OMGosh! Folks on DU who railed about Genetalia Piercing/Defilement

[KoKo]

get into "flame wars" because the state of Georgia (USA) comes out with a law against it!! Hypocracy to the Max, here.

Let me be free to "pierce my genetalia" as a female, but I will "fight to the death over African Customs about "snipping" female genetalia so they can be "virgins" for the rest of their lives.

Oh...give me a break. I should be free to "pierce my genetalia for pleasure, but deny those who think it's "social custom" to be virginial?

:shrug: as I said...hypocracy to the MAX! UGH!!!

Edited: typo

[kiahzero]

1. Where's the hypocrisy?

Forced clitorectomy vs. not allowing a woman to pierce her genetalia.

Not the same thing... did I miss something?

[KoKo]

6. Excuse Me.........you really don't see a difference?

:shrug:

[kiahzero]

13. No, I do see the difference

That's why I was confused by the charge of hypocrisy.

On Edit: Now that I've read the rest of the thread, how about a detailed explaination of where this hypocrisy comes from?

[boobooday]

2. But isn't there an important difference?

That is, whether or not it is the woman's choice? Or whether it is a decision made for her.


http://www.wgoeshome.com

[KoKo]

11. Choice.....what is "choice?"

Zen

[vi5]

12. Uh...deciding something for myself...

..versus having someone else decide it for me?

Personally I learned that in grade school but if you didn't get to that yet....

[Selwynn]

3. Thank you for your edifying and inspirational post.

We appreciate you doing your part to contribute to quality discussions and posting even while others may not. Your example is a shining light in dark places, and a becond of hope for all...

[KoKo]

23. Thanks..Selwynn.........I'm the DU Hypocracy Monitor.....not really...but

I do try to pick up stuff like this.......

What are we thinking here?????? :shrug:

[Selwynn]

37. I'm thinking you don't get sarcasm.

[Guaranteed]

59. You too, Selwynn.

Really.

[Bunny]

4. I don't understand.

Are you saying that people who want the right to knowingly consent to piercing their clitorises are being hypocritical for fighting against the custom of involuntarily removing the clitorises of young girls, in unclean conditions, to deny them sexual pleasure for the rest of their lives?

I think there is a HUGE difference between the two.

Or am I missing your point?:shrug:

[Selwynn]

5. You're not missing anything, and you're completely correct.

[KoKo]

7. Yes. I'm saying exactly that. n/t

[Bunny]

8. Well okay then.

It's still America, and you are still entitled to your opinion. I do not understand it, nor agree with it at all, but that is not the point.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. Please, that's what they like to do

1) Person A posts incredibly outlandish opinion
2) person B says "you're a (whatever)"
3) Person B gets a mod warning and deleted message
4) Person A wins.

Mind the sign - don't feed...

[Selwynn]

40. Bite me. :)

Feels good to break a rule now and then, doens't it? :)

I'm not stupid - but today I also don't give a damn.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

119. *CHOMP*

Pffft. Too raw. :evilgrin:

[oldcoot]

28. Do you think that people who drink but support a minimum

drinking age are hypocritical? Our legal system recognizes the differences between adults and children. Adults are generally allowed to make their own decisions about body markings, piercings, drinking, etc. However, most states and the federal government have laws regulating children's activities and parents' behavior toward their children. So I really see nothing hypocritical in criticizing Georgia for prohibiting adult women from getting pierced.

[RapidCreek]

43. Wow that's pretty wierd

so there is no difference between you choosing to stick a spike through your clit and me knocking you down, choping it off with a set of side cutters, abraiding your labia and sewing them closed so you may urinate but nothing else?

Interesting.

RC

[mulethree]

91. ?involuntary?

You raise a girl to believe it's good for her. That she won't get a good husband unless she does it. That the "sensations" she's felt before the operation are evil.

And so she permits it to be done, voluntarily just like her brother was proud to jam a spike through his nose when he "came of age".

No she doesn't know what she's missing, perhaps her mom and grandma underwent the same thing and also have no clue, except it's custom and necessary for the marriage they want to arrange.

The same girl might later practice the custom of using an astringent in her vagina to ensure it's dry for extra friction and extra pleasure for her man, though substantial pain for her and promoting bleeding for both which greatly increases the chances for HIV to spread.

Yes there are still stone age people in the world.

I think it's sick, but might think different if I was raised in their culture.

Being an American, I still can't decide which would disgust me more, knowing it was involuntary and forced on her, or knowing it was voluntary by way of ignorance.

[vi5]

9. Huh? Explain to me how its the same?

That's like saying someone who thinks rape is bad but has sex is a hypocrite.

Or someone who is pro-choice but thinks that a country practicing forced abortion is wrong.

One is a person's individual choice to do something with their own body.

The other is a government or a religion telling them that they MUST do something to their body.

[KoKo]

Okay.... I can put a "ring with a jewel" in my clit, but I will rail

against a tribal custom by another country which thinks "clit" circumcision is within their guidlines for their culture.

Hey..what about circumcision for Males in OUR culture?

[Trajan]

18. They REMOVE THE CLITORUS ...

cmon ... you cannot be serious ...

[vi5]

20. If you have an argument here...it's completely lost...

and judging from the other responses, I'm not the only one.

If it's a custom that the women voluntarily partake of then that is their choice. In Africa, in Georgia, wherever. But when it's forced then I have an issue on it.

No government or religion forced my parents to have me circumcized, They decided for themselves. And having seend guys in locker rooms who didn't have it done I have to say I thank them every day.

If you want to compare circumcision in male babies to clitoris removal in young girls then you may have a point. But that doesn't seem to be what you are arguing here.

But thinking that there shouldn't be a law saying a grown woman can't do to her body what she wants is quite different from any of the customs you are talking about.

[KoKo]

29. I'm saying that how does "Genetalia Piercing" as an adult equate with

"clitoral removal" for tribal/religious/whatever circumstances in young African females "EQUATE?"

If I do if "because I'm an adult for my own pleasure" but rail against other folks "religious tribal customs" isn't it really hypocratic?

IOW's: Custom vs Pleasure? Pleasure vs Religion" "Religion vs Pleasure," "Mutilation vs Pleasure?" or "Pleasure vs Mutilation?"

It's about "Questions and Western Thought Hypocracy," to me...that's what I'm saying..

:shrug:

[vi5]

31. Huh? Oh my lord this is confusing.....

If someone as an adult is choosing to do it for a custom that they choose to partake in then more power to them. Whether it's some punk from Athens, Georgia or a tribeswoman from zimbabwe. If it's an adult making a choice that they choose to partake in be it cultural in any way then I don't give a crap.

But if you can't see the difference between someone choosing to do something to their own body and being forced to do something to their body then clearly logic is an elusive concept.

And I believe it is "hypocricy", although I'm no dictionary.

Hypocricy would be denying one person a choice that I'm willing to gran another person. As I said its the difference between rape and consensual sex. Between a woman choosing to have an abortion versus a woman being forced to have an abortion against her will.

If you were making the argument of genital mutilation versus male circumcision you'd have a leg to stand on. But this seems like just babbling for the sake of starting an argument.

[RapidCreek]

44. No it's not hypocrital

Not in the least. It might be if mothers pierced their pre-pubescent daughters clits to give them future sexual gratification...but that is not the case.

If you decided to cut off your arm for the hell of it...would it be the same as your mother deciding to cut it off because god told her too? According to your logic I guess the answer is yes.

RC

[Rex]

100. What if a girl who lives in the tribe doesn't want to follow custom?

Should she be allowed the right to say no? I can rail against a culture that would FORCE her to have her clitoris removed, against her will...wouldn't you?

I believe people are railing against a woman being forced and you are confused about the issue. No wait, maybe I am. :shrug:

[kiahzero]

33. So, I guess since you support elective surgery

It's all good if the state chops of your head.

