I believe in individual freedom, not giving some people the freedom to deny freedom to other people. That includes limiting the rights people have over their children's bodies and beliefs.
Also, it’s tangential to your principle, but do you think it matters that circumcision has a visual purpose (right or wrong) of projecting masculine sexuality, and that FGM is designed to suppress female sexuality?
-
-
Circumcision among non-Jews in America was also about preventing sexual pleasure and decreasing masturbation, tho. But I genuinely don't know how circumcision projects masculine sexuality. We don't have it much here & I'm not aware of connotations like this for cut men.
-
It’s not complicated. A circumcised penis shows more, and looks more like an erect penis. It exposes what is concealed. Circumcised penises are extremely dominant in porn, which can be presumed to not have inhibition of masturbation as a concern. 1/2
-
OK, but I think this would have to be widely accepted and here we just accept that most men aren't circumcised and circumcised ones take a bit of getting used to.
-
Yes, and here it’s the opposite. What I’m getting at is that FGM is a horror, it’s both illegal and ignored, and you’re going after the 11 Jews who haven’t yet been driven out of the UK. +5 points for intellectual consistency, -20 for moral relevance.
-
I've explained the problem with whataboutism. I have actually spent considerably more time addressing FGM but even if I hadn't, it would be a pointless and presumptuous fallacy to tell me I shouldn't focus on individual choice in terms of MGM coz FGM exists.
-
Whataboutism is not a fair basis for dismissing an argument about proportion. It’s a basis for dismissing an argument about equivalence.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.