Circumcision is a very different animal to FGM. FGM is a cultural practice to oppress women by reducing their ability to enjoy Sex. Circumcision is a religious practice that enhances sexual function and reduces risk of HIV and STDs
-
-
-
First off, no one said anything about FGM. Secondly, how can removing a part of your anatomy that contains 20,000 nerve ending increase sexual pleasure? And since you are circumcised you can go around having unprotected sex? (Con’t)...
-
People still use condoms even after being circumcised which defeats the purpose of being circumcised for the STD and AIDS argument. Also, over 82% of men are circumcised yet this country still has a high HIV/AIDS rate compared to countries (Con’t)...
-
in the UK that practice circumcision at much lower rates (a little over 3%). Also in America, circumcision is used largely for aesthetics which is not a valid reason to cut someone’s penis. Some claim it’s for medical reasons but those medical illnesses can be avoided (Con’t)
-
simply by conducting good hygiene. In regards to Muslim religion there is no mention of circumcision in the Qur’an. And for Judaism they do speak of circumcision as being a covenant between Abraham and God but the Torah also (Con’t)
-
prohibits marking or altering the body in lev 19:28. The Encyclopedia Judaica also states that ‘any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not.’
-
If you’d like to do further research for yourself please feel free.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There’s discussions to be had. But I don’t think it’s productive to use the “consent” analogy. Trying to leverage discussions about sexual harassment and rape to boost circumcision awareness seems dirty.
-
Getting a part of your penis cut off against your will is as the term you used “dirty”. You can consent to being hugged. You can consent to being kissed. But from your perspective if I use it in terms of not being able to consent to having your dick cut, it’s dirty? Lol ok
-
Are you purposefully twisting what I said? If you have two completely disparate political causes, even if they are *both* worth defending, then it’s dirty to leverage language from one just to bolster the other.
-
I didn’t twist anything. Consent is about permission which babies can’t give. If you’re upset about me using a word to perfectly describe a situation then that is on you.
-
The common understanding of the modern day use of “consent” in cultural discussions is, 99.999999% of the time, going to be about sexual behavior between people. Not circumcision. You’re hijacking one cause to bolster another one.
-
So your definition of consent strictly means rape and I’m using it as being able to give permission which is a valid way to use the term but ok. Thanks have a good day.
-
"Consent" is a broad term not limited to sexual assault. I find it endlessly fascinating to hear MEN claim that using it to address circumcision waters down the meaning for sexual assault. Stop worrying about semantics and gather your people "other men" to end rape culture.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks for making a great point.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
His Body His Right.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Or before.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Did the Documentary show how many of the over billion blokes who are alive today having been circumcised, complaining about it or are you just offended on behalf of us circumcised blokes ?
-
I wonder if all the boys who died as a result of being circumcised got to be interviewed.
End of conversation
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.