[Terran]

35. I can't believe this...

You're a woman, and you're *this* ignorant about this subject?? You are way, way, appallingly way off-base here. Hypocrisy my ass. Get a GD clue.

[Cleita]

14. I really don't know what you are saying.

African genitalia mutilation is usually done to prepubecent young girls, some as young as nine years old and usually eleven or twelve. I think of it as child abuse. I know many men are going to pop up about their circumcisions, however, circumcised men can still enjoy sex.

[KoKo]

17. Oh....I agree with you about this...but it's still "Hypocracy." n/t

[Trajan]

15. KoKo ? ... are you drunk ? ...

Sheeesh ...

It's Hypocrisy ...

It's Genitalia ...

[KoKo]

21. ROFL!, "Trajan" oh that I really was having too much of the "nip" about

this...:D No! it's about our ability to be so much into hypocracy...

really...

[Dhalgren]

46. "You keep-a usin' tha word,

but I don think it means wha you think it means."

[KoKo]

50. ????

[Dhalgren]

125. "INCONCEIVABLE!" Get it?

[SidDithers]

134. I did...

very clever :)

Sid

[terisel]

16. The law doesn't apply to men. what does that tell you ? n/t

[KoKo]

24. Can one imagine a "man" going through excruciating pain for a "jewled

piercing ring" into his ....package???

I don't know if there would be many volunteers in any culture...

So, I get what you say....but don't think it's applicable...but get it.

Ugh...

[vi5]

25. Uh, yeah...I can imagine about 5 or 6 people I know personally

Maybe I'm not the norm but in my circle of friends, family, and aquaintances alone I know 5 or 6 guys with Prince Albert piercings (genitals).

You keep jumping around here quite a bit.

[KoKo]

51. I don't know the people you know... about "Prince Alberts" so, yes, it's

my "own" perspective...I don't know anyone who would pierce their male or female genetalia...but I also don't know anyone who clips their prepubescent females, either.

However, I do know that the Southern US has huge African Immigrants so if they come here and want to practice what's in their culture, how can one say that it's wrong for families to practice "rituals" and right for others to "do what they want?" Which is "Prince Albert's (if that's the correct term) or whatever females want to do for piercings just because they are adults and not tribal Africans?

[nonconformist]

79. You really don't seem to know what you're talking about

Body piercings, including genital piercings, are not all that uncommon among both men and women. Less popular than tattoo's are, but along the same lines. Forced genital mutilation of pre-pubescent girls is both child and sexual abuse. There isn't even a comparison to make. I like the analogy above about it being akin to being a hypocrite because you are against rape but enjoy sex.

Unfortunately, the representative that pushed for the genital piercings amendment was so socially out of touch he claimed to have no idea that adults actually, *gasp*, DID that sort of thing. As he should have before even introducing such an amendment, you should research what you're talking about before you make broad accusations of hypocrisy that are without merit. You're comparing apples to buffalo.

[FreeState]

22. What?

You do know that the African Custom of snipping of the clitoris is done on CHILDREN who can not decide if thats what they want? It stops the child from ever having an orgasm! It should be banned IMO.

Adults wanting to pierce there genetalia is so different. Its an adult deciding to do somethiong very personal. BTW piercing ones genitals as a femail does not remove the clitoris and still allows the woman to orgasm.

How is that hypocracy? They are not even related.

[KoKo]

26. So, what you are saying is: I'ts Age of Consent?" Is that it? n/t

[kiahzero]

34. No, it's the concept of forced surgery vs. elective surgery

Child abuse vs. right to privacy as an adult, and a host of other issues.

[KoKo]

39. See...my problems is that it's the principle of ANY gentialia mutilation

whether forced or by consent. It seems hypocratic to me..sorry ...it does...

[kiahzero]

41. But that's not the issue at all

As I said below... making that the issue is like attacking all surgery, because you're against the the state forcing a surgeon to chop of your head.

[shekina]

27. what?

Lemme get this straight, it's against the law to gt your genitals pierced in Georgia?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. Now it is -- if you're a woman

But since the law was intended to prohibit forced genital mutilation (like it's done in some African countries) it's OK </sarcasm>

The added prohibition of piercing was sneakily added just before the vote. Now where have I seen THIS tactic before?

[KoKo]

52. Your objection is that GA legislature is using this as first step against

female "right to choose" over abortion? IOW's the "piercing" was added at the last minute? :shrug:

[LividLiberal]

32. The difference is choice, well partially

The Georgia law is outright banning of piercing, and the so called custom in Africa is a barbaric practice of genital mutilation - clitorectomy, that prevents the female from ever having any sexual pleasure. This is a forced practice, not a voluntary one.

There is no comparison between the two, and a position against both is not hipocrisy.

[theHandpuppet]

36. Here are the facts...

... about the practice of female genital mutilation: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm

There's a world of difference between an adult woman who decides to get a body piercing and the girls who are forced to undergo this type of mutilation.

I don't quite understand why you see the objection to FGM as hypocritical, but I have to admit your posts left me totally confused. Therefore, I'm just posting the facts.

[Selwynn]

38. This topic reflects an inexcusable failure to exercise sound judgement.

That is also known as being asinine. Note: asinine - marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment.

Let's put it in another context:

If someone tried to pass a law that said you are not allowed to dye your hair red, I would have a problem with that.

However, if someone grabed you and forcefully dyed your hair red against your will, I would ALSO have a probelm with that.

There is no hyporcrisy in being for the individual liberty - it is individual liberty to make a choice about your own body; it is individual liberty to speak out against choices being made for you against your will about your own body.

In fact, the only one being hypocritical here, is you.

[KoKo]

42. No....dying one's hair red is a "follicular choice." Hair is "dead" once

it grows out of the follicles. (check foresic stuff if you don't believe this...Google.)

But, genetalia is "living body part" which isn't like hair or nails, which are subject to "extensions" beyond living body functions.

So, to me (that's ME) the question of "snipping, cutting, removal of clitoral parts for females for "sexual reasons" is no different from "piercing of genetalia for sexual enhancement or adornment" than what is done in "tribal practices."

Now, if you want to equate adult consensual agreement over whether to "pierce for sexual enhancement or adornment" ...I say it's the same.

The question is whether it's Male Domination that would "force" clitoral snipping on pre-pubescent females is the same as an adult female requesting a "piercing" in genetalia because it enhances sexual pleasure or is for purposes of adornment.

I say..."Who are we to decide whether "culture takes presidence over choice?"

Edited: spelling

[Hell Hath No Fury]

47. Consent vs. "cultural choice"...

That is what is at issue. If a grown woman due to cultural choice wants to have her clitoris lopped off and her labia cut and sewn shut, I say fine, knock yourself. (I would think she is insane, buit that is MY choice.) If a grown woman due to an esthetic choice wants to have a bar/ring put in her clitoris, I say fine, knock yourself out.

The grown woman in BOTH cases is giving her consent to a procedure.

When faced with the procedure and the woman (girl) doesn't give her consent or the decision is made for her by others -- whether the choice is cultural or esthetic -- it is just dead wrong.

There is no hypocrisy there.

And of you don't think the boys aren't willing to have all SORTS of interesting things done to their genitalia, you need to broaden your world a bit.

Stop off at any piercing clinic and look through their books -- have you ever seen a ballsack with a dozen bars through it and a penis head with the biggest ring you've ever seen hanging from it?

I thought not....

[Kool Kitty]

49. The difference here is the mutilation of a child versus

choosing to pierce a part of your body. The child that is subject to genital mutilation, the person that chooses to have a body part pierced is making that choice. Is it the piercing that you have a problem with? I don't understand what the argument is here. Am I that dense?

