural and healthy body part. Having one doesn't "greatly hinder" someone from fitting in, and with the current circ rate down to 32%, the cut guy will be the minority.
TiniNormi 8 months ago
@TiniNormi My point is that, despite whatever world you're living in, sometimes plastic surgery is necessary for a child. Your statement is too broad and would punish parents for wanting surgery to fix their infant's cleft lip.
You should keep your views to circumcision only because I doubt you know much about the myriad of other plastic surgery-like operations that almost everybody would agree is necessary to allow for healthy social and mental development of an infant.
arrangement 8 months ago
@arrangement
Yes, sometimes plastic surgery is necessary - keyword being NECESSARY. See the difference yet?
Having a cleft lip/palate causes problems.
Having a foreskin does not.
Christopher Hitchens was circumcised for the Jewish faith and grew up to be a hardcore atheist. That isn't fair to him.
Please show me an academic study saying FGM "abrogates" sexuality more than circumcision. That's like the #1 argument against it, yet I've never seen it substantiated beyond propaganda.
TiniNormi 8 months ago
@TiniNormi having cleft lip causes social problems. a child can have normal physiological functions living with cleft lip, but we perform plastic surgery on them to integrate them into society--which is the purpose of most male circumcision worldwide.
what about the papers i cited?
search Defective sexuality and female circumcision: The cause and the possible management by Thabet, et al.--the pdf is online.
wiki has a list of papers about male circ effects on sexuality--most say no difference
arrangement 8 months ago
@arrangement
Children with cleft lip/palate can have ACTUAL PHYSICAL PROBLEMS - feeding/breathing difficulty, ear infection and hearing loss, dental problems, and speech impediment. The social problems are constant.
Children with foreskins live normal, healthy lives.
It's perfectly simple.
TiniNormi 8 months ago
@TiniNormi They can have those problems, just as NORMAL children can have those problems (do you know the procedure they use to solve it?--they just pull back the upper lip all the way so a lot of those problems still exist). The social problems are the main issue why parents get it fixed.
Children without foreskins also lead normal, healthy lives. Simple, huh? Do all circumcised men have abnormal sex lives?
arrangement 8 months ago
@arrangement
Lol. "Well normal children have those problems too!" At the same rate and likelihood?
I've never seen anyone mourning the loss of their cleft lip/palate, and I'm pretty sure they can recreate one later in life. Circumcision... not so much.
Lacking a normal sex organ technically results in abnormal sex.
The study I asked for was one suggesting circ'd women consistently feel less pleasure than circ'd men. The former generally seem to enjoy sex from what I've read.
TiniNormi 8 months ago
@TiniNormi They do. Look up asthma, speech impediments, stuttering, etc.
The plastic surgery doesn't "remove" the cleft lip/palate. It often just uses extra skin/bone to cover it up and make it look natural--doesn't actually solve the problem, and there is still a speech impediment--my cousin had it done. Again, it's PLASTIC surgery.
What proportion of circ'd men enjoy sex? What proportion of circ'd women? The clitoris is ten times more sensitive than the penis and foreskin--removing it?
arrangement 8 months ago
@arrangement
"The clitoris is ten times more sensitive than the penis and foreskin"? I'm really gonna need a source on that. Last I heard, the foreskin contains 20,000 nerves + 4,000 in the glans. You're saying the clitoris has TEN TIMES more?
TiniNormi 8 months ago 2
@arrangement
I specifically asked whether they have those problems "at the same RATE and LIKELIHOOD." You're basically saying harelips have no more difficulty or problems than normal children. Please show me where you heard this.
TiniNormi 8 months ago
@arrangement
If you look at Kaiser Permanente's surgical guidelines, they classify cleft palate treatment as medical instead of cosmetic.
TiniNormi 8 months ago
@arrangement "What proportion of circ'd men enjoy sex? What proportion of circ'd women?"
Women really love sex with richer men. Men have a much lower libidinous response to female wealth.
There aren't enough women with excised clitoral hoods in the US to compare. So, the WHO should start a pilot program with female volunteers for removal of clitoral hoods and track them over a few months to find out if they have more HIV infection.
feministsAreCorrupt 8 months ago
@TiniNormi Anyways, I don't want to BEGIN to believe that you think FGM'd women mostly enjoy sex and lead happy reproductive lives like circ'd men. What did you get from the obstetrics paper I told you about?
Forcibly castrated men can lead happy, sexual lives, but the majority don't. Same principle applies for FGM. Is castration therefore the same as FGM?
arrangement 8 months ago