[Livia]

It's not practised in all Muslim countries. But this thread is talking about occidentaphobia, not Islam. I pointed out that it's mostly a Muslim practise even though it says nothing about it in the Koran, only male circumcision.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's not practised in all Muslim countries. But this thread is talking about occidentaphobia, not Islam. I pointed out that it's mostly a Muslim practise even though it says nothing about it in the Koran, only male circumcision.

To be fair though, male circumcision is completely unnecessary too (although not as damaging) and that's still being practiced as well by the west, those new born baby boys have no choice in the matter either

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

To be fair though, male circumcision is completely unnecessary too (although not as damaging) and that's still being practiced as well by the west, those new born baby boys have no choice in the matter either

You can't equate one with the other. Male circumcision is widely used in a surgical way for heath rather than a religion observance. Most men in the US are circumcised but not for relgiious reasons. It's not like having your clitoris hacked off with a pair of scissors. There's no justification for FGM.

This isn't an anti-Muslim stance from me, it's reasons why people who live in backward countries - like the countries who carry out FGM - don't have much time for the west.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

You can't equate one with the other. Male circumcision is widely used in a surgical way for heath rather than a religion observance. Most men in the US are circumcised but not for relgiious reasons. It's not like having your clitoris hacked off with a pair of scissors. There's no justification for FGM.

This isn't an anti-Muslim stance from me, it's reasons why people who live in backward countries - like the countries who carry out FGM - don't have much time for the west.

The whole male circumcision thing is an argument for another thread I guess but imo it is horrific as well

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The whole male circumcision thing is an argument for another thread I guess but imo it is horrific as well

I love you Niamh... but if you think male circumcision and female genital mutilation are at all comparable, you really don't know enough about FGM.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

I love you Niamh... but if you think male circumcision and female genital mutilation are at all comparable, you really don't know enough about FGM.

They're not equatable in terms of physical impact at all, and it can be necessary for medical reasons, or chosen as a matter of preference (as a circumcised male I imagine that I probably prefer it, though admittedly don't know the alternative ) HOWEVER there is a comparison to be made beyond the physical.

I am 100% against the unnecessary circumcision of infants for any reason other than medical. For the simple reason that I am 100% against the notion that a parent owns the body of their child. No further discussion involved: it is just simply NOT their choice. Making any physical alteration to another person's body without their informed consent is abhorrent, full stop. An infant or child cannot consent to the procedure, and so carrying it out without a medical reason should be considered deliberate bodily harm. Simple as that .

If later in life someone decides to be circumcised, for ANY reason - health, aesthetics, religion/culture - that's fine, great, go for it, totally a personal choice. Much like a piercing or tattoo I guess. It's just not OK to permanently physically alter your children in any way .

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I love you Niamh... but if you think male circumcision and female genital mutilation are at all comparable, you really don't know enough about FGM.

They are comparable in the sense, it's cutting off a part of a childs genitals without consent and for no good reason (unless it's medically required) I am well aware that it's much worse for a female, I've already said that

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

They are comparable in the sense, it's cutting off a part of a childs genitals without consent and for no good reason (unless it's medically required) I am well aware that it's much worse for a female, I've already said that

Livia confuses the terms "comparable" and "equatable" despite my best efforts. I think it's just defiance at this point.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

You can't equate one with the other. Male circumcision is widely used in a surgical way for heath rather than a religion observance. Most men in the US are circumcised but not for relgiious reasons. It's not like having your clitoris hacked off with a pair of scissors. There's no justification for FGM.

This isn't an anti-Muslim stance from me, it's reasons why people who live in backward countries - like the countries who carry out FGM - don't have much time for the west.

If it were religious observance and not a cultural one then all Muslim countries would practice surely?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

If it were religious observance and not a cultural one then all Muslim countries would practice surely?

I personally don't really care about nitpicking over whether it's 'cultural' or 'religious'. I'm more concerned that's it's barbaric, horrific, agonising, and life changing.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I personally don't really care about nitpicking over whether it's 'cultural' or 'religious'. I'm more concerned that's it's barbaric, horrific, agonising, and life changing.

It isn't nitpicking the two are worlds apart, but if you don't care then that's your prerogative.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It isn't nitpicking the two are worlds apart, but if you don't care then that's your prerogative.

Don' know how you can say they are worlds apart when in most cases culture and religion are intrinsically linked. Religious ideology has a significant impact on culture and one can usually be identified by the other.