Circumcision: A Social Status in the UK ?

[Amazonia]

Curiously in the UK, circumcision is now a matter of social class. While the "ordinary" folks rarely circumcise, circumcision is prevalent in the upper class as well as in the Royal family.

How anyone can mutilate a baby of either sex is beyond me.

thebody, that is how people like math get their way. They refuse to listen and repeat the same thing over and over again until others are simply worn down.

Math, wearing people down until they can no longer bear to speak to you is not a valid debating technique, it's what toddlers do.

Math has already told us that in her opinion, surgical removal of a non-defective body part without consent is not mutilation, provided only that it is a foreskin.

She has told us that in her opinion is is equivalent to cutting toenails.

She has told us that in her opinion, an adult woman choosing to remove pubic hair is not only comparable, but worse.

She has been detected repeatedly telling fibs, for example pretending that it was me, not her, who introduced the foolish idea that people wash only once in 24 hours.

She repeatedly C&Ps the same inaccurate accusations, vaguely attacking something that has not been said by anyone but herself, and carefully avoids requests to substantiate her nonsense.

There is possibly some purpose in all this, but I do not know what it is.

Four I agree it's sad and frustrating but as Piglet says he/she has really shown herself up as frankly daft.

Look, math

If you said you cut bits off boys because someone once said they dreamed God wanted it, that might just be understandable. Wrong, but understandable.

But to say you do it to boys because that is less serious than FGM, that is just stupid.

By the same twisted logic, you could say that MGM should be done to all girls because that is not as bad as murdering them.

And as for accusing defenders of their babies' bodies of being misogynists - do you even know what the word means? You're hardly likely to find a group less mysogynist than the left-wing womens-libbing harridans nice women on MN.

I'm just bored with you now, so I'll leave you to keep tying yourself in knots with a slightly smaller audience. Bye!

That should be FGM to all girls

Handsoff7, anyone who calls male circumcision 'mutilation' is making a direct comparison.

Of course a man has a right to feel mutilated if he has been circumcised, without consent.

That still doesn't mean male circumcision without consent is mutilation.

'But to say you do it to boys because that is less serious than FGM, that is just stupid.'

'She has told us that in her opinion, an adult woman choosing to remove pubic hair is not only comparable, but worse.'

I have not said or argued either of these things.

This is either a purposeful misrepresentation or a mistake based on inaccurate reading of my posts. I suggest Sallyingforth and PigletJohn go back and read what was written.

don't be silly, math.

If I were to cut off your leg, foot, or toe without your permission, they would all be mutilations. Of decreasing size and severity.

For some reason you choose to decide which modification you are willing to apply the word to, based on your own preferences.

I repeat:

It is pure misogyny to compare FGM, which eliminates all hope of ever experiencing sexual pleasure in its victims and greatly increases the chance of experiencing life threatening difficulties both during and after childbirth, to mother and baby alike, to male circumcision.

It is demeaning and insulting to the victims of FGM, women and their babies alike, to compare it with a procedure on males that has no effect on sexual functioning or pleasure and no effect except a positive one on future general health.

If posters here are going to persist in demeaning and insulting women who are victims of FGM by comparing a benign procedure on males that has no ill effects on sexual function and sexual pleasure and that confers lifelong health benefits with one that mutilates for absolutely no reason except to reinforce the notion that women are the property of men, destroys all hope of ever experiencing sexual pleasure, and jeopardises maternal and infant health at childbirth, then I will call that misogyny because that is what it is.

You don't have to agree with me. You have the right to be wrong. But you don't have the right to be offensive.

And may I add that none of you have the right to be personally offensive to me, either.

OK, math,i'm going to have one last try.

If I cut off, say, my baby's ear lobe, would that be mutilation?

Would it be all right for me to do that?

how about piercing babies?

Piercing where and with what?

Ear piercing of babies is fine. It's a matter of the parent's taste.

Cutting off an earlobe -- not fine because no medical purpose that I am aware of would be served by that.

Of course if the earlobe had a malignant growth or mole that showed signs of being malignant or other medical issue, then fine.

math, thank you for taking time to respond to some posts.

I would very much like to know if you now accept that genital mutilation happens in both sexes.

"Cutting off an earlobe -- not fine because no medical purpose that I am aware of would be served by that. "

What if it was a requirement of my religion?

maths I don't think you actually know what mysogynistic means as you arnt making any sense in the context of using that term.

You asked math if cutting off an earlobe would be mutilation.

She cannot bring herself to answer that question.

BaronDent, when you use the term 'mutilation' to describe male circumcision you compare directly.

Hello

Can we first off ask everyone to remember our Talk Guidelines please and avoid personal attacks?

We'll go through now and delete what needs to be deleted

Please also don't fill up the thread with duplicate posts: it's something we don't really allow.

Thanks