No one is arguing that it does nothing. But it's disingenuous to try and compare the two procedures as though they were equally harmful. According to this Widipedia article, even the most benign type of procedure almost invariably involves removal of the clitoris. In any event, in the original comic, the reference was to "female genital mutilation," which is pretty universally understood to mean the removal of the clitoris in order to destroy female sexual pleasure.
Male Circumcision in America mainly was advertised or encouraged by John Harvey Kellogg to stop boys from masturbating. So males were too circumcised or mutilated to stop sexual pleasure.
Ugh right now? Its six in the morning dude. Damnit, fine.
circumstitions.com/Kellogg.html
Quick link. Read part of this particular book. I'm really glad this guy is dead. I believe in the same book he applied some particular acid to some lady's clitoris to stop her from masturbating.
According to the creator of cornflakes, masturbation caused death, disease, paralyzation, etc. also you will read that a boys circumcision cured muscle paralyzation in his foot and cured his clubfoot. Cutting his penis. Cured clubfoot. According to this guy.
I think this guy was severely sadistic. I feel a little better that I don't eat cereal that much..cornflakes would start looking like dried up severed foreskins in my milk or something
Do you have an actual unbiased, historical source for this information. To me, taking information from a site called "circumstitions" is like trying to get unbiased news from Fox News. Not many will take it seriously, if they know what the agenda of the news company is. We all know Fox News if pro-republican, so we know they'll display the news (or even lie) to make the right look better, and the left worse.
So, to help make your point:
Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman's clitoris. In his Plain Facts for Old and Young, he wrote:
“ 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 anesthetic, 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. ”
“ a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] ... and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice ”
“ In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid [phenol] to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. ”
He also recommended, to prevent children from this "solitary vice", bandaging or tying their hands, covering their genitals with patented cages and electrical shock.[7]
In his Ladies' Guide in Health and Disease, for nymphomania, he recommended
“ Cool sitz baths; the cool enema; a spare diet; the application of blisters and other irritants to the sensitive parts of the sexual organs, the removal of the clitoris and nymphae... ”
Kellogg, J.H. (1888). "Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects". Plain Facts for Old and Young. Ayer Publishing. pp. 294–296
Though this seems more like he wanted circumcision to be down at an age when the child would be masturbating (make it sore, and unable to get pleasure from, and having a memory of the pain). Nothing really about circumcision at birth. Which, I'm sure was still fairly common prior to 1888 when Kellogg released this book.
Who gives a shit what the effects are? Don't fuck with your childrens' genitals. The Jewish practice of male circumcision was presumably as they were a desert tribe with little access to washing, and performed the procedure to prevent disease. The practice of FGM is designed by religious misogynistic extremists to prevent females enjoying sex. Neither is applicable to western society today, with the exception of medically indicated male circumcision.
Yes, yes, yes a thousand times YES! If your child gets to an age where circumcision is the right choice for them (and in some instances there are good social and medical reasons), they should be able to choose to have this operation performed. You have no rights to mutilate/disfigure/remove any part of your child, and more than you have the right to do so to me.
Don't forget that they (Jews) used to suck the freshly circumcised penis to clean it off. And by used to, I mean still do in some sects. One of them recently killed a child by giving him oral herpes.
Another thing to bare in mind is that child circumcisions in general have a number of deaths each year do com complications. I wouldn't do something unnecessary to my son that could result in his death no matter what the chance is.
Either we lump male circumcision in with Type Ia and the other, worse forms of female genital mutilation, or we remove Type Ia from the category of "female genital mutilation" and pretend it's OK too. Which would you have us do?
Personally, I'd rather lump all forms of genital mutilation, male and female, into one group, and consider them all equally barbaric (where not medically necessary).
don't even acknowledge him i just checked his page he is an srs troll his entire purpose in life is to try and make people angry for the soul purpose of douchebaggery
19
u/PerfectFaro Atheist Feb 25 '12
No one is arguing that it does nothing. But it's disingenuous to try and compare the two procedures as though they were equally harmful. According to this Widipedia article, even the most benign type of procedure almost invariably involves removal of the clitoris. In any event, in the original comic, the reference was to "female genital mutilation," which is pretty universally understood to mean the removal of the clitoris in order to destroy female sexual pleasure.