[KoKo]

54. What if a 5 or 7 year old sees on CNN that getting a "clitoral stud" is

cool and convinces their Mom or Dad to have this done? What if J-Lo or Brittany do this and a 10 or 12 year old want this done and equate this with just getting ear's pierced? What's the difference if a prepubescent American kid wants to do this as opposed to "Tribal Elders" imposing clitoral elimination on African females? Is it a "status" question? Tribal custom or vanity, or fitting in? :shrug:

[Kool Kitty]

55. How many parents of a 5 or 7 year old would take their

child to get a genital stud? Even a 10 or 12 year old has to get their parents permission. Come on. I went with my sister when she got her nose pierced (she's 49) and the place won't do piercings or tattoos for anyone less than 18 years of age. There is a huge difference.

[KoKo]

But what if they "didn't" have to get parent's permission? Laws?

Why is that law applicable? Why should there be a law about this if every human has a right to their own body and what they do with it?

Edite: typo

[Kool Kitty]

58. You know, I don't even know why this is a question.

There are all kinds of laws, some good, some bad. Genital mutilation of children is bad, body piercing if that is your choice and you're of age, is fine. I don't see the age of consent for tattoos and piercing being lowered. It's like having to be 21 to drink. I don't understand why this is a problem for you. If you don't want to get pierced, don't.

[Selwynn]

103. The fact remains:

There is no hyporcrisy in being for the individual liberty - it is individual liberty to make a choice about your own body; it is individual liberty to speak out against choices being made for you against your will about your own body.

"I say..."Who are we to decide whether "culture takes presidence over choice?"

When "culture" violates individual rights.

If may be "culture" to cerimonially rape young women. That does not make it right.

If an adult woman wants to participate freely in a cultural ritual that's one thing - one thing that is on part to a womans personal, free, uncoerced choice to do something herself.

However,

If any woman is forced to particulate in a cultural ritual against her will, that is violation in the extreme, and fundamentally contrary to every principle of freedom we know.

It's not really too complicated.

[Dhalgren]

121. If it were the custom in some part of the world to cut off a child's

right hand. And people wanted to come here and cut off children's hands that would be wrong and we as a society should stop it. If, however, an adult decides, FOR WHATEVER REASON, to have his/her own hand removed, that is his/her business and none of yours.

[Guaranteed]

62. So...alright...you're saying that it's ethically permissable for

someone to mutilate themselves, while it's not alright for someone else to do it?

[Selwynn]

104. Close ~

It is "ethically" permissable for a person to make PERSONAL CHOICES about what is appropriate for themselves and what isn't, while it is not alright for someone else to force violation on them against their will.

Your personal "ethical" conviction is that it is "mutilation." But thankfully for the rest of us free folk, I am free to make decisions about myself, for myself. Also thankfully, I am, in theory, free FROM the forceful violation of my freedom by others.

It is okay for me to make decisions about my own body, reguarless of what you think of them. It is not ok for you to force what you think I should do with my body onto me or anyone else. It is, with all due respoct, none of your FUCKING business.

[theHandpuppet]

113. Case in point...

There are some cases (rare, but they exist ) of grown men who have interpreted certain passages of the Bible to endorse castration as a sign of faith and rejection of the flesh. Personally, I may think they're nuts (no pun intended) but if they want to have their balls removed because they believe it brings them closer to God, then bring out the pruning shears and let them have at it.

However, I don't think holding down an eight-year-old child so some adults can lop off his balls to please a Christian God would be acceptable on the basis of "custom" or the wishes of some society's version of God. That's child abuse and the adults belong behind bars.

(Personally, I think circumcision should be a personal choice to be made by adult men, but that pales by comparison to FGM.)

I have to admit the argument of the original poster has left me totally confused, so I'm probably wasting some bandwidth here in supporting your post. I'm apparently missing what appears to us to be the obvious.

[Guaranteed]

135. Again, don't tell me what I'm saying.

I'm not saying piercing is mutilation. I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT PIERCING, HERE. STICK TO THE POINT.

And it's exactly your cover-all, immature "I get to do whatever IIIIIIII want with MYYYYYYY body" argument that I'm attacking. It doesn't hold up, so find another one.

[BiggJawn]

45. When you turn 21, rip your Clit out by the ROOTS if you want.

but don't cut off your baby's clitoris!
You mean to tell me there was a flame war over this?

Why?

Full Moon's over a week away...

[patchdickens]

48. HAVE YOU HEARD WHAT ALL IS ILLEGAL IN GEORGIA?

back in the 60's, making love with the lights on was illegal. from what i understand, this hasn't been changed. several illegal sexual positions have been banned from hotel rooms by having silhouettes representing the illegal positions with a circle and a bar going through the center of them. this was a big seller when the Olympics were going on in the 90's. someone needs to re-evaluate these laws and update them. but,please,please, make sure you turn you lights off tonight if you are in the mood in Georgia.. ha ha

[KoKo]

53. Didn't GA and other states try to sterilize females? Yes....I know but

my point is how can you be against cultural/tribal "genital mutilation" but say it's okay for US teenage girls and others to get "piercings" for adornment or sexual enhancement?

[Kool Kitty]

56. Because they don't do piercings or tattoos

on minors in this country. There is no comparison between sterilization and body piercing. None.

[KoKo]

60. I hear what you say, but the African "clitoral snipping" is to suppress

sexual enhancement so that the females will remain "virginal" unless the reports I've read are wrong about this.

So, to me...it's "piercing to enhance sexual attraction/excitement against "removal" to supress it. :shrug: (maybe you all feel I'm being too simplistic, here)

[Kool Kitty]

63. People mostly get piercings because they like the way it

looks, you know, earrings or nose rings or nipple rings. I don't see how having a piercing in your labia could enhance sexual pleasure, but to each his/her own. I don't think you're too simplistic, but there is no comparison as far as I'm concerned. The female mutilation is done so that the child will grow into a woman that will get no pleasure from sex. It's a repression of women. A labia pierce is something that a woman can choose to get, it's an ornamentation.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

64. It all comes down to the aspect of choice...

most girls subjected to clitoral snipping have no choice in the matter. It is a matter of religion and tradition. This snipping deprives function. This procedure serves a powerful religious purpose: not only does it preserve the "virginal" aspect of the girl, it also preserves the power structure in the patriarchal societies where its practiced.

Whereas clitoral/penile piercing is purely an esoteric choice based on the augmented pleasure it gives. This is undertaken completely at the request of the pierced. And no function is deprived.

The sense is that folks who get genital piercings know what they're getting into and have (in most cases) considered the aftermath. However, a young girl subject to a clitorectomy via religious tradition or dictate, has ZERO choice.

The link between the two is fallacious. The link between them was erroneously made by Georgia and will be most likely overturned.

[Guaranteed]

65. Should people be able to do ANYTHING to themselves

as a matter of choice?

How about chopping off an arm, nose, ear? Is that alright?

How about killing themselves?

[CrownPrinceBandar]

69. Yes.

It all comes down to ownership of one's body. If someone wants to chop off their arm, why not? Its their bodies, why shouldn't they be able to make that choice.

Suicide is another bag of worms. I can't say I condone it, but I am also not suicidal, the whole concept is alien to me. I generally agree that suicide cannot be condoned, as it degrades the sanctity of life in a society. But can you effectively enforce it, other than having a law on the books?

But were talking piercings here, not suicide. That's a big jump. Piercings generally don't deprive one of his/her life.

[Guaranteed]

72. So, you'd let your son or daughter chop off one of their

appendages?

In any case, chopping off an appendage is NOT far from suicide. Seems to me that anyone that is wanting to do something like that most likely IS suicidal.

I'm just wondering how far you're willing to take this autonomy thing. Where's the line? I think you've already passed it, by the way.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

76. That a matter of your opinion....

Piercings do not deprive a person of life, liberty or happiness. Just because I have chosen not to have ANY piercings or tattoos, doesn't mean that I can make that choice for someone else.

Chopping off an appendage is an extreme example that you set. I just said that if a rational adult wants to do it, let 'em have at it! It affects me none. I personally like my arms and legs and want to keep them. My whole point is that it not my choice to determine the rightness of what someone does to their own bodies, as long as it doesn't deprive me or others of my/their rights.

