boyfriday Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Dont be stupid. Thats not even close to what was said:loopy: I didn't suggest it was, I was posing a question-hence the question mark that punctuated my comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 I hope not. It has nothing to do with religion before anyone starts It is an awful form of abuse which needs to be stopped. I can't help but think the scarring this must have on the poor girls in life that it is done too Is there a law that protets girls from having this done in the UK? I am not so sure about your first statement. At best, Islam condones it, at worst it sanctions it. There is a film a friend linked to and I have put on my website. It graphically illustrates the violence meted out to women in some Islamic countries. I found it truly shocking and had to force myself to watch it. This is a family forum so I'm not putting on a link. I also think it abhorrent that male circuncision is not seen as child abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 It's a legitimate point, that relate to a double standard. Female circumcision is rightly condemned without much need for a deep analysis of the cultural reasons for it. However performing unnecessary surgery on young males purely for religious/cultural reasons seems to be an accepted part of our culture and has been for many years. Not legitimate because the two are not the same as you admit. Not legitimate either when you look at the thread title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
js2012 Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 I didn't suggest it was, I was posing a question-hence the question mark that punctuated my comment. No, what you were doing was infering that was said in the form of a question. Thus being able to back out should you be called on it. A bit guttless if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 So would you be relaxed about female circumcision if it didn't interfere with the females sexual pleasure?In my opinion, I can't see any point of comparison between the two things. The nomenclature is wrong in describing both procedures as 'circumcision'. Using the same term for infibulation/FGM-C makes it sounds quite innocuous in a way. The male procedure involves removing a piece of loose skin which can be dispensed with without interfering in any major way with bodily functions. Millions of men have been circumcised over the years and very few of them have any complaints. They don't even realise that they're missing anything. You only have to read any of the links which have been supplied to realise the difference in the lifetime effects of the two procedures. The follow on effects of FBM on sex life and child birth can be truly horrific. Although why I'm wasting my time answering what Grahame so rightly describes as pot stirring, I'm not quite sure. Perhaps because I fear credulous people may be misled by your comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Not legitimate because the two are not the same as you admit. I'm raising the point because in essence we're talking about unnecessary surgery being carried out on children, the reasons for justifying male circumcision lack credibility in my opinion because they're done for religious, rather than medical reasons on a child who is unable to consent to this surgery. The consequences of female circumcision may be worse, but that doesn't make male circumcision right, I would condemn both activities. Not legitimate either when you look at the thread title. Nor was your irrelevant accusation that I was 'stirring it', which was less related to the thread than my post was that offended you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 If this thread degenerates into bickering it will be closed and further action will be taken against individual posters. Keep it on topic please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Although why I'm wasting my time answering what Grahame so rightly describes as pot stirring, I'm not quite sure. Perhaps because I fear credulous people may be misled by your comment? Thanks you weren't required to waste your time responding to my post, frankly it doesn't surprise me that you agree with Grahame's assessment of my motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 No, what you were doing was infering that was said in the form of a question. Thus being able to back out should you be called on it. A bit guttless if you ask me. Dont let it worry you, the poster I responded to is well able to defend their corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
js2012 Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Dont let it worry you, the poster I responded to is well able to defend their corner. Its not the point. The point is you were trying to infere someone had said something they hadent. A cowardly act and one your trying to brush under the carpet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.