A medical procedure to address a medical problem is fine. I wouldn't advise healthy women to have mastectomies on a whim...

However, the majority aren't for medical problems. The following video is an ad about people who do an unnecessary procedure to infants and children out of ignorance. I tried to sift it but the embed is broken or something, so be warned, while only stills, it's NSFW and somewhat graphic.

Let me know how you feel about genital mutilation for no good reason after you watch it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-t93r4ejlE

OK, if you KNOW there's no good reason for it and do it to your child anyway, that's more barbaric. If you believe, because of misinformation, it's a good thing for the child and is safe, to me it's much less barbaric. People do harmful things all the time trying to do the right thing, intent and level of understanding should be considered when judging others, that's all I'm saying.
and in your analogy, I would be semi OK with that (if there's a male equivalent so it's not just sexist mutilation) because the social issues of not being accepted are far worse than having only one nipple, totally OK with it if it's by choice at the accepted age of choice or 'adulthood' (even if the other choice is leave the tribe).

EDIT: same hypothetical, is it OK if it's explained that they have to remove the nipple because otherwise they can't use the tools available needed to hunt without constant, often deadly bloody and infected hardcore nipple chafing, and so they would either likely starve or would likely be killed at birth because the tribe couldn't support them?

I'm 100% OK with the rituals of the 'alligator people' in Africa that cut themselves to look like they have alligator skin, done in adolescence or later by choice as I understand it, and that's certainly 'barbaric' by most standards.

Yep, it's fucking barbaric. It is genital mutilation of children, period.

If you decide as an adult male that you want to be circumcised, that's your decision. But I have no idea how it is considered socially acceptable to mutilate infants like this.

First time I played Diablo:

Got down to the second level of the relatively empty Cathedral, opened a random door, caught a glimpse of mutilated bodies and blood covering the walls, heard a deep voice go "Ahh, Fresh Meat."

Slammed the door shut and sprinted back up to the surface.

Or being born in a hospital in a sane country.

The only reason circumcision is common in america is because of some wack job puritan superstitions in the mid 20th century.

Frankly, it's a fucking disgrace that it is not only acceptable, but actually encouraged to surgically mutilate your child's genitals.

If you're an informed adult and you want to hack at your penis for whatever reason, go nuts. But doing it to kids is nothing short of violation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26118748

"Joerg Jebram, who oversees the European endangered species programme for giraffes, told the AP news agency: "Zoos could design new giraffe facilities, but many don't have that option.

"A young bull could theoretically be sent to an all-female group as stud, but experts prefer a larger, more mature male for that, and Marius didn't fit that bill.

"A final option is sending the giraffe to a zoo that doesn't participate in the EAZA-led breeding programme, but that could leave the giraffe or its offspring being sold into worse circumstances, such as those of a circus or private collection."

Copenhagen Zoo had turned down offers from at least two other zoos to take Marius and an offer from a private individual who wanted to buy the giraffe for 500,000 euros ($680,000).

Bengt Holst, Copenhagen Zoo's scientific director, said it had turned down an offer from Yorkshire Wildlife Park in the UK, which is a member of EAZA, because Marius' older brother lives there and the park's space could be better used by a "genetically more valuable giraffe"."

So yah. Who knew that the guys who made caring for animals their like, profession and stuff might actually have some like, reasons. and stuff. I know, I know, it doesn't make as great a headline as "Zoo murders and mutilates innocent giraffe in front of children. also aidsrape."

Is that a joke?

Female circumcision is the mutilation of genitalia for cultural or religious reasons.

Male circumcision is different how exactly?

@shatterdrose Not everything is a gendered issue. Just because someone draws a line and says that this particular problem doesn't reduce to sexism doesn't mean they support spousal abuse and sex trafficking (both of which are obviously gendered). Compare Emily's experience to this one: http://www.salon.com/2013/10/02/my_embarrassing_picture_went_viral/

Personally I would call the latter true internet abuse. Notice that by her own report most of the perpetrators were women. Equating these two concerns trivializes the issue. If Emily had said maybe women don't want to be STEM bloggers because in their country they are subject to genital mutilation, sexual slavery, or aren't educated then I would agree with her. Instead she ranted about her attractive white westerner problems.

Do you just not bother going to the bathroom in these things, or do you carry a key on you? If the latter, do we assume that the rapist isn't going to say "take them off or <x>?" I don't want to shit on the idea or anything, but it strikes me that this may provide some people with a false sense of protection almost, that says "go on.. take a risk; you've always got your rape pants on if this goes badly." Have that extra 5 drinks and get wasted, walk down that dark street alone, accept the free drink off the creepy guy you're getting a weird vibe off. Not everyone is that stupid to see it that way, but some people are.