As far as my kids wanting to chop off a limb? They're mine until they're 18. If they choose to chop off their arm on the day after their 18th B-day, its their choice. They are adults at that point and should know the implications of such an act. Its my job to prepare them to make choices, not to make those choices for them.

[Guaranteed]

80. Well, if one of my kids ever decides to do something as crazy as

lopping off an arm, I'm locking em up until they come to their senses, no matter what age they are. That goes for friends and any other relatives, too. And the government should be making sure that its people aren't doing crazy stuff like that.

Even as "extreme" as my example of chopping off appendages is, you have no objection to letting your own kids do it- as long as they're 18 years old. That's a pretty extreme point of view, in my opinion.

I know piercings are different- but they're not THAT different. You're using autonomy as an argument, and it's a very powerful one, but you oughta be careful with it. When people clearly aren't acting rationally, you can't respect their autonomy anymore.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

85. Well yeah...

thats why I put the premium on rationality. If a person is not in possession of their senses, then they cannot make rational decisions. At that point, you can justify censuring or prohibiting dangerous or unreasonable behavior.

However, those of us who are deemed rational should be able to do with our bodies as we will, with the caveat I stated in my last post. Aren't they our bodies? Where would you have government regulations start? And most importantly, where would it stop? What if Congress decreed tomorrow that clipping one's toenails is self-mutilation? Would you be behind that? I'm being silly, of course, but I hope you can see my point: How much governance of a person's body is acceptable and not an infringement on personal freedoms? Drinking alcohol is inherently dangerous. It mutilates our livers. However, history has shown what happened when the government tried to outlaw drinking. It didn't work.

I never said I approve of my children lopping off a limb after they're 18, I said that I cannot make that decision for them. Do I think its stupid and self-defeating? Yes. But as supposedly rational adults, they have a right to make that choice. My folks complained when I grew my hair long, but they had no power to force me to cut it. I was an adult, it was my decision.

[Selwynn]

106. A child I am responsible for? No. An Adult? Well...

It's not that I wouldn't council against it, even perhaps intervene if I could. But I have a different philosophy that you. I do not believe I hold the power over other accountable human beings (i.e. individual adults) Ultimately I understand that the decision is basically theirs, even if I am strongly against it - if they want to lop off an arm, there is a limit to what I can do to intervene.

But the real problem is not the weird position of that scenario, the real problem is the scenario itself. You present a pretty exteme corner case - there isn't an epidemic of arm chopping in the country today. But I'll tell you what there is an epidemic of, other people who assume they know what is best for me, acosting me, harassing me, threatening me, attempting to indimidate me or guilt me into doing what they "believe" is right "for me."

There is an epidemic of other people - people like you seem to be, I'm sad to say - who continually try to interrupt the free decision making of other people. Telling me I can't pierce my own ear, wear white after labor day, get a tatoo, buy a gun, have an abortion or not or do all the other things that are NO ONES FUCKING BUSINESS BUT MY OWN is a far, far, far bigger problem than worring about a solipsistic hypotehtical about someone who wants to hack their arm off for fun.

Here is the bottom line where we disagree. I believe the answer to your "where is the line?" question is: each person must ultimately define that line for himself or herself. Your answer is apparently, "I'm so certian my "line" is so universally absolutely right for all people that I decree myself to have the authority to tell you where the line is." This clear by saying "I think you've already passed it." Well, friend you know, I don't recognize your authority to decree for me when, where or how I pass any line. That's my rightful call, and I sacrifice that right to noone.

[Guaranteed]

109. The line is whether or not people are being RATIONAL.

And you KNOW the difference.

When people lose their rationality, they lose their autonomy. If someone wants to chop off a limb, they are NUTS. They clearly can't take care of themselves, and, therefore, someone has to step in and do it for them.

And don't tell me the "type of person" I am. You don't know me. And I didn't even say I was against people piercing themselves. I AM against the argument that autonomy allows people to do WHATEVER they want to themselves. Autonomy is extremely important...I'm a hardcore civil libertarian myself, but we can't be letting people deliberately destroy themselves. It's unethical.

[Selwynn]

112. You ask me not to tell you what type of person you are... then..

...proceed to do precisely the same thing to me. :)

And I return you again to the actual point, which is not your hypothetical solipcism, but rather the far, far more pracitical examples where people NOT like you, as you were so hasty to point out, try to tell everyone else what is right and wrong for them.

That is unfortunate.

In in this specific, particular example, it is also a weak argumentation tactic, whether deliberately or indirectly implied. It is weak in the fact that it deliberately exaggerates the issue by ignoring the practical concrete discussion and instead reaching for speculative extremism - probably deliberately so.

For the most part, its not for you to decide what is appropriate or not when it comes to an individuals personal and private decisions about themselves. If there is a question of sanity, that is an entirely different discussion all together. You want to emphasize that in your opinion a perosn who wants to lop off an arm is nuts, FINE. But I then put your own question back on you: Where is the line? Is a person who pierces genitals nuts? Okay, how about other body parts? Okay, how about ears? Ok about about someone who smokes? Ok, how about someone who doesn't excersise enough? How about someone who eats poorly? Ok how aobut someone who drives too fast? Everyday people do thigns that may be harmful to their bodies - where is the line between "sane" and not?

[Selwynn]

114. One more thing...

...but its very late so I hope it makes grammatical sense.

Part of the reason I'm having trouble making the connection between piercing and chopping an arm off is that there's not physical harm involved in piercing. What is the phsyical, biological - whatever - difference between piercing some flesh on one part of your body over another? What is the difference between piercing a labia vs. a ear lobe? It's all flesh, and neither have adverse phsyical consequences that say nailing a spike through your eyeball and into your brain might have.

I think its hard to call it an issue of ones sanity when it has to do with decisions that do no harm, whether you like them or not. Now, whether we can question the sanity of someone who wants to cut their arm off with a hacksaw seems to me to be an entirely unrelated and separate issue. It even gets more thoroughly unrelated when you make the scenario about a minor to which I would be a legal guardian. Now, its clearly apples and oranges.

So we should stick to the issue - getting a piece of my flesh pierced (I have no piercings, for the sake of full disclosure) really isn't any of your concern and well within the bounds of what I think most people would consider the appropriate domain of personal adult decision making.

A point blank question though, to make sure I'm understanding you: are you saying that people who have piercings are legally insane? Or is it just one particular lump of flesh pierced that you have a problem with?

One final edit before bed -- I think we can agree that if you are insane, you may need to lose some rights. For example, it would be good to intervene with someone who is having a complete breakdown and trying to harm themselves, becuase they don't know what they are doing, they may not be capable of sound decision making, and with help and medical care, may recover than thank you deeply for saving/protecting their lives. Okay, that's totally fair. But it begs the question, where is the line between sane and insane? Define it for me. What makes a person insane?

Best answer I've ever come up with is a contexual one that basically says, in the specific context of a specific situation, I'll just use the best judgement I possibly can and then hope to God I was right. :)

S.

[Guaranteed]

117. I'm attacking the argument

that people can do whatever they want with their body, not people's right to get piercings. Although I do think that piercings are pushing the line. You can't go much farther than that without getting into the realm of "You're deliberately destroying your body."

[Guaranteed]

116. What I've brought up is entirely, in fact, is centrally relevant to our

discussion. You say people can do whatever they want to themselves...well, that's an awfully broad reaching statement, now, isn't it? So, I took it to it's limits.

You're just plain wrong. People shouldn't be allowed to kill themselves, except in some cases of terminal illness. Autonomy is given to people that are able to to think rationally, which is tied to their ability take care of themselves and function in society. This is why children aren't allowed to make their own decisions- they don't have the information it takes to think rationally yet, and thus, they can't take care of themselves. By the same token, the second someone gets it in their mind that it's okay to destroy themselves, they have lost their ability to take care of themselves (clearly) and think rationally- therefore, their autonomy no longer has to be (in fact, it should NOT be) respected.

