Norway seeking to ban circumcision

  • Page

    of 5 First / Last

    Previous
  • Deleted user 18 June 2012 09:10:55
    As you may imagine, religious types are not happy.

    Even without the ban they seem to be going for a "rebrand" where instead of calling it circumcision they're going to call it "male genital mutilation".

    Bit of a tricky one, this. I can see the logic in trying to restrict the practise of forcefully harming children but I can also see why Jewish peeps my find the whole notion of a widespread ban a bit hard to take, given it's written in the Torah and all.
  • Zomoniac 18 Jun 2012 09:15:59 7,989 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I know a few people with them who've all had them for medical reasons rather than cultural. What would happen in those instances?
  • MrTomFTW Moderator 18 Jun 2012 09:18:09 39,782 posts
    Seen 17 seconds ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    What are the non-religious reasons for having it done anyway? Purely hygenic?

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • Tonka 18 Jun 2012 09:22:07 21,354 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's a tricky area. In sweden it's forbidden to perform female circumcision, even with the womans consent (the idea being that she will be forced by her family anyways).

    Yet plenty of women do plastic surgery on their labidas every year. So, as it works right now, white christian females can do whatever they want to their sexes and their darker sisters of strange religions can't.

    And how about piercings?

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • Dangerous_Dan 18 Jun 2012 09:25:17 2,378 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @Tonka white christian women can perform female circumcision there and their dark sisters of strange religions can't get plastic surgery?
  • TheSaint 18 Jun 2012 09:26:04 14,833 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Just ban it for non-medical reasons for anyone under eighteen. That way if people still want it for religious reasons then that's fine but they have to wait to make the decision themselves.
  • LeoliansBro 18 Jun 2012 09:27:52 44,957 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Bit of an odd one. I suppose boob jobs are out as well.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Tonka 18 Jun 2012 09:27:57 21,354 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    @Dangerous_Dan Yes.

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • sport 18 Jun 2012 09:29:08 12,811 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    You can't get AIDS if you're circumcised.
  • Dangerous_Dan 18 Jun 2012 09:29:14 2,378 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @Tonka - Sounds unjust.
  • AcidSnake 18 Jun 2012 09:29:19 7,298 posts
    Seen 45 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I don't think it is rebranding really, it basically just is male genital mutilation...

    @Zomaniac:
    Well, I'd say it would work much like removing a limb, if the doctors say it needs to come off for medical reasons fine...If a priest says so (or Rabbi in this case) then hell no...

    AcidSnake - He can't see your sig, avatar, images or vids and talks about himself in the third person because he's proper old-skool...UID 24017

  • sport 18 Jun 2012 09:29:55 12,811 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Bit of an odd one. I suppose boob jobs are out as well.
    Boob jobs for babies are, yes.
  • Tonka 18 Jun 2012 09:30:43 21,354 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    @TheSaint

    I agree with your idea but medical reasons could arise before the age of 18. There needs to be a scale I guess.

    Or, if a doctor says it's something that has to be done and it's done at a hospital with anesthetics it's fine.

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • Tonka 18 Jun 2012 09:31:31 21,354 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    @Dangerous_Dan Absolutely. No doubt about it. Racist even. And patronizing.

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • StarchildHypocrethes 18 Jun 2012 09:36:11 26,618 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Guess Iíll be steering clear of Norg porn from now on.

    I love a good engorged purple head. Flappy foreskins put me right off my stroke.
  • dr_swin 18 Jun 2012 09:41:37 4,915 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    DDevil wrote:
    What are the non-religious reasons for having it done anyway? Purely hygenic?
    Usually when people have Phimosis, a scarred foreskin that is difficult/impossible to retract that leads to problems passing urine or having sex.
  • MetalDog 18 Jun 2012 09:47:43 23,920 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The comparison to female genital mutilation seems a bit wonky, given that female circumcision is often all about men trying to prevent any sexual pleasure whatsoever in their females and often results in a lifetime of pain for the women - which is usually not true for male circumcision, is it?

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • neilka 18 Jun 2012 09:51:37 16,532 posts
    Seen 51 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Down with bris kind of thing

    BAAANG!!!!! EXPLOTION!!!!!

  • Dirtbox 18 Jun 2012 09:52:03 79,210 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It sort of is actually, but it's not as drastic.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • elstoof 18 Jun 2012 09:56:35 8,316 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I don't ge the hygiene angle. I wash my old chap at least twice a day and have no problems, if I lop a bit off how much cleaner are we talking? Can I go a week between scrubs?
  • Dirtbox 18 Jun 2012 09:57:00 79,210 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Tonka wrote:
    It's a tricky area. In sweden it's forbidden to perform female circumcision, even with the womans consent (the idea being that she will be forced by her family anyways).

    Yet plenty of women do plastic surgery on their labidas every year. So, as it works right now, white christian females can do whatever they want to their sexes and their darker sisters of strange religions can't.

    And how about piercings?
    Just the most bizarre set of comparisons I've ever read. Wtf does plastic surgery or piercings have to do with slicing a girl's clit off with a razorblade?

    Edited by Dirtbox at 09:58:08 18-06-2012

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Dirtbox 18 Jun 2012 09:58:29 79,210 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Slicing a girl's clit off with a razor blade.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • neilka 18 Jun 2012 09:59:58 16,532 posts
    Seen 51 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    There's one for your match.com "interests" section.

    BAAANG!!!!! EXPLOTION!!!!!

  • MetalDog 18 Jun 2012 10:03:17 23,920 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    They go a lot further than cutting off the clitoris a lot of the time. It's incredibly nasty.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • sport 18 Jun 2012 10:04:58 12,811 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    What's this "clitoris" you all keep talking about?
  • neilka 18 Jun 2012 10:05:00 16,532 posts
    Seen 51 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Do they hide it in her prawn cocktail at dinner the next day?

    BAAANG!!!!! EXPLOTION!!!!!

  • prawnking1980 18 Jun 2012 10:07:26 5,215 posts
    Seen 7 seconds ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Dirtbox wrote:
    Slicing a girl's clit off with a razor blade.
    Seems a little harsh.
    It is done with a Gillette Pro Glide, not complete animals.
  • chopsen 18 Jun 2012 10:10:26 16,290 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    Tonka wrote:
    It's a tricky area. In sweden it's forbidden to perform female circumcision, even with the womans consent (the idea being that she will be forced by her family anyways).

    Yet plenty of women do plastic surgery on their labidas every year. So, as it works right now, white christian females can do whatever they want to their sexes and their darker sisters of strange religions can't.

    And how about piercings?
    Just the most bizarre set of comparisons I've ever read. Wtf does plastic surgery or piercings have to do with slicing a girl's clit off with a razorblade?
    I think the point he is making, in a slightly odd way, is about what can happen with consent. You can consent to have plastic surgery, body modification, have implants etc, but can't consent to have to have circumcision/FGM as a woman. You can't get it done even if you are a competent adult and aware of all the ins and outs.

    It's a bit of a wonky argument, because consent is not the *only* issue to consider. If a competent adult wanted their arm cut off, no surgeon would offer to do it. I guess you could argue that no genuinely competent person would consent to have their arm cut off, but then you could say the same about FGM for similar reasons.

    There is probably an interesting point here though, buried under the misguidedness.

    Edited by Chopsen at 10:10:49 18-06-2012
  • Page

    of 5 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply