Court decides: FGM is legal in USA

[Heathen Hammer]

I have a foreskin, being British and not muslim/jewish. I honestly do not know why almost every american man is lacking this. I had an californian girlfriend who was really fascinated with my piggy in a blanket for this reason.

Thing is, I don't see American men suffering due to the lack of foreskin while fgm is designed to case suffering for women.

Even above mentioned adverse effects aside, that should not be a decision that parents should be allowed to make for their child. What's next, full sleeve tattoos for toddlers? Tunnels for newborns?

Or Canada, even, who shares so very much culturally speaking with America(we're basically sister nations at this point, given the prolonged period of peace, friendly relations and broad cultural similarity we enjoy). The fact that we abandoned the practice of mass neo-natal male circumcision decades ago speaks volumes to how shaky the public health justifications for it are.

It is more of an issue of religious nut lobby trying to keep the practice, since there is no objective evidence of any positive effects, but plenty of the opposite.

[TheDarkKnight]

Yeah I'm pretty sure the whole situation is stupid as .

No reason at all to mutilate the genitals of any child. If they want to do it when they get older for religious reasons, feel free.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yeah I'm pretty sure the whole situation is stupid as .

No reason at all to mutilate the genitals of any child. If they want to do it when they get older for religious reasons, feel free.

Yup, no reason at all since the genitals are not mutilated or even operated on. The stupidity of the situation arises from it being a non-issue.

[conon394]

Or Canada, even, who shares so very much culturally speaking with America(we're basically sister nations at this point, given the prolonged period of peace, friendly relations and broad cultural similarity we enjoy). The fact that we abandoned the practice of mass neo-natal male circumcision decades ago speaks volumes to how shaky the public health justifications for it are.

Agreed. The first ones I mentioned were not unreasonable back in say 1920/30 when the ideal was pushed. The HPV thing makes sense even if the end result was small, in the US at least the bizarre resistance to the vaccine which is beyond useful to both men and women but gets huge resistance in the US. If I was a public health scientist and thought circumcision could reduce HPV by even 10% I think I would still push for it. If for no other reason than it was a bland question when my son was born (circumcision). Compare the almost hesitancy when I was asked if I wanted him to get the HPV vaccine.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yup, no reason at all since the genitals are not mutilated or even operated on. The stupidity of the situation arises from it being a non-issue.

It falls under conventional definition of mutilation. Circumcision for children should be banned, adults can do that to themselves if they make such a decision.

[alhoon]

Given that FGM is about removing the clitoral glans you'd need to remove the tip of the penis to present a comparable act. For it to be genital mutilation you require more than what is normally done during a male circumcision. It's not really my problem if people convolute multiple concepts to create a defensible position.

And MGM is about removing the foreskin of the penis. Nobody said it was as bad as FGM, that was just your assumption. Perhaps you could defend the custom of MGM by saying it doesn't have any proven adverse effects on health or it doesn't significantly downgrade one's sexual life. Still, it is mutilation of the genitalia.

Both are not mutilation as with circumcision the penis is not mutilated in any degree. FGM is harmful, circumcision is not.

The penis is mutilated, superficially, with MGM. Nobody said that MGM is harmful, let alone as harmful as FGM.

Your interpretation of what was said in most of the posts saying MGM should be banned is wrong. You are arguing things nobody supported.

What (I think) people here are saying is that MGM should not be forced on to kids. If they want to undergo that procedure they can do it on their own free will when they grow up.

[PointOfViewGun]

And MGM is about removing the foreskin of the penis. Nobody said it was as bad as FGM, that was just your assumption. Perhaps you could defend the custom of MGM by saying it doesn't have any proven adverse effects on health or it doesn't significantly downgrade one's sexual life. Still, it is mutilation of the genitalia. The penis is mutilated, superficially, with MGM. Nobody said that MGM is harmful, let alone as harmful as FGM.
Your interpretation of what was said in most of the posts saying MGM should be banned is wrong. You are arguing things nobody supported.
What (I think) people here are saying is that MGM should not be forced on to kids. If they want to undergo that procedure they can do it on their own free will when they grow up.

Plenty of people made a direct comparison between FGM and circumcision. In circumcision penis is not mutilated. Adding superficially to that doesn't change that fact. The best you can argue is that the skin is mutilated which still wouldn't fit the definition as mutilation requires harm done to the body but circumcision has no adverse effects. I'm not sure where my interpretation of what's being said ever argued that people wanna ban it all together when I didn't even use the word "ban" in this thread. I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth.