So, no, people can't do whatever they want with their body simply on the cover-all "autonomy" argument.

[Selwynn]

105. It's not for you to decide.

[Guaranteed]

108. So, you're one of these folks that says

if someone wants to kill themselves, go right ahead.

Wow. What an ethicist YOU are.

[Selwynn]

111. That's also, not for you to decide. :)

"Wow. What an ethicist YOU are."

So say you, in your judgment, for whatever that's worth. I correct my subject line - it is for you to decide, for you, what you think of my opinion, for yourself. But as far as how you feel about my decisions, it is not your place, nor do I or should I care all that much. :)

PS - I actually taught a few class sessions of ethics as a guest lecturer at Northwest Nazarene University, 1999-2000. But of course, since I have an opinion which differs from your perfect, universally absolutely indisputably correct one, I clearly am not much of an ethicist. :eyes:

[Guaranteed]

115. So, as an ethicist, you think it's perfectly alright

to allow people to destroy themselves? And I'm not talking about piercings here.

[Selwynn]

130. As an "ethicist" I understand that you are falsely attempting ....

...to take an element of applied ethics and make it an element of normative ethics and that is at the heart of the problem.

Are there times where we should intervene in the decision making of others? Yes. Are there times where - even though we disagree we really have not right to intervene in the decisions of others? Yes. Part of liberty in the society means my freedom to be "wrong" by someone else's standards. I disagree to the core with every belief of the right wing extremist, but living in America means even though I know for certain they are wrong, they still get to be "wrong" by my standards without my asserting my "moral" authority over them and dictating my standards to them.

There are times when the decision of a person to end their own lives (or "destroy" themselves) really is rightfully there decision to make, as you yourself admit to by making the qualification of "except in some cases of terminal illness." And there are times when a person perhaps can not and should not make that decision for themselves. How do we know the difference? Certainly not by trying to elevate the answers to a particular concrete situation to the level of the normative. We do so by doing our best to evaluate the particulars of an applied situation against a more accurate and intuitive normative framework and we use our best judgment.

This is really the heart of the problem: you want a universal concrete answer that says it is an absolute fact that regardless of situation or context, x is wrong. That is impossible. This is not moral relativity that says there are literally no criteria for evaluating the right or wrong of any actions other than the personal opinion of the subject, which is what you think I'm saying but isn't. But the normative criteria for ethical evaluation are not concrete particulars, they are general principles which require interpretation into and through every unique concrete situation. This means that honoring the "absolute" of the normative principle in one situation may lead to very different action (like intervening in the actions of another) than honoring the same principle would lead to in a different situation or context.

What's more it is extremely dangerous, and at the root core of the bulk of what is wrong in society today to get too caught up in the idea of what we will and will not "allow" others to "do" - I can both disagree with a decision and also accept another's right to make it, and I'm smart enough to realize that could conceivably include in an imaginable given context, even someone's taking of their own lives.

It's not that there isn't black and white. It's that we frequently mistake black for white and white for back in our relentless pursuit of explicit concrete particular absolutes instead of looking for universal principles governing contextual moral/ethical decision making.

It easier to say "destroying" your self is universally wrong without exception, however it ridiculously impossible to justify. In the end, there is not way to escape the need to take the correct and appropriate normative principles for ethical decision making and then evaluate individual the specifics of individual contexts of each applied situation.


This whole argument is pretty stupid however, because it all stems from exaggeration. I was assuming contextuality, and then got dragged into this silly debate tring to make it a universal absolute.

So look at this again with an explicit addition of what should have been implied:

It is "ethically" permissable <IN THIS INSTANCE> for a person to make PERSONAL CHOICES about what is appropriate for themselves and what isn't, while it is never alright <BECAUSE OF AN APPROIRATE UNDERSTANDING OF NORMATIVE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES> for someone else to force violation on them against their will.

Your personal "ethical" conviction is that it is "mutilation." But thankfully for the rest of us free folk, I am free to make decisions about myself, for myself. Also thankfully, I am, in theory, free FROM the forceful violation of my freedom by others.

<IN THIS CONTEXT>It is okay for me to make decisions about my own body, reguarless of what you think of them. It is not ok for you to force what you think I should do with my body onto me or anyone else. It is, with all due respoct, none of your FUCKING business. <HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, IT IS OF COURSE ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO THINK UP A SCENARIO THAT CHALLENGES AN APPLIED CLAIM. BUT SINCE IT IS PRECISELY THAT - A CLAIM OF APPLIED ETHICS - IT IS CONDITIONAL ON THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF THE CONCRETE PARTICULAR IN QUESTION. ANSWERS MAY OR MAY NOT CHANGE DEPENDING ON HOW THE NORMATIVE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ETHICAL DECISION MAKING INTERSECT WITH THE CONDITIONS OF A NEW CONTEXT.>

But you know, it was late... and I really thought what I had said was enough. Clearly it wasn't, so I've now spelled it out explicitly for you.

In the context of talking about genital piercing, I and others have said that people have the right to make decisions about their own bodies whether you like it or not. But then you come in and say, Oh really! So you're saying that in ALL contexts no matter what people have a right to do anything they want to themselves? Well it depends really on what you mean by "right?" Do they have the right? Yes, they probably do, because I believe in the right of people to make even decisions that my personal belief system tells me are wrong. Should I intervene? Well that's a personal question, isn't it, and depends on how I feel I best honor the normative principles in that particular applied situation. The answer may be different depending on the particular context.

I reject the tendency to simply call people crazy that we disagree with. I also believe that the greatest problem in the country today is not people trying to hack their own arms off, not even people choosing to end their own lives, but rather people in their own sick, smug self-righteous moral authority believing that they have the capability to decree what is universally right and wrong for everyone in any given context. People who do that try to rob me of my god-given right to work out these issues and understandings for myself and on my own. I don't recognize your authority over that part of my life and I reserve the right, as should all human beings, to make my own decisions about what I believe to be right and wrong.

[Guaranteed]

136. Go ahead and keep arguing against what I'm NOT saying!

The mark of a real philosopher! You can forget about the fucking piercings, because I'm not talking about it. I DON'T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT PIERCINGS. What I care about is your BULLSHIT argument that people get to do WHATEVER they want with their body.

There is a very simple explanation for that ONE qualification I made concerning committing suicide: in some cases of terminal illness, the ones where the patient has NO hope of ever recovering while at the same time is suffering serious pain, it is, in fact, a RATIONAL point of view to want to end it all. At that point, there truly is no good reason to go on with one's life. They're going to die soon anyway, for sure, and they're in a incredible amount of pain. In that situation, killing one's self actually makes sense. Someone that does themselves in in such a situation is thinking rationally.

But in most cases where someone wants to kill themselves (usually, out of depression), they truly DO have hope. There are a lot of excellent anti-depressants out there, and even absent psychiatric drugs there IS the chance that it will go away at some point. I've seen depression, and I know how difficult it is to deal with, but it's not a death sentence. RATIONALLY, there is still hope- therefore, it is NOT okay to destroy one's self, and it should not be allowed. However, the person with the depression does not SEE this hope, because THEY ARE NOT THINKING RATIONALLY- they are at the mercy of their brain chemistry, AND THEY CAN'T TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. Therefore, someone ELSE has to step in and make the decisions that are BEST FOR them.

Again, it is because of this same concept that children don't get to make their own life decisions.

Fortunately for YOU, piercing doesn't have to be construed as destroying one's self- although it does push the line. Putting holes in one's body is- well, it's fucking masochistic. But it ultimately doesn't affect a person's well-being. THIS IS WHY I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST PIERCINGS.

But don't come in here with your "I'm the ultimate master of my domain" argument. It's for children. As a philosopher, you should be able to do a lot better than that.

[Selwynn]

138. Who appoints you supreme determiner of what is or isn't rational?

Based on what criteria?

I am the ultimate master of my domain :) I just wanted to say that because it bugs you.

