Female circumcision = BAD Male circumcision = TOTALLY FINE
How about we stop mutilating ALL children without their consent?
Just another double standard.
share
MovieChat Forums > Poor Things (2024) Discussion > Female circumcision = BAD Male circumci...
Um, maybe you two should study up a bit between the two before spouting off - apples and oranges and not even comparable.
shareSaid like a true female.
shareYou are a moron if you don't know the difference between the two, go back to fifth-grade health class - but to help you out, I'll spell it out for your ignorant ass - in this movie, it was about the entire removal of ALL female sex organs, including chopping off the clitoris (but I doubt you know what that is), whereas for the male it is all about a small sliver of skin. In other words, if they were the same things, then that would include the lopping off of the penis and nutsack.
shareOH, okay! Well in that case--carry on mutilating infant males without their consent! I do apologize.
shareLOL. This was funny. And no I'm not being sarcastic. Good one!
Especially the part about how the person you are speaking to doesn't know what a clitoris is. Too funny.
Untrue. FGM takes multiple forms. The removal of the clitoral hood, for example, is directly comparable to the removal of the foreskin - in fact, it's the same tissue. Perhaps you should study up a bit before spouting off, as someone once said.
Anyway, ignoring comparisons, circumcision causes harm. In the US alone, there are more than 100 neonatal circumcision-related deaths per year, and virtually all of these procedures were medically unnecessary. The mutilation of children's genitals needs to stop.
In the film, the plan was to remove ALL sexual organs, including the clitoris, not just the clitoral hood, so maybe you should study up a bit before spouting off. That is what the false equivalency of the comparison of the sliver of skin and ALL sexual organs referred to.
ANY PERMANENT BODY MODIFICATION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL IF DONE WITHOUT CONSENT.
That is the "accepted" way in usoffuckinga.
It whould be LEGALLY BANNED on male as well.
Circumcision should only exist, like every other kind of mutilation, for medical emergency only.
Self-proclaimed men's advocates didn't hesitate to mimick the mendacity Feminists resorted to, back in The 70s https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/may-2021/perils-of-a-cause-celebre/
It's only done in certain countries to separate the 2 humans...circumcised cultures walk around with a star on their chest...
shareDoes that mean that children born with a cleft pallet, or a growth that may become malignant or obstructive to development cannot have those operated on until they are able to give consent?
shareDoes that mean you do not know the meaning of mutilation nor medical emergency?
shareYou said "ANY permanent body modification". So are you withdrawing "any permanent body modification"?
shareDoes that mean you do not know the meaning of BODY MODIFICATION?
Do you understand the difference with a necessary medical procedure or corrective surgery?
Do you understand anything at all?
ANY PERMANENT BODY MODIFICATION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL IF DONE WITHOUT CONSENT.
"ANY"
I think the problem here is your use of "any". Do you understand what "any" means? Well it means, in this context, without qualification or restriction. But that's clearly not what you meant. You're trying to talk about specific body modifications or those modifications which, by your judgement, are unnecessary.
So what you meant to type was "CERTAIN SPECIFIC BODY MODIFICATIONS THAT I CONSIDER UNNECESSARY SHOULD BE ILLEGAL IF DONE WITHOUT CONSENT" share
Look, I can see that you just like to take words out of context and don't understand general concept.
I meant exactly what I wrote, that ANYbody can understand, including you.
Body modification have a SPECIFIC MEANING which YOU clearly ignore. Suit yourself.
Most people in the US today are against male circumcision. That being said, male circumcision is very different than removal of the clitorus.
shareYou spout nothing but lies. The circumcision rate in the US is 80%, and only freako weirdos are upset by that. I've seen the uncircumcised and I'm glad I'm not one of them! (most women are also in the pro-circ camp--look it up!)
share64%. So, not most, we are both wrong. But the percentage is falling
https://www.childrenshospital.org/treatments/circumcision
There's no cure for stupid (article from Johns Hopkins Medicine):
"Declining Rates of U.S. Infant Male Circumcision Could Add Billions to Health Care Costs, Experts Warn
Procedure linked to prevention of sexually transmitted infections and related cancers."
"Declining rates of U.S. Infant Male Circumcision..."
And how did this contradict what I said?
Women are in favor of male circumcision b/c that's where they get the main ingredient for their cosmetics from. Also, the women know that if a man is robbed of his literal "man-hood", that he is easier to control. They think of you as their dog!
shareand do you know what the #1 ingredient is in most cosmetics and moisturizers? that's right, you guessed it! the hospital is selling these foreskins out the backdoor for $500-$1000 a pop! it's big business! also, the pain of doing this to baby boys without any anesthetic splits their psyche and damages them for life. it's all by design. it keeps the men down, and most are unable to reach their full potential.
so, you've got men getting robbed of their manhood, and women rubbing it all over their faces and legs! clown world at the max!
SO THEORETICALLY...IF I HAVE SAY...A BANKER'S BOX FULL OF FORESKINS....I GOT MYSELF SOME MONEY?....THEORETICALLY.
shareWomen's boobs as sexual aids. Weird.
shareFemale circumcision is worse from the looks of it. They more or less remove her pleasure center while for the male it's just the foreskin.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/FGC_Types.svg/800px-FGC_Types.svg.png