Female genital mutilation okay in small doses, says American Academy of Pediatrics

[Dreadnaught]

Probs because they aren't the same thing, hence the term female genital mutilation.

[Hazir]

Probs because they aren't the same thing, hence the term female genital mutilation.

No, that was just me doing the semantic thing. There is no difference in principle, only in intrusiveness.

[GGT]

Maybe one day all circumcisions, male and female, will be called Juvenile Genital Mutilation?

[EyeKhan]

I can understand plenty of motivations, that has nothing to do with the, hm, ethical validity of the actions in vacuum. Of course one's choice of ethical system is arbitrary, so *shrug*

What's this "vacuum" you're talking about?

[Nessus]

What's this "vacuum" you're talking about?

Spam spam spammity spam

[EyeKhan]

Spam spam spammity spam

You know there can't be a social/ethical vacuum.

[Nessus]

Which has very little to do with the discussion at hand

[Steely Glint]

For those who do, though, what should be done?

Tell them they're in a civilized country now.

To be honest, I don't think there is data on this. I would not be surprised if certain immigrant communities did practice FGM, though.

So, you want this thing (discussed in the OP) to go ahead because of a problem you have no evidence even exists?

I take it you're in favor of criminalization?

Yep.

Does this extend to the other two procedures discussed?

uh, sorry, which other two?

[EyeKhan]

Which has very little to do with the discussion at hand

It was a premise to your argument.

[Nessus]

It was a premise to your argument.

*sigh* Why do I bother

It wasn't.

[EyeKhan]

I can understand plenty of motivations, that has nothing to do with the, hm, ethical validity of the actions in vacuum. Of course one's choice of ethical system is arbitrary, so *shrug*

You appear to be arguing the individual motivations are not relevant since the eithical validity of the actions are somehow determined in some motivational vacuum, which can't exist. Therefore your statement is completely without foundation, or premise. Ding dong.

[Nessus]

You appear to be arguing the individual motivations are not relevant since the eithical validity of the actions are somehow determined in some motivational vacuum, which can't exist. Therefore your statement is completely without foundation, or premise. Ding dong.

If that's what you got out of it, good for you

[EyeKhan]

Maybe you should write more clearly.

[Nessus]

So you'd have a harder time peddling Human Condition? I'll take it under advisement

[EyeKhan]

So you'd have a harder time peddling Human Condition? I'll take it under advisement

Peddling? It is. No sale required.

[GGT]

Maybe one day all circumcisions, male and female, will be called Juvenile Genital Mutilation?

Wow, hard to believe no one's come along yet to challenge that suggestion.

Didn't anyone else notice how AAP changed the terminology from FGM to FGC? The only explanation I can find is they're trying to accommodate millions of "cut" western men who refuse to entertain the notion that they've been mutilated.

[CitizenCain]

Puh-leeze. People bring their cultural and social norms with them; it's not like assimilation to the US happens overnight. Also, in insular communities in the US, they may still have a majority practicing X procedure, leading to easier social integration in the future, regardless of the larger population's behavior.

Irrelevant anyway. These people come from cultures where it's OK to kill women if there's a rumor they've had sex before marriage (and, ironically, almost half of women killed in "honor killings" have intact hymens), and we don't exactly accommodate that social norm, or compromise and say "no murder, but you can beat the harlot into a coma with a Koran instead."

Horseshit. Sorry their culture or religion (debatable) says they have to show their faith by assaulting and mutilating babies, but tough shit, that doesn't fly over here. So they need to decide what's more important - the Stone Age version of God they wanna worship, or freedom and prosperity, 'cause you can't have both.

Why is the way an intersex person is born seen as 'broken'? If the parts all work, I don't understand the motivation except social norms.

I'm gonna go with my standard answer to all of life's mysteries - it probably has a lot to do with the fact that people are stupid. That aside, these days at least, our society is kind of based on the 1 man reproducing with 1 woman nuclear family model... so there is at least something to the idea that people need to be assigned to one sex or another. (And while I'm well aware that this really isn't the case biologically, it's something... certainly something more than circumcision has going for it).

Also, for that matter, where do you get the idea that male circumcision and FGM are performed with a specific intent to reduce sexual pleasure? I won't doubt that may be some of the theological backing or official cultural line (esp. for FGM), but I seriously doubt that most parents are motivated by that.

<Shrug>

So what that the parents don't have that specific intent? That's an argument about how stupid [most] parents are believing that hacking up your baby's genitals could possibly serve any other purpose, not an argument in favor of letting morons force their kids genitals to be hacked up. Seriously... I'm a pretty convincing guy, and I bet I could convince two sufficiently stupid breeders to give their child a frontal lobe lobotomy to increase their baby's intelligence. If they're stupid enough to buy that, is it an argument in favor of lobotomizing infants, or an argument against letting those particular idiots breed?

As mentioned, the gender reassignment case is largely a red herring anyway (in addition to being exceedingly rare), because the motivations are different. One procedure is an attempt to fix something, the other procedure is an attempt to enforce sexual morality on people by mutilating them as infants or children (because that's the only time a sane person would agree to the procedure).

And if their only reason for lopping off pieces of genitalia was the well being of the child was to save them from social stigma, they'd drop the practice the second they cross the boarder, because peer pressure is against the practice in the US.