Of course, nowhere in my post above did I say that. In fact I said things like "are there times where we should interfere in the decision making process of others? Yes" and like "the answer will utlimately depend on context."

You keep screaming -- OH MY GOD I'M NOT TAKING ABOUT PIERCINGS!!!!!! Well, I WAS and you came in and twisted the subject to fit what your own interests are. My intent was to say, hey a person should have the right to decide for himself or herself whether he or she wants piercings, and that is in no way related to being against the forcuful violation of a woman against her will.

Then come in and throw out the staw man, "so then its ok for your kids to cut their arms and legs off" and "I think I'll go stick a twevle inch pipe through my head that ok with you" garbage. Which of course was not what anyone was talking about. Saying a person has a right to make decisions about their own bodies should be understood to have to do with the SUBJECT of the thread at hand, not as a statement against which every conveivable hypothetical should be tested. I don't think in false absolutes like that, I think in context. But instead you made it about corner cases where a person should not (says you) have the right to make decisions for themselves. Well ok, that's interesting but has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Since you clearly ignored them the first time, I'll repeat two paragraphs.

This is really the heart of the problem: you want a universal concrete answer that says it is an absolute fact that regardless of situation or context, x is wrong. That is impossible. This is not moral relativity that says there are literally no criteria for evaluating the right or wrong of any actions other than the personal opinion of the subject, which is what you think I'm saying but isn't. But the normative criteria for ethical evaluation are not concrete particulars, they are general principles which require interpretation into and through every unique concrete situation. This means that honoring the "absolute" of the normative principle in one situation may lead to very different action (like intervening in the actions of another) than honoring the same principle would lead to in a different situation or context.

I reject the tendency to simply call people crazy that we disagree with. I also believe that the greatest problem in the country today is not people trying to hack their own arms off, not even people choosing to end their own lives, but rather people in their own sick, smug self-righteous moral authority believing that they have the capability to decree what is universally right and wrong for everyone in any given context. People who do that try to rob me of my god-given right to work out these issues and understandings for myself and on my own. I don't recognize your authority over that part of my life and I reserve the right, as should all human beings, to make my own decisions about what I believe to be right and wrong.

[Guaranteed]

141. WHEN PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THEMSELVES

***LITERALLY*** THEY ARE NOT RATIONAL.

Don't play your bullshit game with me.

[Selwynn]

142. Literally, eh? <smiles>

But you just said there are certain situations where, in a given context (exactly what I argue, so thanks for agreeing with me) a person may be acting RATIONALLY to choose to "destroy themselves" i.e terminal illnesses.

If that is true, then trying to destroy yourself can't be the "literal" definition of not rational. So you continue to throw around a cute term with no sufficient definition.

Getting a little testy, aren't we? :)

[theHandpuppet]

110. Did you bother to read...

... the facts about FGM which I provided in a link above? Well, here it is again: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm

I don't know why you seem confused about this issue but at this point I really give up trying to offer anything other than the facts.

[bratcatinok]

137. Removal of the clitoris

is done to stop the woman from feeling sexual pleasure. Th idea behind this is if the woman doesn't feel sexual pleasure she will not be interested in sex and so therefore, will have no interest in sexual intercourse with anyone. Her husband will have the right to demand sexual intercourse from her even if it's painful to her because of the removal. Her husband will be reassured she's not being unfaithful because it's not pleasurable and in most cases painful for her to have sex.

Piercing the genitals doesn't prohibit sex from being pleasurable. It's considered an adornment by many and an enhancement to the sex act mentally, visually and physically.

There is nothing hypocritical about being against mutilation of the genitals vs. genital enhancement.

[camero]

57. At the risk of this message being deleted

I can't compare FGM to circumcision. I compare it to having the little hole on my thing stapled shut. Not a good thought.

Piercing is much different IMHO. It's like getting a tattoo or an earring. I don't hear anybody clamoring to outlaw earrings.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

66. South Carolina wants to outlaw tattoo studios

[camero]

71. Rediculous

Sometimes I'm really ashamed to be living here and pine for home up North. This is most definitely one of them out of many.

I hope somebody got my point about FGM.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

77. I got your point...

and I think its valid.

Really, you're not missing much up here. The idiots just show themselves in different ways!:7

[camero]

78. I was trying to stay out of it.

But after reading some of the BS I just had to respond.

That's beginning to be true about up North I hear. Ehrlich is screwing up MD as we speak. I wonder how long before we see this crap up there?

[CrownPrinceBandar]

81. I don't think we will..

at least not looking like that. I think its being shown as overt social pressure and behind the scene political deals. We don't have the "Bible Belt" twist on things (maybe a little bit here in WV).

Yeah, MD has always been kinda wierd in its politics - the whole speed limit thing, for example. That said, I really like the western part of the state, very scenic.

[camero]

83. So do I

It's nice there. Used to camp out around the Cumberland area. Great point about the speed limit. They didn't seem to know what to do about it and we had the governer (Schaeffer) openly breaking the law as in regard to that.

You're right it probably won't because the urban sections tend to be more liberal and it wouldn't go there. Still it's like I went back in time 100 years being down here sometimes.

[Heddi]

84. You say":

South Carolina wants to outlaw Tattoo Studios.

Impossible---there are no tattoo studios in South Carolina to begin with, therefore, nothing to outlaw.

Tattooing is illegal in South Carolina...that is, paying someone to tattoo you is illegal in South Carolina. Also, accepting money from someone with the premise that you will adorn them with a tattoo is also illegal.

Therefore, you are wrong.

South Carolina isn't TRYING to outlaw tattoo studios. The whole act, in and of itself (with regards to money changing hands for the service) is against the law in South Carolina, and has been for quite a number of years, and probably will be for quite a number of years in the future.

Please get your facts straight.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

90. However...

there are active, outlaw tattoo artists working in SC. I believe NPR had a piece on it this evening in which they talked to an artist working in SC. You are correct that there are no tattoo studios in SC, that was my semantic error. But that doesn't mean that tattooing is no occurring and that the state isnt actively trying to prohibit it.

[enki23]

61. are you joking?

.

[KoKo]

67. No...I'm not joking...only throwing out for discussion. n/t

[enki23]

70. rephrase: do you mean what you're saying?

[Guaranteed]

68. I think I'm going to surgically implant a twelve-inch steel rod

through the middle of my skull. Then I'll cut notches into the end of it, and I'll have a place to put my car keys where I can always get at them!

[charlie]

73. Go for it, dude

Just don't compel any of your legal charges, like your kids, to do the same.

[Guaranteed]

74. Hey...you found my inspiration!

That's the miner who had dynamite blow up in his face, right?

Would you LET your kid do something like I'm talking about to themselves?

[charlie]

75. No, I wouldn't

But that's the inverse of what most are arguing -- preventing parents from inflicting barbarity like infibulation on their kids.

Yep, that's Phineas Gage, who not only lived through that calamity, but never lost consciousness when it happened -- in fact, he walked away to seek help afterward. Remarkable story.

[Guaranteed]

82. Well, if parents can PREVENT their kids

from chopping off one of their appendages, thus violating their child's "autonomy," why can't they, in the affirmative sense, "inflict barbarity" upon them? It's all a matter of autonomy, which children don't have, right?

[charlie]

86. Legally holding parents culpable

for a child's welfare doesn't negate legal protections for a child's welfare. It's not a matter of inviolable sovereignty, it's concern for the well-being of children... unless you want to take the tack that children should have no rights and can be legally murdered if they're a burden to their parents. Or conversely, should enjoy fully vested rights and responsibilities of adults -- and be bound to contracts, imprisoned for shoplifting candy, allowed to vote at age 2, etc.