[alhoon]

Plenty of people made a direct comparison between FGM and circumcision. In circumcision penis is not mutilated. Adding superficially to that doesn't change that fact. The best you can argue is that the skin is mutilated which still wouldn't fit the definition as mutilation requires harm done to the body but circumcision has no adverse effects. I'm not sure where my interpretation of what's being said ever argued that people wanna ban it all together when I didn't even use the word "ban" in this thread.

The skin is part of the body. The skin of the genitalia is part of the genitalia. Mutilation doesn't have to be for the body, you can mutilate a building by destroying the façade.

I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I used the word interpretation of posts. However, about putting words on people's mouths: "Plenty of people made a direct comparison between FGM and circumcision. " Nope, that didn't happen.
The part I quoted was at post 18 or 19 and you were quoting Paleo, that didn't claim they were comparable, nor had anyone else in those 20-or-so posts as far as I have seen. If someone suggested that MGM and FGM are comparable in the damage they do, then they are 1. wrong 2. I didn't see it. 3. One or two persons are not "plenty".

So, per your request, don't put words in Paleo's mouth. He didn't claim MGM is as bad as FGM

[PointOfViewGun]

The skin is part of the body. The skin of the genitalia is part of the genitalia. Mutilation doesn't have to be for the body, you can mutilate a building by destroying the façade.
I didn't put words in your mouth, I used the word interpretation of posts. However, about putting words on people's mouths: "Plenty of people made a direct comparison between FGM and circumcision. " Nope, that didn't happen.
The part I quoted was at post 18 or 19 and you were quoting Paleo, that didn't claim they were comparable, nor had anyone else in those 20-or-so posts as far as I have seen. If someone suggested that MGM and FGM are comparable in the damage they do, then they are 1. wrong 2. I didn't see it. 3. One or two persons are not "plenty".
So, per your request, don't put words in Paleo's mouth. He didn't claim MGM is as bad as FGM

And if you destroy the facade by hurting or damaging the building, sure, that would be mutilation. That is not the case here. Saying "interpretation of your posts" doesn't change the fact that you put words in my mouth. My interpretation of posts did not suggest that people were arguing for total ban of circumcision. You seem to be playing a game of semantics there but unfortunately you're using wrong semantics. I neither argued against something nobody supported. People tried to draw a direct comparison to FGM by calling circumcision MGM before and after I made that post. That was made by 3 different members in the first page alone. It continued from that point on. You're introducing the level of damage part yourself. You did that in your previous post too which was an other case of you putting words in my mouth. So, yeah, plenty of people made a direct comparison between FGM and circumcision. We had 5 people that made that and that's plenty. Once again, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say paleologos claimed that "MGM" is as bad as FGM. He didn't even used the "MGM" label. At that point my discussion with paleologos wasn't even based on our conflicting positions but on his take on what Himster was saying. alhoon, you seriously need to check what people here really argued before jumping in 4 pages later.

[alhoon]

Nope, I am not playing with words here and frankly, I am not going to start. You said your wrong opinion about me putting words in your mouth (putting words in my mouth in the process), no biggie, moving on...

About the not-so-wrong "You skipped 60-80 posts" well, yeah. I saw a post I wanted to reply and didn't follow the dozens of posts that came after it. Yes, I don't know what was said in those 60 posts, but I was addressing a specific post that was before those posts. If things have changed in the mean, as you say, well... that brings us to problematic understanding but what you said with Paleo is not my main interest here.

This is, about the mutilation:

"and if you destroy the facade by hurting or damaging the building, sure, that would be mutilation"

Destroying the façade is damaging the building, because the façade is part of the building. That's my point both on vandalism and MGM. You don't have to cripple the person to call it mutilation. Permanent damage of the skin is mutilation. If I accidentally spill hot oil on my arm and damage my skin permanently, I have mutilated myself. That's in no way as bad as the horrors brought by FGM.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nope, I am not playing with words here and frankly, I am not going to start. You said your wrong opinion about me putting words in your mouth (putting words in my mouth in the process), no biggie, moving on...

About the not-so-wrong "You skipped 60-80 posts" well, yeah. I saw a post I wanted to reply and didn't follow the dozens of posts that came after it. Yes, I don't know what was said in those 60 posts, but I was addressing a specific post that was before those posts. If things have changed in the mean, as you say, well... that brings us to problematic understanding but what you said with Paleo is not my main interest here.

This is, about the mutilation:

"and if you destroy the facade by hurting or damaging the building, sure, that would be mutilation"

Destroying the façade is damaging the building, because the façade is part of the building. That's my point both on vandalism and MGM. You don't have to cripple the person to call it mutilation. Permanent damage of the skin is mutilation. If I accidentally spill hot oil on my arm and damage my skin permanently, I have mutilated myself. That's in no way as bad as the horrors brought by FGM.

