~ archived since 2018 ~

Once again FGC=>BAD EVIL HORRIBLE; MGC => okay!

kloo2yoo

May 28, 2010

21 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/27/AAP.retracts.female.genital.cutting/index.html?hpt=T2

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Once again FGC=>BAD EVIL HORRIBLE; MGC => okay!
Author	kloo2yoo
Upvotes	21
Comments	24
Date	May 28, 2010 3:30 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/c92wi/once_again_fgcbad_evil_horrible_mgc_okay/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/once-again-fgcbad-evil-horrible-mgc-okay.1049331 https://theredarchive.com/post/1049331

Comments

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 16 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

It might take a bit of familiarity with the issue. The AAP recently published a press release in which it suggested that doctors should be permitted to offer a harmless "nick" to a girl's genitals if they felt it could prevent parents from getting more extensive FGC performed on the child. As this article says, they back-pedalled on this after a massive outcry from various groups. In other words: even the most minor form of genital damage to girls — even if it might prevent significantly more and permanent damage — is not to be countenanced. Girls' genitals are sacrosanct.

Male circumcision, however, continues to be fine with the AAP and while they don't recommend it, they take a very laissez-faire approach to it. Or, as kloo2yoo put it:

Once again FGC=>BAD EVIL HORRIBLE; MGC => okay!

Edit: added links.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 16 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Up front, it's very tricky to argue comparatively here; while "male circumcision" is pretty well defined as a term, FGM is anything but and can describe anything from complete infibulation to the "nick" mentioned in the AAP press release. There's no denying that a lot of FGM as it currently exists is incomparably worse than male circumcision; however, there's equally no denying that a "nick" is considerably less severe than male circumcision.

In other words, it's impossible to meaningfully compare "FGM" to "circumcision". What I'm trying to say is: don't read the following as in any, way, shape or form as supportive of FGM — in any of its guises — even if I occasionally use the term to compare circumcision with it.

the AAP suggests that there might possibly be some health benefit to circumcising some men.

Indeed, but their stance even on cosmetic circumcision is "well, do what you think is best".

FGM has absolutely no health benefits,

The main way male circumcision is argued to be beneficial is by reducing moist skin folds and thus cutting down on breeding grounds for bacteria and other nasties; It's possible to "smooth" female genitalia in a similar fashion and there's no reason to suspect the benefits wouldn't be the same.

[FGM] is a lot riskier (especially the way it's usually performed)

A lot of the risk stems not "especially" but precisely from the way it's usually performed. That's irrelevant to the discussion, though: even performing it "safely" under sterile conditions in a good hospital wouldn't make a cliterectomy acceptable.

and permanently effects the nerve centers.

As does male circumcision. It's a pretty special bit of skin that's being removed.

I don't support circumcision, but I've done a lot of research to come to that decision and I still don't thing it's very comparable to any kind of FGM.

As should be obvious, neither do I, though I came to a different conclusion: in most cases it's an unnecessary procedure which causes a permanent and visible change to the child done purely because "that's how it is". "Minor" FGM which leaves the clitoris intact could be described similarly.

The current outcry over a procedure which is

unnecessary, but causes no permanent mark

v.s. the complete lack of attention to a procedure which is

unnecessary, but does cause permanent change

strikes me as bizarre.

[–]kloo2yoo[S] 8 points9 points10 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Additionally, male circumcision WAS advocated as an aid to sexual purity:

It was advocated as a cure for masturbation and by John Harvey Kellogg as a punishment for the same:

Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in his vice.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo[S] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo[S] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think the outcry is about the "nick" per se, but about the ideology behind it.

The idea behind it was that it might prevent worse from happening. The ideology was that, as someone else said, "a little bit of barbarism goes a long way", with the intention of preventing "a procedure that is intended to keep a woman from experiencing pleasure during sex". The resistance to it obviously didn't form in a vacuum, but essentially said the concept is so abhorrent that even the tiniest step towards it, however well meaning, is unacceptable. Fair play to them; it's was a choice between two evils, really.

I know you could argue the last point with circumcision as well, but it is true that some men have to have it.

And that's how it should be treated! A procedure that is performed when it's clearly beneficial and necessary, not "just in case".

We were recently told that my 6 year old might have to have one.

All the best to him and good luck.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BitterDivorcedDad 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BitterDivorcedDad 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BitterDivorcedDad 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BitterDivorcedDad 5 points6 points7 points 16 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BitterDivorcedDad 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BitterDivorcedDad 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link