Oh, no, I'm equally opposed to FGM. I agree that it should be banned always and with no exception. I just don't think male circumcision should be treated differently. I brought up the medical arguments in favor of FGM because I think you probably don't recognize them as valid or sufficient to justify allowing some people to practice FGM. Male circumcision carries lifelong problems as well. They're just the kind that can be "lived past" and, when the whole culture experiences the same problems, it becomes the norm, easy to accept as normal, and easy to dismiss criticism against it. Other than infibulation and clitoridectomy, the other forms of FGM don't carry any greater risk of lifelong problems than male circumcision does. And that's kind of the point I'm getting at: it's irrational to support one and oppose the other, because the arguments both in favor of and against the one can be made equally for the other.
No, I am "not aware" of these allegations, and frankly I strongly doubt the claims; I have read several articles over the years about female genital mutilation and every one of them stated that the procedure is being forced upon females for the specific purpose of preventing (or at minimum, severely reducing) physical pleasure. The religious nutballs who support FGM do so because they think it will prevent women from committing fornication and adultery. I fail to see how anyone can equate removal of the clitoris with removal of a mere foreskin; the male equivalent would be removal of the entire penis.
If you're aware of the FGM case in Michigan and the Dawoodi Bohra, the form that they carry out is a ritual nick of the clitoral hood. This style minimally reduces the physical pleasure a woman can feel, if it reduces it at all. The most common forms of FGM involve a ritual nick or partial/complete removal of the clitoral hood only. Removal of the penis would be the physiological equivalent of removal of the clitoris. However, I did say circumcision was the neurological equivalent of removal of the clitoris, if enough of the inner foreskin is removed. The vast majority of errogenous nerves of the penis are located in the foreskin. If enough of it is removed, the sensory destruction is equivalent to removing the whole external portion of the clitoris.
I agree that you do seem obsessed with sex. More oddly, you seem overly concerned whether or not people are missing out on some sexual pleasure you believe they are entitled to. There are far better concerns to focus on, my friend. If someone doesn't miss it, then why do you miss it on their behalf? Find a new crusade.
I don't miss it on their behalf. If they're happy with what they've been left, God bless em. I'm concerned about the boys who have it decided for them, by adults who have no way of knowing whether they'll grow up to be men who wish it hadn't been taken from them, or men who won't care one way or another. It's pretty crappy to come into an awareness that something's been taken away from you forever, completely without need, and there's nothing you can ever do to change it. I want to spare as many boys as I can the pain and hopelessness I and many other men experience. Name me a better crusade than that.
Healing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing those who have leprosy, driving out demons, preaching the Gospel... honestly, watching paint dry seems like a better use of one's time and energy. Focus on sexual pleasure is not something this society lacks in any amount.
Most of those require some miraculous gift from God. The rest, there's already plenty of people doing them. I'm sorry you think watching paint dry seems like a better use of one's time and energy than protecting children from having their bodies, as God designed and made them, hacked up and parts thrown away. I really don't even know how to take your view seriously on that point.
My but you do go on. You make it sound like the killing fields of Cambodia. I was present for my son's circumcision. It was a routine outpatient procedure that took less than a minute to perform and was patched up with a band-aid and vaseline. I don't even recall him wincing. Maybe if you weren't so melodramatic, I could take your view more seriously. Also, I don't think anyone could seriously say that there's enough people out preaching the Gospel of our Savior. But by all means, if saving souls isn't your bag, save the foreskins instead, lol
Yeah, I tend to go on about it, it's kind of an important issue to me. Of course it's not the killing fields of Cambodia. But are a comparative handful of girls having their clitorises and labia cut off and sewn together like the killing fields of Cambodia? Also not, but you probably still think it's reasonable for women to be upset if this was done to them. Unless your son had a Jewish circumcision, I find it hard to believe it took less than a minute. And even then, it's improbable. The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis in infancy, like a fingernail is to its bed. That has to be separated with a probe in order for the clamp to be inserted into the foreskin, and then the foreskin has to be crushed with the clamp for a few minutes so that the boy doesn't bleed to death while the foreskin is being amputated. Your description of circumcision is unrealistically simple. So there's quite a bit you apparently don't recall from your son's circumcision, assuming he had a standard Western procedure. Given everything else you missed, it's not surprising you don't remember any wincing.
Also, babies wince and cry furiously just from having a hypodermic needle in their butt. Even if circumcision were not as traumatic as I believe it is, having part of your genitals cut off is certainly more traumatic than getting an injection. I just can't buy that a baby, that would fuss and cry from a quick injection, would sit there silently while, at a minimum, having part of his foreskin sliced off, but more likely, also having the foreskin torn from the head, held open by hemostats, crushed with a hemostat so that a dorsal slit can be performed, then a crushing bell inserted so a clamp can crush the foreskin circumferentially, and then amputated. He didn't cry or even wince through any of that?
Just before my son was born I asked the paediatrician if I should circumcise? He said I shouldn't bother and his boys aren't. So I didn't. From what I have read on it what benefits there are so marginal as not to barely noticeable. Surgery is not a replacement for good hygiene as cleanliness is next to Godliness.
Did the doctor use a dorsal nerve block? That's the only way I can imagine him not crying. Either that or he instantly went into shock. But even now, most doctors don't use anesthetic.
If your son didn't feel anything, he's very lucky. My mom told me I cried so hard, like she'd never heard a baby cry before. She swore if she ever had another son, she wouldn't have had him circumcised because of it.