Well, I did point out that you're putting words in my mouth and I provided the how and where, which you're choosing to avoid addressing. Thats fine...

You earlier highlighted that I was quoting paleologos, that your main beef was with what I said with him and that I shouldn't put words in his mouth. Now you're saying that What I said with paleologos was not your main interest...

Spilling hot oil on your skin and the subsequent result has adverse effects on your body. That's why it can be called mutilation. Mutilation is not a mere cutting part of something off.

[conon394]

@alhoon. Male circumcision may be mutilation. However to extent it was recommended beyond Jewish boys it was/is in fact on a public health rational. It is a trivial mutilation compared to what is called female circumcision which no basis in potential health benefits.

If say it was found that inflation of the Vomeronasal organ caused a non trivial amount say 5% of the population to suffer chronic sinuous infection or migraines and that was misdiagnosed in general (the cause). And there exists a simple procedure requiring only a local pain killer to remove the organ from a child. In this case would routine removal of the organ be mutilation?

[Prodromos]

Mutilation is when the appearance or function of the penis is ruined. No one would argue that circumcision damages the appearance or function of the penis. It's quite the opposite. Even in countries where circumcised guys are in the minority, most people believe that circumcised penises are perfectly good and even preferable.

[alhoon]

Well, I did point out that you're putting words in my mouth and I provided the how and where, which you're choosing to avoid addressing. Thats fine...

You earlier highlighted that I was quoting paleologos, that your main beef was with what I said with him and that I shouldn't put words in his mouth. Now you're saying that What I said with paleologos was not your main interest...

Spilling hot oil on your skin and the subsequent result has adverse effects on your body. That's why it can be called mutilation. Mutilation is not a mere cutting part of something off.

Nope, you're twisting the intent and the wording of what I said, putting words in my mouth and then accusing me of the same. I am just not interested nor have the time for childish wordplay with you. What Paleo said was not my main interest, hence I didn't quote him. The post of yours I quoted was my interest so I quoted you. You said some stuff about MGM, I quoted you and corrected you. I didn't care who you were talking to, whether it was Paleo, or someone else. I just saw something that made me go and I replied to you.

Paleo didn't come into the equation until you brought him in when answering me and I just mentioned he didn't say what you said, I.e. you were putting words to his mouth.
Stop putting words in my mouth please.

@alhoon. Male circumcision may be mutilation. However to extent it was recommended beyond Jewish boys it was/is in fact on a public health rational. It is a trivial mutilation compared to what is called female circumcision which no basis in potential health benefits.

If say it was found that inflation of the Vomeronasal organ caused a non trivial amount say 5% of the population to suffer chronic sinuous infection or migraines and that was misdiagnosed in general (the cause). And there exists a simple procedure requiring only a local pain killer to remove the organ from a child. In this case would routine removal of the organ be mutilation?

Yes to all. Nobody argued MGM is as bad as FGM and there are arguments MGM helps. Yes, FGM is horrible. Yes if removing part of that organ causes permanent damage to that organ it is mutilation of that organ.

Mutilation is when the appearance or function of the penis is ruined. No one would argue that circumcision damages the appearance or function of the penis. It's quite the opposite. Even in countries where circumcised guys are in the minority, most people believe that circumcised penises are perfectly good and even preferable.

MGM does damage the appearance of the penis.
I don't think most people believe circumsized penises are preferable, quite the opposite. However even if that's not the case, circumcision permanently alters the appearance of the penis by permanently removing a part of the skin. That's mutilation even if it is aesthetically desirable.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nope, you're twisting the intent and the wording of what I said, putting words in my mouth and then accusing me of the same. I am just not interested nor have the time for childish wordplay with you. What Paleo said was not my main interest, hence I didn't quote him. The post of yours I quoted was my interest so I quoted you. You said some stuff about MGM, I quoted you and corrected you. I didn't care who you were talking to, whether it was Paleo, or someone else. I just saw something that made me go and I replied to you.

Paleo didn't come into the equation until you brought him in when answering me and I just mentioned he didn't say what you said, I.e. you were putting words to his mouth.
Stop putting words in my mouth please.

Sigh... No, I did not bring paleologos into this. You mentioned him and referred to him first. You're practically using every accusation that your posts, not mine, are guilty of, hence for some you're unable to substantiate those accusations, and for others do so through making stuff up. Since you seem to have chosen to spend the entirety of your response to me on bickering, while you ignore addressing on topic points, there seems to be no point in continuing this...