I really can't say I've experienced any social stigma myself, and almost every American male my age is cut. Honestly, there's really a lot more stigmatization against being the guy who checks out other guys' wangs in the locker room. (Go figure, huh?)

Pretty much, and the inertia's been fading for quite a while. The percentage of parents choosing not to circumsize has been rising consistently for decades, though there are surprisingly sharp regional differences. West of the Rockies, the general circumcision rate is down in the 30s and 40s. Up in the Northern states of the Central portion of the country, the rates have practically not dropped at all, it's still hovering around 80%.

Weird how the more sexually uptight areas of the country have way more circumcisions, huh? Almost like a direct correlation, or something.

Not that I'm complaining... makes my intact penis a novelty item.

Interesting how conditioning works by the way. I deplore female genital mutilation but at the same time have the feeling that I would not like to be uncircumcised myself

This has piqued my curiosity - are you willing to explain further?

Wow, hard to believe no one's come along yet to challenge that suggestion.

Didn't anyone else notice how AAP changed the terminology from FGM to FGC? The only explanation I can find is they're trying to accommodate millions of "cut" western men who refuse to entertain the notion that they've been mutilated.

Or they're correcting the double standard - lopping off part of a woman's genitals == "mutilation", but lopping off part of a guy's genitals == "circumcision."

Frankly, that double standard always pissed me off, and I'm glad someone's doing something to fix it (even if I would prefer that they call both "mutilation.")

[Hazir]

Well, what can I say? I think the 'it's mutilation, and that's the end of it' crowd is right. Still I would find it more than a bit disgusting if I hadn't been circumcised. In my case it happened when I was 7 years old, so I actually sort of remember it happening. It was something that hurt a bit, gave some discomfort, but mostly was a happy occasion with presents and me feeling really important. I have no scar tissue because of it and I don't really think it reduced sensitivity all that much (considering that I also have had the embarrasing 'orgasm on entry' experience) and I feel uncomfortable about having sex with men with a foreskin.

It makes for an interesting mixture of intellectual acceptance of one thing and emotional rejection of the same thing.

[CitizenCain]

Well, not wanting to try too hard to rationally deconstruct an irrational impulse... but I was kind of curious in more of a "what's gross about skin" kind-of-way... I assumed you found something off-putting about foreskin (otherwise, why would you prefer not to have one), but I was looking more for a "what it is" or a "why that's so."

[Hazir]

Well, it is off-putting. It just doesn't look quite right. And really, despite protestations to the opposite, I have never met an uncut man whose dick wasn't smelly.

[GGT]

Well, it is off-putting. It just doesn't look quite right. And really, despite protestations to the opposite, I have never met an uncut man whose dick wasn't smelly.

Sounds like a good "excuse" to bathe together first.

[Hazir]

Sounds like a good "excuse" to bathe together first.

Doesn't sound very appealing to me.

[Spawnie]

Now i wonder if my wang is smelly. Or, more importantly, if circumcised guys wangs dont smell at all. Because mine obviously is located in my crotchal region, and after a long hard day, can smell like a bear on heat.

My armpits sometimes, very rarely, smell of celery. Inexplicable as i hate celery with a passion...

Hey. Maybe i should cut them off... Unnatural, unhygeinic monstrosities.



Edit. In the morning, my breath reeks. It sickens even me. I honestly dont know how my g/f stands it. I just try not to breathe near her.

[CitizenCain]

Now i wonder if my wang is smelly. Or, more importantly, if circumcised guys wangs dont smell at all.

I've got it on pretty good authority that *all* genitals smell... even the circumcised ones... best you can do is be odor-neutral, I'm told. (I think that comes about as a result of hygiene, but I'm not sure. )

[GGT]

Celery? Most people don't think of celery as having a scent, but it does. I kinda like it, actually.

If I drink Starbucks coffee, my armpit sweat has the faint odor of cat piss. Very gross and off-putting. That's the only brand tho, Starbucks. No idea why.....

[Catgrrl]

As someone who worked at a Starbucks, I know the cat piss smell all too well. I hate their House Blend for that reason. If it sits out for awhile after brewing it gets that smell. Barf.

[Hazir]

I've got it on pretty good authority that *all* genitals smell... even the circumcised ones... best you can do is be odor-neutral, I'm told. (I think that comes about as a result of hygiene, but I'm not sure. )

True, but on average cut penises have a less unpleasant smell.

As someone who worked at a Starbucks, I know the cat piss smell all too well. I hate their House Blend for that reason. If it sits out for awhile after brewing it gets that smell. Barf.

Wow I thought it was just me thinking their House Blend has a funny smell.

[Veldan Rath]

Well, back when I was a manwhore...I was a fan of just cock...cut or uncut...no matter.

[Tempus Vernum]

*pokes the hornets nest*

Update: AAP retracts their statement

The American Academy of Pediatrics has rescinded a controversial policy statement raising the idea that doctors in some communities should be able to substitute demands for female genital cutting with a harmless clitoral "pricking" procedure.

"We retracted the policy because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world," said AAP President Judith S. Palfrey.

The contentious policy statement, issued in April, had condemned the practice of female genital cutting overall. But a small portion of statement suggesting the pricking procedure riled U.S. advocacy groups and survivors of female genital cutting.

[GGT]

Good.

Next up, the AAP policy on infant male circumcision. Stating their opposition to all forms of male genital cutting....?