Second paragraph. "...certain feminist groups consider the idea of comparing male and female genital cutting to be both offensive and unsubstantiated." Excuse me?

tomek77 · 2011-06-14T15:48:09+00:00

This part just floored me:

article 50 as either antisemitic or anti-feminist

I can understand how Jews would not be happy about a circumcision ban, but feminists? WTF? How is it anti-feminist? Why does anybody even care what feminists think about male circumcision?

AnnArchist · 2011-06-14T15:18:18+00:00

Whats unsubstantiated about it?

Guy51234 · 2011-06-14T18:06:47+00:00

And the last western Castrati, butcherd to maintain a high voice for the opera, was alive at the turn of the century.

Not rare, celebrated and done to a young boy.

memymineown · 2011-06-14T15:31:27+00:00

Certain feminists groups consider the idea of males having any rights whatsoever to be both offensive and unsubstantiated.

We all know that many parts of feminism is just a cover for misandry(or not even a cover) but what's your point?

Backup8881 · 2011-06-14T15:49:24+00:00

There's a reason female genital cutting used to be called female genital mutilation. While both male and female circumcision are mutilation, they are extremely different. Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin. Female "circumcision" is classified as Type I, II, III or IV, with type I being the removal or permanent disfigurement of the clitoris, type II being the removal of the clitoris and labia minora and Type III including the narrowing or sealing of the vaginal opening.

Both are horrible, both are different.

Guy51234 · 2011-06-14T18:03:43+00:00

If we're going to tell the truth then the tacit female acceptance of castration should be considered.

Women frequently applaud the most extreme kind of male genital cutting and are rarely if every significantly penalized for it, Lorena Bobbitt ring a bell?

phoenix_dot_exe · 2011-06-14T19:29:39+00:00

Oh shit man, I was just gonna post about why, even though I'm not a feminist or a woman, I find it equally offensive, and then I saw this post, which led me to look up this article on Wikipedia. If you've only heard about the absolute worst shit, you're gonna jump to conclusions like I did. So, y'know, don't. :P

Relevant quote from aforementioned article:

The WHO defines Type I FGM as the partial or total removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and/or the prepuce (clitoral hood); see Diagram 1B. When it is important to distinguish between the variations of Type I cutting, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only (which some view as analogous to male circumcision and thus more acceptable); Type Ib, removal of the clitoris with the prepuce.

2011-06-14T21:48:00+00:00

Certain people believe that all men should have their genitalia mutilated.

Certain people believe that all women should have their genitalia mutilated.

Other people believe that certain people, who believe any genital mutilation is acceptable, should be first in the line for it.

BinaryShadow · 2011-06-15T03:45:37+00:00

That's because it's inconvenient to their penis-cutting-for-face-cream cause.

beansworth · 2011-06-15T04:48:35+00:00

Certain men do to. The foreskin brigade is entitled to their own opinions, but I'm just fine the way I am, wouldn't have it otherwise.

InfinitelyThirsting · 2011-06-14T15:46:03+00:00

yeah both can be awful, but far more FGM actually involves gouging out the entire clitoris.

that's like getting the whole head of your dick cut off. it's a little different than snipping the hood or foreskin.

Comments