[Guaranteed]

89. Of course, but the protections

on people shouldn't change when they turn 18. You're basically saying that at the age of 17 a child shouldn't be able to chop off an appendage...but, at the age of 18, they can, because at THAT point they gain their autonomy (why 18, don't ask me), and have the ability to "waive" their rights concerning their personal welfare, right? But then that means it IS a matter of autonomy- autonomy trumps personal welfare. Doesn't it make sense, then, that since parents make the decisions for their children before the age of 18, they should be able mutilate their kid's genitals all they want?

Seems to me that it's either that, or people shouldn't be able to mutilate themselves at all, even after they reach the magical age of 18.

[charlie]

92. They don't waive those rights at 18

They still have protections from violations of their persons from others. They're just no longer wards of their parents. As an adult they can do elective amputations. They can't however, be compelled to by anyone, including their parents, as was always the case.

[Guaranteed]

94. Okay...so, as a child, they should be able

to do elective amputations?

[charlie]

95. Nope

Nor should they have to endure amputations per their parents' wishes.

[Guaranteed]

97. OK...so it's not alright

for children's appendages to be amputated by anybody, except when medically necessary.

But then why is it okay for adults to do it? What's so special about turning 18 that the ethics of these situations suddenly turns upside down? And if it's okay for an adult to do it because they've gained some kind of control over themselves, seems to me that their children fall under the same control until THEY turn 18- otherwise they're not under anyone's control (since they're not under their own).

[Guaranteed]

98. "OK...so it's not alright for children's appendages by anybody,

...except when medically necessary." By the way, this is what I referring to when I said that people "waive their rights" when they turn 18.

[charlie]

99. Think of this this way

As an adult, you can

Take a lover 30 years your senior.
Take on obligations to financial resources currently beyond your situation.
Operate a motor vehicle.
Be compelled to devote up to 40 hours a week to employment, under penalty of losing your sustenance.
Drink whiskey until you're rushed to the emergency room for poisoning.

We don't extend those rights and responsibilities to 8-year-olds for good reason. Nor do we allow parents to do so. But they're allowed for adults.

[Guaranteed]

101. Don't forget

surgically implanting a 12-inch steel rod in your skull! ;)

[charlie]

102. Oh, maaaan

I'm sure the amazing Intarweb can cough up full-color pics of loons who've already had it done. And I'll bet you a box of hot donuts that within a year Brittney will be pilloried as a poseur for opting for the upscale titanium spike, instead of authentic homebrew rebar.

[uhhuh]

93. I'll take a moment to agree

I agree that people should be allowed to make the decision on what to do with their bodies, even at a younger age. The parent's primary responsibility is to attempt to guide the child into making the least harmful decisions possible.
If that child decides to personally remove their clitoris themselves, the they have excercised their autonomy in the situation and have perhaps caused themselves harm, but they have chosen to do this. If the parent removes it against their will, or engages someone else to do it, they have violated that child's bodily integrity, especially if the child resists it.

[Selwynn]

107. until you start talking about adults, and not kids - there's no point

The real question is about compitent adults, viewed as individually responsible for their own actions and capable of complete self-decision making, and their rights to define and determine for themselfs decisions about themselves.

The staw man question is about whether a parent would allow a six year old son or daughter to nail rebar into his head.

[FlaGranny]

87. ???????

??????? This thread makes my head hurt.

[Gemini Cat]

88. One's body and what one does with one's body...

...should be one's choice, providing the person in question is of age. So if a woman wishes to pierce her parts, that is her decision. It is her body after all.

The female child who is under someone else's control obviously does not have the choice on whether or not her genitals are snipped clipped or otherwise mutilated.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

[tkmorris]

96. Koko is funning y'all

She has to be. The alternative is......... well it's too ugly to contemplate. So I choose to believe you're all being had. :hi:

[buddhamama]

118. surely you jest, KoKo

the obvious difference is one of choice.

the African customs to which you refer do not allow for choice.
Women are forced to get snipped.

AND, the piercing of female genitalia does not deny women sensation and pleasure (in most cases 'it' is enhanced). Not so with female mutilation.

[SendTheGOPPacking]

120. The scary thing here is that I think you are serious

You completely missed the difference between the two.

[noiretextatique]

139. i concur, friend

completely missed the difference...and quite serious :scared:

[libertad]

122. it is not "snipping" it is gross mutilation which can be so extreme

that it results in death due to bleeding out or infection. I saw a show about female genital mutilation and it was a barbaric practice which should be illegal to do to a young woman. Genital piercing is no big deal and should be any adult's option. No grown up American woman would subject herself to voluntary "circumcision" if they knew what the process involved.

[charlie]

123. Not to mention

that the surgery must be augmented for the woman's wedding, and before AND after giving birth. Horrendous, brutal stuff.

[WoodrowFan]

124. and we have a winner!

For the Oblivious to The Difference Award! Congrats for not getting the difference between a piece of Jewelry and cutting off a piece of the body with a rusty tool!!







Previous winners include those who think President Clinton's lying about a BJ is the same ot worse than Shrub's lies about WMD!

[FlaGranny]

126. There is an excellent anology here folks.

TONGUE PIERCING -
Describe the difference between an adult getting a tongue piercing and a parent having the tongue of a child excised so he could never speak.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

128. Quick question:

Are you a parent of a boy or boys? If so, did you have them circumcised? Chances are you did, because 60% of boys are cicumcised in the US.

So, if you are a parent of a circumcised boy, can you answer this question: Why did you mutilate your boy's penis?

[FlaGranny]

131. If that question was directed at me,

the medical profession for years recommended circumcision. My boys were born 40+ and 30+ years ago. Yes, they are circumcised. But, they still can have orgasms, as proven by my grandchildren. My brother was not circumcised as a child and found it necessary to be circumcised at 30. None of my grandchildren were circumcised at birth, but it was medically necessary to circumcise one of them at age 1. You are comparing a procedure that prevents women from being able to experience orgasm to a procedure performed on men that doesn't prevent them from having an orgasm and actually can be hygienically useful. Actually, boys should not be routinely circumcised and girls should not be routinely prevented from experiencing sexual pleasure, but the two do not equate. They would equate, though, if the practice was to remove the penises of boys intstead of just the foreskin. No matter how much men may like to think otherwise, the clitoris is just as important to the female's sex life as the penis is to the male - even more so, but men will never have the personal experience to understand that.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

127. I've read through this whole thread...

and so far I have seen only a couple of passing references to male circumcision, neither of which actually addressed it in terms of this debate.

Here is KoKo's argument as I interpret it:

If an adult is allowed to pierce their genitals, why should a child not have the same rights?

To which a common counter argument has been that the child is incapable of deciding for themselves, due to immaturity.

To which the counter argument would say that then the adult parents of the child can take the responsibility for deciding on behalf of the child, as they do with all other aspects of the childs life.

Once again the common argument then becomes that this must not be allowed because it has taken away the child's right to decide for themselves once they are mature enough to do so.

Now this is where the TRUE hypocrisy of this thread rears its ugly head, and KoKo is right here: If the American parent of a boy child can decide to remove a piece of the boys penis for cultural or religious reasons, why can't the African parent of a girl child decide to remove the girl's clitoris for cultural or religious reasons?

I know what many people are going to say, that male circumcision is less dangerous than female circumcision, but that is truly irrelevant. The fact is, the boy child's right to decide for himself has been taken away, in EXACTLY the same way, and for EXACTLY the same reasons as female circumcision in Africa takes away the girls' right to decide for themselves.

Male circumcision is carried out for a number of reasons including asthetics (isn't this the same as piercing a childs penis? After all it is only a cosmetic procedure and thus is no different to a piercing.) and for desensitising the penis (which is part of the original religous reasons for doing it).

For some time, bullshit health arguments were made (and sometimes still are) but these have all been disproven.

So why are all these people on this thread decrying female circumcision, while ignoring male circumcision?

THERE is the hypocrisy that KoKo is refering to: the cultural bias that what YOU do is ok, but what THEY do is wrong, regardless of the fact that they are essentially the same.

