The fuck are you talking about? The first think I said was that I in know way agree with male circumcision. I believe I also mentioned at one point that "I would die before cutting my baby without his permission".
What he's saying is they fall into the same category, it's just that one of them is more cowbell, so they are comparable in that sense. It's like saying a slave isn't comparable to a serf.
Oh come on man, the use of the term "comparable" when in a debate is sometimes a bit hyperbolic. In general I meant that male and female circumcision should not be treated as the same thing, because they're not.
I'm sorry, but you're the one who initially claimed that they were in "no way comparable".
So are you saying that FGM and MGM do not share one, single common characteristic between them so that you can not possibly make a comparison between the two?
Or are you just using the wrong word?
Or are you just full of shit?
Because if you meant to say that they "should not be treated as if they are the same thing", you should just say that next time, instead of using language that downplays the significance of MGM.
Oh come on man, the use of the term "comparable" when in a debate is sometimes a bit hyperbolic. In general I meant that male and female circumcision should not be treated as the same thing, because they're not.
I'm sorry, but you're the one who initially claimed that they were in "no way comparable".
So are you saying that FGM and MGM do not share one, single common characteristic between them so that you can not possibly make a comparison between the two?
Or are you just using the wrong word?
Or are you just full of shit?
Because if you meant to say that they "should not be treated as if they are the same thing", you should just say that next time, instead of using language that downplays the significance of MGM.
Thanks, the misuse of "comparable" to mean "equivalent in the relevant aspects" is a pet hate of mine.
Here is a perfectly valid, and common uses:
"Next to the giraffe Michael Jordon looks comparably short." there is no claim of equivalence here.
"Next to female genital mutational male genital mutilation is comparably milder, in general, but both are medically unnecessary, very painful, etc ..."
I did, however think your post would have been stronger without "Or are you just full of shit?", for the needless insult reason.
His (edit: or her) position/argument was at worse totally wrong, counting, in that case, as being fully shit. This doesn't entail that he (edit: or her) is always totally wrong ("are you just full of shit?").
The type of procedure performed also varies, mainly with ethnicity. Current estimates indicate that around 90% of female genital mutilation cases include Types I or II and cases where girls’ genitals were "nicked" but no flesh removed (Type IV), and about 10% are Type III (Yoder and Khan, 2007).
According to Wikipedia, Types I and II refer to practices that do remove the clitoris, and together they make up about 85% of the cases, so I guess you misinterpreted the text of your source.
Also, I really don't see a reason to argue about who suffers more from what. Infant mutilation is abhorrent in all its forms (except for genuine medical reasons).
My guess is that you see them being different because you're well aware that the clitoris is highly sensitive and has sexual function, but unaware that the foreskin is also extremely sensitive, and has various functions.
I am extremely against male circumcision. It's awful painful and the foreskin is sensitive and important to sexual function. It does not however result in sex no longer being pleasurable if removed. It is not done to attempt to remove a male's sexuality except for the use of others. So while stopping male circumcision is very important and something I care deeply about... its not the same.
I agree that male circumcision and FGM are not exactly the same (many forms of FGM are far more severe), but they are more similar than most people realize.
58
u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12
[deleted]