RugbyRebels

Female Genital Mutilation, aka female circumcision, likely began in ancient Egypt (along with male circumcision) around two thousand years ago, and may well have originated with the beginning of the slave trade from south of the Sahara as a means of controlling sexual behavior. It was also practised within the Roman Empire during classical antiquity, however, as well as in early Russia. Today there are an estimated 200 million victims worldwide. While often misconceived as an Islamic problem in the West, it actually predates the Muslim religion by several centuries. Moreover, it is widely practised in a number of Christian-majority countries, such as Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda, along with Tanzania which is about 50% Christian and Cameroon in which Christianity is the biggest religion. Of course, it is also not practised in many Muslim countries. With a few notable exceptions such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Iraq and Yemen, FGM is prevalent mostly in a swathe of about 20 African countries directly south of the Sahara, from the Red Sea across to the the Atlantic coast. This includes many Third World societies, of course, where it is often a rudimentary process undertaken without anaesthesia, and often leads to mutilation and even death. It was outlawed in Sweden in 1985, followed soon after by the UK. The United States made it illegal in 1997, while Goodluck Jonathan banned it as one of his final acts as Nigerian president last year. It is forbidden in 26 Middle Eastern and African nations and 33 more countries elsewhere. Efforts are ongoing to have it outlawed worldwide.

http://www.euronews.com/2016/10/14/turn ... e-of-abuse

Culture is a funny one. Its definitely a barbaric practice that needs to be stopped, but at the same time there are dozens of cultures that, now anyway, unnecessarily take a knife to little boys' genetalia and there seems to be no problem at all (and science seems to be on the fence as to affects on pleasure of said snippage). I understand there are differences in terms of intent, but they are both outdated and its quite easy to see a hint of hypocrisy and how acceptance of one opens the door for the other.

Banning it is one thing, enforcing the ban is another.

jared_7 wrote:Culture is a funny one. Its definitely a barbaric practice that needs to be stopped, but at the same time there are dozens of cultures that, now anyway, unnecessarily take a knife to little boys' genetalia and there seems to be no problem at all (and science seems to be on the fence as to affects on pleasure of said snippage). I understand there are differences in terms of intent, but they are both outdated and its quite easy to see a hint of hypocrisy and how acceptance of one opens the door for the other.

It's not really. Male circumcision isn't removing an organ and has little if any practical ongoing effect.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Culture is a funny one. Its definitely a barbaric practice that needs to be stopped, but at the same time there are dozens of cultures that, now anyway, unnecessarily take a knife to little boys' genetalia and there seems to be no problem at all (and science seems to be on the fence as to affects on pleasure of said snippage). I understand there are differences in terms of intent, but they are both outdated and its quite easy to see a hint of hypocrisy and how acceptance of one opens the door for the other.

It's not really. Male circumcision isn't removing an organ and has little if any practical ongoing effect.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not trying to equate the 2 in terms of affect on he person. More musing on cultural differences and who and when others have the right to step in.

The medical need for circumcision at birth has long passed, so it is still unnecessarily taking a knife to a child under the guise of "culture" or "religion" being used an excuse. If there was no history of circumcision, and a nation tomorrow decided to start lopping off boys turtlenecks, there would be outrage, right?

There are other, much lighter examples that whilst not as serious, still interest me in terms of double standards. In most western countries there are moves to ban the burka, or at least condemn it as sexual oppression against women - but then there are a number of other cultures, mainly tribal, where women walk around naked and could rightly see western law forbidding toplessness and nudity in certain public areas as backward. To them, we may be repressing women.

We have condemned certain nations for repressive laws against LBGT but there are cultures in Asia where transgender acceptance is lightyears ahead of the west, and with regards to marriage there are nations that allow polygamy who could rightly argue our 1-to-1 marriage laws are restrictive.

I think FGM crosses that line whereby especially in our own countries everything must be done to stop it. It is much harder going into their countries and telling them what to do, as strong push for education is about the best I see as enacting change in those cases.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Culture is a funny one. Its definitely a barbaric practice that needs to be stopped, but at the same time there are dozens of cultures that, now anyway, unnecessarily take a knife to little boys' genetalia and there seems to be no problem at all (and science seems to be on the fence as to affects on pleasure of said snippage). I understand there are differences in terms of intent, but they are both outdated and its quite easy to see a hint of hypocrisy and how acceptance of one opens the door for the other.

It's not really. Male circumcision isn't removing an organ and has little if any practical ongoing effect.

Yes, I don't have any problem with male circumcision, and in fact it is practiced not only here in Turkey, but all over the world, including in New Zealand, where I grew up, by some. If that's what they want, it's no skin off my nose...

Neither should be practiced without medical reasons behind it.