By hard and fast I mean that you're interpreting what their culture is from a liberal perspective, without understanding how they see it. Of course it's going to make no sense when the name of the game is individualism and how everybody should think for themselves and how everybody makes choices etc. The problem here is with sincerity. It's funny how in our own culture we talk about how everybody should be keep to themselves and nobody should intervene with what somebody else wants, but as soon as it's another culture we get to tell them why their own culture isn't good for them. It's wrong that our first reaction is to assume that people "use" their culture.
Female Gential Mutilation (FGM)
- Thread starter LaVida
- Start date
- 10,769
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
I dunno. I feel like we're at an impasse. I want to be respectful of people's cultures, but I don't want to see people be harmed against their will. There are too many instances (well, to me one is too many) of harm just in my own Western society where parents, culture and/or society makes decisions for kids and young people that's harmful to them. I don't consider myself a libertarian, but their oft-used phrase of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" is not a bad rule of thumb. I would just word it to be about one's culture, beliefs, and, to get back to the topic, medical practices.
Not particularly, but feeling like we're at an impasse is part of the attitude that I am critical towards. I think part of dialogue is to recognize that there are no inherent contradictions. I don't know if I'm just an excessively political person, but there are ways of convincing people of things they don't agree with and getting them to see your point of view. It's something I learned about while selling, and something that you pick up when you study politics and international relations and diplomacy. The first is to recognize that nobody is wrong.
- 86
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Seen Sep 18, 2017
hmm.. well im not sure whats happening in this FGM but...
if its like the Jewish circumcision where some of the child's thing is cut, then what we should do is maybe help them go about this ritual in a much safer way. Like teach them better medical procedures. not as painful or dangerous, but the tradition will get less bad publicity.
that way, we can easily help them without actually trying to change them.
if its like the Jewish circumcision where some of the child's thing is cut, then what we should do is maybe help them go about this ritual in a much safer way. Like teach them better medical procedures. not as painful or dangerous, but the tradition will get less bad publicity.
that way, we can easily help them without actually trying to change them.
LoudSilence
more like uncommon sense
- 590
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- US
- Seen Aug 7, 2016
That's a hard pill to swallow, though. I doubt any of us willing to fight against genital mutilation would be able to convince themselves that "nobody is wrong". I mean, if we believed that, what motivation would we have to do anything anyway?
I think the biggest hurdle to overcome is establishing some globally accepted common grounds of "human rights". What does a human being unequivocally deserve to have that no one should be able to take away? I'd imagine it'd be hard to get anywhere past just "life", and even then you may have some contenders.
- 10,769
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
If I may paraphrase, you're saying that people have to go in with an open mind and accept that everyone has equally valid viewpoints. Or something like that. So if we were to try to change the practice of circumcision we'd have to go in saying, essentially, "I respect your beliefs, but you should still change them." I dunno. I'm getting mixed messages.
I know it's a bad idea to swoop in with a heavy handed message and say "you are wrong," but would you say it would be bad to provide assistance to local people in respective countries who are trying to stop the practice? If we're the self-righteous Western world that rubs people the wrong way, then surely a person from within a particular culture would be the best messenger.
I think our problem is the obsession with right and wrong. Even here, you're still placing a lot of emphasis on what is valid and what isn't. What I'm saying is let's keep that to a corner for now, and instead focus on changing the norms instead of lambasting them all the time. If you're going to call an African ruler a dictator, no matter how dictatorial he is, you're not going to get much done with him. The message I'm getting is that we have to save the innocent people who don't want any of this practice from their own rulers who are pressing it onto them. I don't think that's a useful way of causing change, by exposing a societal cleavage even further when it's quite possible that they fear Western culture for increasing the division in their society.
"I respect your beliefs" is something I hear so often that it's become inane. Not just between cultures, but even within this one - it's a phrase that seems to more often end conversations than begin them. Which is a problem, because that's perverse. Dialogue with somebody you disagree or do not trust inevitably will result in something that may sound like a mixed message. But I don't know, it's really up to you or me how we interpret that. If we get caught up on it sounding like a mixed message, then sure, nothing will get done. That's all I think needs to be said. It's up to us to determine how flexible vs. self-righteous we're willing to be.
Providing assistance can be a double-edged sword. People within that culture can see it as a fifth column, which is why outreach is important. Again, it's not about what we do and what we want per se, it's about how we establish a relationship with the culture we're working with. The message has an audience, and the message has to suit the audience. It has to be more about them than about us. You have to build trust, and your cause has to be credible. You could think it's the best idea in the world, but if you're not selling it to them, then you won't be selling it to them.
zakisrage
In the trunk on Highway 10
- 500
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 28
- Newcastle, NSW, Australia
- Seen Nov 16, 2016
Female genital mutilation is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard of. It's gross and inhumane. And Islam DOES NOT condone FGM - it is haram, or forbidden. The imam at my mosque even said so. However, that doesn't stop Muslim tribespeople in sub-Saharan Africa (many of whom don't even know how to read) from practicing it on their daughters.
The practice of FGM is disgusting - it actually does damage to the body, makes having sex painful, and can result in nasty infections which can kill the girl who had the procedure done.
I'm in full support of male circumcision, though, since it's required in my religion. I'm circumcised, even though most of my non-Muslim friends aren't. I had the procedure done when I was seven - Muslims tend to circumcise later than Jews. They had an anesthetic put on me so I wouldn't feel anything. FGM is a lot more dangerous than male circumcision.
