Welcome to Gaia! ::

I wasn't sure if I should post this in the Judaism or Christian forum, but it's also a political issue so I decided to put it here.

Your opinions on the matter? And by genital mutilation, I mean both male and female, for religious reasons. I honestly don't see why having one banned and the other around makes any sense. I understand that female genital mutilation means cutting something OUT, losing feeling, and is incredibly painful, and circumcision is cutting off the foreskin, which is the most sensitive part of the organ, is incredibly painful, and is cutting something OFF. It's like 'we're banning getting your finger cut open and removing of bones, but you're totally allowed to scrap all the skin off the finger.'

If it's your religion and the person getting the operation is old enough to CONSENT to such a thing, as well as do it the way they intend from a medical professional, then I would guess it's okay. But to allow one and not the other because one is bad is hypocritical. Both are bad and have similar effects (apparently circumcision decreases chances of getting STI's (STD's if you're American) but it's by about like 4%-10%, which is basically negligible and a condom works even better.)

Thoughts? Arguments? Clarifications?

Shortened: female genital mutilation is banned, but not male mutilation, even though they are different degrees of the same crime? Isn't that like saying rape and murder is a crime but just rape by itself is fine?

Not what it is. They remove only the external parts (like the clitoris) so you can sill conceive. Sex just doesn't have all the pleasant sensations it might otherwise, and might be terribly painful, depending.

And as far as both of them are concerned, I do have a problem with the fact that circumcisions are performed at birth, often or no reason. Around here, at least (the US) it's basically the done thing when you give birth to a boy. It's not technically required but many doctors will pressure and push for it, based on the fact that it's long-standing standard practice. And many of the people who say yes to inflicting such on infants too young to even understand what's being done to them, much less to agree with it, don't even have religion as an excuse.

Getting into the religion argument opens up an entirely bigger can of worms though. I think I'll see where this goes and wait for some actual adherents of the religions involved to give their opinions before wading back in.

There are different types of female genital mutilation. I'm not going to link to it here because Gaia has weird s**t about linking to things that talk about genitals, but the wikipedia page on the subject is quite informative. Some forms are more excessive than others, and often are performed in ways that can kill the girl in question. I think when we're discussing the ethics involved here, there's a big difference between removing the labia minora and removing every damn thing and binding the legs closed until the v****a heals over.

I think it's partly a cultural issue. I don't approve in removing something from someone's body when they can't consent to it unless it's to save their life or something, personally. But there are circumstances when female genital mutilation has been banned and girls start mutilating one another because culturally it's a necessary procedure or element of ritual they need to undergo to be considered an adult. So you have to think "is it cultural imperialism to ban something we consider distasteful".

Above all two things: safety and consent. Baby boys can't consent and that is why I oppose circumcision in childhood. The boy can get circumcised when he has his bar mitzvah or something. On the other hand if there are women somewhere who really want to get circumcised, there should be a safe option for them to do so. I don't think we should get to dictate how other cultures determine adulthood or womanhood.

heart

Well it's there body; if they agree to it then that's there prerogative.