Now you can argue all you want about the dangers of the actual operation - to which I would simply say provide aid so that it can be carried out in safe sterile conditions in clinics, like male circumcision in the US - but the fact remains that all the other arguments are simply CULTURAL arguments.

Sure it reduces the likelyhood of female orgasm but orgasm is not totally reliant on the clitoris - in fact planned parenthood says this:

So, how do women have orgasms?

For starters, almost any type of sexual stimulation can lead to orgasm. A woman can have an orgasm through intercourse, oral sex, or anal sex; manual stimulation of the vulva by her partner; body rubbing ("dry humping"); or masturbation. Some women can even have orgasms just by touching their breasts or by fantasizing about sex!

For many women, the contact has to be much more direct — right on the genitals — and in a regular, rhythmic pattern. Stimulation of two major parts of the genitals can cause a woman to have an orgasm: the clitoris (which is a part of the vulva) and the vagina. A woman can have an orgasm through stimulation of just her clitoris, just her vagina, or both. But most women have orgasms through stimulation of the clitoris.
http://www.teenwire.com/index.asp?taStrona=http://www.teenwire.com/warehous/articles/wh_20010816p115.asp

So yes it does decrease sexual pleasure to remove the clitoris, but it also reduces sexual pleasure to remove the male foreskin:

Decreased penile sensitivity and increased erectile dysfunction were the most frequent complaints reported by men who were circumcised as adults. Half reported no benefits from the procedure and two out of five reported harm, according to a study by Dr. Kenneth Fink and other researchers in the Journal of Urology (May 2002).

The men in this study were experiencing sexual dissatisfaction prior to the circumcision, and all thought it would improve their sex lives. The men, between the ages of 20 and 60, consented to the surgery. Each completed a questionnaire before and after the surgery.

"I’m not surprised that so many of the men in this study reported a loss of sensitivity," said skin sensitivity researcher Dr. Morris Sorrells, M.D. "I’ve found the same reduction in my preliminary study on penile touch sensitivity, comparing circumcised and normal men. Circumcision removes approximately 80% of the fine-touch nerve receptors in the penis. Circumcision changes the penis from one of the most sensitive parts of the male body into one of the least sensitive. The fact that so many men are dissatisfied with having been circumcised is very telling. Why are doctors participating in an ineffective treatment?"

<SNIP>

No medical association in the world recommends circumcising infants, yet sixty percent of males born in the United States are still circumcised. The United States is the only western nation that hasn't abandoned the practice of infant circumcisions. Worldwide, 3% of infant boys are circumcised; fully two-thirds of these are in the United States.

Circumcision removes more than just a "useless flap of skin." The tissue removed in a circumcision includes the innervated ridged band, inner mucosa and much of the frenulum, containing thousands of specialized nerve endings believed to enhance the sexual experience. The unique double-fold of the prepuce represents nearly fifteen square inches of this specialized tissue.

Some men have restored their foreskins in order to gain back lost sensitivity. They report an increase in sexual pleasure, not only for them, but for their partners as well.
http://www.icgi.org/Downloads/loss.htm

So tell me, why is it OK for Americans to mutilate boys' gentials but not OK for Africans to mutilate girls' genitals?

[charlie]

129. It's not alright by me

I'm clipped, but I refused to have it done to my son 18 years ago -- and was astonished at how insistent hospital staff were that he should be circumcised. Not to mention the surprising number of friends who thought my wife and I were a bit loopy for demurring.

As for KoKo, she's spent more time arguing that adults who opt for self-piercings but decry the practice of infibulation on children are hypocrites, than pointing out our own cultural barbarity of foreskin cutting. That's what I think most of us are having a hard time wrapping our heads around.

[FlaGranny]

132. That Planned Parenhood statement

is, well, crap (at least the first part of it). Sexual pleasure can be intense without an actual orgasm and many woman don't know they are not actually experiencing one, because they have never had a real one. Even if an orgasm is reached without clitoral stimulation - the actual orgasm takes place IN THE CLITORIS. Can men have orgasms that are not penile? If your penis was excised, could you have an orgasm? Think about it.

Did you know that there is a circumcision procedure performed on women? Women have a "foreskin" just like men do and sometimes it is removed or partially removed to increase sexual pleasure in women?

[Runcible Spoon]

133. uhhh, most of my gay male friends

and some of my more adventurous straight/bi male friends enjoy orgasms through anal penetration. Even if you remove part of the clitoris or foreskin, or any external part of the genitalia, there are nerve endings deeper in the body that can provide sexual pleasure. In fact, I've read that even eunuchs are able to achieve orgasms.

[noiretextatique]

140. "essentially" the same MY ASS

a girl, as young as eight years old, is forcibly held down by her mother and other women in the village. sometimes a man, sometimes a women, takes something like a piece of glass or a rock, or a knife, and without any anesthesia, cuts off either the clitoris or inner labia...or both. the outer labia is then sewn together, leaving a small hole for wastes to exit. and for the penis to enter, of course...the purpose of the this entire disgusting and macabre exercise.

how is the HELL is that "essentially the same" as male circumsion?

i understand your point, and i agree that they are both mutliations, and i don't condone either. but "essentially the same"...they aren't.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

143. It's a matter of degree...

male babies are held down and not given anesthesia as well (at least as far as Jewish circumcisions go).

As I said though, if it is the pain and cleanliness of the operation that is objectionable, then supply clinics with anesthesia and trained physicians to do the operation instead of having it done by relatives. Then the result is the same: a mutilation of the genitals for no other reason than cultural and religious beliefs regarding sex.

The main reason male circumcision was carried out (back when people were honest about it and when they weren't just doing it because it is the thing to do) was to desensitise the penis and thereby prevent masturbation (and enjoyment of sex - which was not meant to be enjoyed, only used for procreation).

In fact many male circumcisions carried out in US hospitals go horribly wrong, resulting in permanent impotence, disfigurement and even death. Yet no one is screaming about it here, are they?

So is a little bit of mutilation OK, yet a lot not? Would it be OK to JUST sew a girl's labia together, or JUST remove her clitoris? What amount of mutilation of a child's genitals is acceptable?

As you said, you do not agree with the practice, so why are you not calling for male circumcisions to be banned as well? Is there something inherently special about girls that means THEY must be protected from being mutilated without their consent, but boys do not deserve that protection?

Here is where I stand: ALL mutilations of children should be banned. No exceptions. If an adult wishes to mutilate themselves, then fine, that is their decision, but no child should EVER have their right to choose taken away from them, even if it is a perfectly safe procedure.

If you can't see why these two issues are ESSENTIALLY the same, then you are exhibiting the exact hypocrisy I am talking about. In YOUR culture mutilating a boy is acceptable, but mutilating a girl is not. The reality is, that male circumcision can be every bit as devestating to boys as female circumcision is to girls. The only reason YOU don't see that, is because the damage done to boys in the US is overlooked, because it is an acceptable practice.

That is a cultural bias that has NO logical reason. If it is wrong for one gender, it is wrong for all. Should it be all right to rape boys but not girls? Can you see what I am getting at?

Now as for KoKo's argument I understand it, but I don't necessarily agree with it. What KoKo is saying is if it is alright to mutilate yourself because it is trendy, then why shouldn't it be ok to mutilate your children because it is part of your culture and/or religion.

The ONLY reason that can be used to argue against this is the "loss of choice" that results. The child themselves is not given the choice to opt out of the procedure. However I can see an argument why this should not matter which is, that in western society, children have many of their choices taken away from them - education for example. We decide that a child must be educated to assume a "productive role" in society and we make it compulsory for children to receive an education.

What if the child doesn't want to? Well, we decide that the child is incapable of making the decision for themselves, and permenantly remove their right to choose. Once they are adults, it is too late. They have already been educated.

So what if female circumcision was just as important to a girls ability to assume a "productive role" in society? Why is this any different than forcing a child to be educated?

I bet you can not come up with an argument as to why these two things are different that DOESN'T involve a cultural bias (ie "our way is better").