For what it is worth when reading your post (from the one you TLA self nominated onwards) that my interpretation is that you are implying that women's genitalia is "more special" in as much as you are all bent out of shape because there is not enough moral outrage against it for your liking.
You seem annoyed that male circumcision is being discussed at all. On top of that, at one point you state that people are making male circumcision "seem as horrible as possible" which suggests a male circumcision conspiracy!
Oh no, certainly not, and I don't really know how you got that impression at all.
I'm really not sure why people can't understand what I'm getting at with this.
First off, I think there's plenty of moral outrage against female circumcision. It's a pretty well known topic and there's a lot of activism worldwide around it. I don't think there's any lacking of moral outrage against it at all. I feel it has the exact appropriate amount of moral outrage.
Second of all, I think male circumcision is an absolutely appropriate topic to talk about. Heck, I've made plenty of posts or had plenty of conversations about topics that are far far FAR less weighty.
My only point is this: there is a huge difference between a procedure which makes a person incapable of enjoying sex - or possibly which even makes sex or other bodily functions painful or dangerous for the rest of their lives, and one which does not. Thus type I female circumcision and male circumcision are not comparable to the more extreme forms of female circumcision because the latter has serious lifelong consequences - the absence of sexual pleasure and possibly the addition of sexual pain, that the other does not.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I think a woman's genitalia are more special. It is utterly and completely based on the lifelong physical ramifications of the more extreme forms of FGM. I clearly stated that female circumcisions which ARE comparable to male circumcisions are no more egregious when done on a woman than on a man. And, in addition, these mild forms of female circumcision which cause no lifelong sexual ramifications are also utterly different from those that do.
You are trying to turn this into a sexist argument when it simply isn't one. A procedure which ruins your sex life is not comparable to a procedure which does not ruin your sex life. The gender aspect of it has nothing to do with it. Were there a procedure for males which was equivalent to the extreme forms of FGM, it would be just as bad. When it comes to the form of FGM that IS equivalent to MGM (type I), this is indeed just as bad.
When I said some people make it seem as horrible as possible, how does that suggest a conspiracy? Saying people are being over dramatic in no way suggests a conspiracy. There is no need to conspire to be over dramatic, it just happens when people get too emotionally involved in an issue. I just mean it's over dramatic to compare a procedure which does not ruin your sex life (or in some cases can even make sex extremely painful) to one that does. If a person says that MGM is the same as the type of FGM which results in the inability to obtain sexual pleasure or which results in her forever being in incredible pain from sex, then yes, I am gong to say you are over dramatic and trying to make MGM seem worse than it is. Which isn't to say it's not bad, just that it is not as bad as the person making such an argument is making it out to be.
Now it does appear as if I misunderstood Darat, that he WAS in fact only comparing type 1 female circumcision to male circumcision, as opposed to comparing male circumcision to the other extreme types of female circumcision. So in that sense, my post was wrong because I misunderstood the point he was making. He wasn't in fact being over dramatic as I had first inferred from his post. Assuming I am correct that this is was the case, my post really was inappropriate because it was a response to an argument he wasn't making in the first place.
As Iknownothing said:
C'mon. Surely you can see that she said nothing remotely like this. (I hate to use the term "strawman" since as soon as I adopt lingo, it becomes out of date.) You went too far.
It's not a fair comparison. It's not. If the only female procedure that existed was type I, then it would be a fair comparison. But there is no male version of the more extreme female types.
I didn't say there's no comparison. Obviously there are similarities. But there are also important differences between what males and females are subject to. That's specifically why I said it's not a "fair" comparison.
That's not to diminish the issue of male circumcision. Particularly since for the overwhelming majority of American babies being born today, females are at no risk and males are at substantial risk of undergoing the procedure. So yeah, it needs to be addressed.
But I think on these internet message boards, there are always some posts that get heated and someone starts equating male and female "circumcision." In my opinion, that simply turns off a lot of people. The person who is making the comparison just comes across as unreasonable and irrational.
Truly, most men don't have any noticable damage (that they are aware of) from having been circumcised. You really can't say the same of women who have undergone any but the most mild form of FGM. So when people hear the comparison, they think of all the men they know, probably none of whom have a serious complication of circumcision. And that makes the entire comparison seem invalid.
But that doesn't excuse MGM either. Just because a majority survive an unnecessary procedure without incident, doesn't justify performing it. And it doesn't help those boys and men who have suffered serious (and again, totally unnecessary) consequences.
I know it can be entertaining to argue on the internet, but the thing is, you and Darat are not arguing with
me. You're arguing against a position I do not hold and things I did not say and do not think. Which, admittedly, is I
think exactly what I did to Darat (though I am not sure as he has yet to come back to clarify his position), so I can't really be offended for you guys doing to me what I did to him first.
Just because I say one thing (not being able to enjoy sex or having sex be forever painful) is WORSE than something else (Type I FGM and MGM) does not diminish the seriousness of the less harmful thing. Also, even though MGM is the less harmful of these two, it doesn't deserve to be talked about any less. Though it is less harmful, MGM is, in my opinion, actually a MORE important topic for Americans to discuss because 1. It is relevant to our culture and 2. It is still a widely accepted practice here in the States, while FGM is almost universally condemned. This argument really just came about because I thought Darat WAS saying that MGM is the same as ANY type of FGM. If I had not made that misunderstanding, I wouldn't have even brought up the issue of FGM at all.
But do you understand my position a bit more now? I just really don't want to argue with you further on this, because from what I can tell, we're in agreement on this subject, you simply misunderstood me. Unless of course you DO actually think routine male circumcision is just as bad as a person not being able to ever enjoy sex and perhaps even be tortured by sex? But you generally seem like a reasonable fellow, so I highly doubt you are making that argument.
I think I misunderstood what Darat said, which caused me to derail the thread to the issue of FGM. This is not a thread about FGM but about MGM, so now that I see my misunderstanding, I think the most appropriate thing would be to get back on topic to the original point of discussion. Please excuse my derail.