The practice of FGM is disgusting - it actually does damage to the body, makes having sex painful, and can result in nasty infections which can kill the girl who had the procedure done.
I'm in full support of male circumcision, though, since it's required in my religion. I'm circumcised, even though most of my non-Muslim friends aren't. I had the procedure done when I was seven - Muslims tend to circumcise later than Jews. They had an anesthetic put on me so I wouldn't feel anything. FGM is a lot more dangerous than male circumcision.
So you oppose FGM because it is disgusting, does damage to the body, makes having sex painful, and can result in nasty infections. Yet, you are fine with MGM because it's part of your religious beliefs.
That's all well and good, except for the fact that MGM is disgusting, does damage to the body, makes sex less pleasurable, and can result in nasty infections. And FGM is part of other peoples' religious beliefs or tribal customs.
zakisrage
In the trunk on Highway 10
- 500
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 28
- Newcastle, NSW, Australia
- Seen Nov 16, 2016
I've been circumcised for ten years and I've never gotten a penis infection. I've had other infections.
I don't think we should judge people by the status of their foreskin. My uncircumcised friends never made fun of me for having a circumcised penis. And I don't make fun of them.
Last edited:
twocows is drawing male and female genital mutilation as morally equivalent practices. Of course your religious views would bias your opinion on this but the question he's asking is: aren't the two acts more or less the same? Aren't they both cutting away at the genital area without the consent of the person going through the procedure for the sake of some social or religious purpose?
I want to say yes because it would seem incredibly Eurocentric or Western-centric to support what is essentially a Western norm. I'd like to look at the issue critically. Maybe we can work with thought experiments.
If female genital mutilation was normal in Western countries - and so were performed in sterile hospitals and not a backwater village hut - would it be so wrong? I'm surprised at myself because of how FGM being wrong was drilled into my head as a child, but I don't think it would be that bad, not nearly as worth vilifying as we are doing now. As a middle-class Western citizen, I think what offends me the most is just how far away the setting is from where I'm used to. It's dirty, it's crude. That's what gives me a visceral reaction against it. My reaction might not be completely against the practice itself but for what the practice represents - barbarism and backwardness. I'm repeating myself but I'm just in that much shock - take away the infections and the dirtiness and I'm strangely okay with it.
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 17
- Years
- Age 33
- He/him
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen May 4, 2024
The problem is, there is absolutely zero benefits to having FGM, and even if done with safe procedures, it can cause complications during sex and birth due to the genitals having been removed. In other words, for a baby to be given birth (or for a penis to enter it to begin with), the wound needs to be reopen and the scars broken. That's slightly very painful. And if you are forcing someone to undergo a very painful process that she wouldn't normally have to go through in exchange for absolutely 0 benefits, I think it's time to scrap the whole procedure.
In turn, circumcision is an actually recommended treatment for some penis issues. Right-at-birth operations have risks, but there is no actual consensus. And if you ask me, I'd rather ban both (at birth I mean) than allow them.
Spoiler:
Wow, I completely left that out of my thinking XD good catch. Although I do wonder if the procedure could be modernized - I don't think male circumcision would leave any scar tissue? I'm not a cosmetic surgeon so I can't really say what could and couldn't be done. I'm just wondering what FGM would be like in an alternate world where it is accepted as a Western practice. Would we find the practice so offensive?
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 17
- Years
- Age 33
- He/him
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen May 4, 2024
Maybe decades ago, but again, causing unnecessary pain to most women for absolutely no reason whatsoever? Probably would have died in most countries by now, along with the male-only suffrage and the "women at home" mindset.
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 17
- Years
- Age 33
- He/him
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen May 4, 2024
Male circumcision is not unanimously considered to cause only unnecessary pain and no benefits whatsoever, in fact circumcision is a possible treatment for some illnesses.
Also there is not the same added stigma of being forced on the already-discriminated gender. Plus, circumcision is already rare in most of the Western world (except the US).
Also there is not the same added stigma of being forced on the already-discriminated gender. Plus, circumcision is already rare in most of the Western world (except the US).
Yeah, I meant in this hypothetical world, would we see it (as outsiders peering in from our own universe) as something causing unnecessary pain and no benefits. If it was something done on baby girls as circumcision as is done on baby boys would we see it as something that's forced? I was wondering if female genital circumcision could be sanitized and, well, essentially marketed for Western tastes.
Anecdotal evidence means next to nothing.
I didn't say that we should judge people on that basis. I said it is a major procedure with significant negative impact and potential risks that has minimal benefit. Therefore, it should be something left up to the
It is an option in the same way that amputating your arm is an option for getting a splinter in your finger. There are other treatment options that don't permanently deprive a person of a part of his body. Circumcision should only be used as a last resort when other treatment options have failed.
No, but it makes sexual activity less pleasurable, and there are medical risks associated with it. Also, it is irreversible should a
You are implying that men are not discriminated against. This is blatantly false.
Last edited:
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 17
- Years
- Age 33
- He/him
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen May 4, 2024
Yeah, you don't need to convince me, I already agree.
No, I'm saying that, specially during the 20th Century, the biggest anti-discrimination movement was the female one, which would have amplified the protests against the hypotetical Western FGM.
Also, in the grand scheme of things, discrimination against females is still more prevalent than the opposite even nowadays. But that's another topic.
LoudSilence
more like uncommon sense
- 590
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- US
- Seen Aug 7, 2016
Just wondering about this; which studies suggest that circumcision has a correlation with pleasure level?
I have heard both sides argued (by laymen who were cut/uncut) and wonder how pleasure is quantified, especially considering it is largely subjective.