There have been links posted that provide some form of evidence that resisting tends to reduce the harm done to the victim, but the form of resistance really needs to be accounted for. If 7 times out of 10 screaming and fighting scares a rapist off and 3 times out of 10 it doesn't, then the statistics can show that screaming and fighting works well for the victim. But i was led to believe that rape is about power, and if our 3 out of 10 rapists are presented with the inability to feel empowered in the way they want, did we just convert the statistic to 2 out of 10 victims getting murdered or mutilated instead? In other words, if screaming/fighting doesn't work then you're dealing with someone who isn't easily put off, so aren't at least some of them going to find another outlet for their desire for power over the person? And is frustrating them (effectively making them feel powerless) really a good idea given the situation?

Finally, i hate the term "rape culture." It's an utterly vacant bullshit term bandied about by misandrists and makes people irrationally scared of something that doesn't exist. The culture of rape? Some sick, mentally deranged bastard commits a heinous act and we label it as though it has been educated upon them through society; almost as though it isn't their fault, it's modern day society that encourages rape? What an absolute load of toss - everyone knows it's wrong that has a grasp of the concepts of right and wrong. Rapists are sick in the head, not coerced into it by peer pressure. "Rape culture" indeed. Some extremist lunatics shaming a victim does not a culture make.

"Who is the judge of what is the right treatment?"

You're going to love this answer It is, of course.... the state, or more specifically the law.

I assume you believe that children are entitled to some protection under the law, regardless of what their parents believe? So really, we're not arguing over the principle... simply the extent.

Yes, at one point people thought slavery was fine and dandy, but eventually that was changed through legislation (it was kind of sad that some people were so ok with slavery they thought it was worth going to war for, but some people are idiots).

Now, there are issues today that I personally disagree with that may or may not be legal. Not providing your kids with medical treatment is a pretty easy one. Most people don't believe your rights as a parent extend to letting your child die because you thought Santa Claus would save them.

More difficult would be education. I am uncomfortable with the idea that parents can withhold information or outright lie to their children, but a lot of people seem fine with this.

On the more controversial end of the scale, I personally find it abhorrent that society tolerates the genital mutilation of infants in a weird combination of religion and misguided puritanism (btw this is not a slight on anyone circumcised, if you want to make that decision for yourself as an adult, go nuts).

Some of these things may change, some not. Some will come about through majority pressure, some through principled individuals making a moral argument that supercedes the tyranny of the majority.

But ultimately, yes, the community is the judge of what is acceptable practice when raising a child. It's not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than the alternative.

Islam is definitively associated with cliterectomies (Shafi law, the hadiths, etc). (NSFW medical photos.)

For example, in Egypt, 95% of married women have been subject to genital mutilation.

I guess on some issues, Coulter isn't as ignorant as ourselves



Chechnya surely has lower rates, but:
1. Chechnya still has primitive, violent attitudes toward women ("honor" killings).
2. Coulter is talking about Islamic culture in general, the same way the Boston bombings were intended to be on behalf of Islam in general, rather than on behalf of Chechnya alone.

Work to decrease stats like the 95% in Egypt, rather than pretending associations don't exist

Ya, parenting hacks that get you jail time...

United States Code
** TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *** PART I - CRIMES **** CHAPTER 17 - COINS AND CURRENCY

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

Section 333. Mutilation of national bank obligations

Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or
unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank
bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national
banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal
Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note,
or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

@ChaosEngine I totally get what you are saying. I'm only taking issue with this statement: "it is still practiced in modern Islam."

Would you say that because Jehovah's witnesses refuse to have blood transfusions that it is a practice of "modern" Christianity? No, of course you wouldn't. Jehovah's witnesses are interpreting the Bible/Christianity in a very specific way but you can't claim their beliefs represent mainstream Christian thinking.

Similarly, while there are certainly those who claim female genital mutilation is required in Islam, they aren't mainstream or "modern" in any sense of the word, particularly when you see where the vast majority of FGMs are occurring and the populations (generally poor and uneducated) that are performing them.

So I find that claiming this is a practice of Islam actually conflates the discussion about Islam (and FGM) unnecessarily. About the worst you can say is that in the Koran, Mohammad meets a woman who performs FGMs and she asks him if what she is doing is wrong. He replies along the lines that no, it isn't necessarily wrong but that she shouldn't cut too much away and goes on to elaborate that it is the duty of men to be circumcised but an honor if a woman does it.

So, if you want to criticize Islam about FGM, you can point to this and note that the Koran doesn't denounce the practice--but it also doesn't explicitly require it either.

Regarding genital mutilation, I did say "most" in the name of Islam. I'm aware that it predates Islam, but that is irrelevant given that it is still practiced in modern Islam.

I'm not saying there isn't some unfair persecution of Muslims (see the "most Muslims are decent people" part of my post) simply that tarring all criticism of Islam as "islamophobic" is applying exactly the same prejudices as tarring all Muslims as terrorists.

No one said you can't criticize Islam. But you might want to get your facts straight before you do: female genital mutilation is a tribal custom that predates Islam but has been integrated into the religion in some regions of the world (predominately Africa) and is practiced by both Muslims and non-Muslims alike (look it up on wiki page, it's extremely well documented).

Also, you asked for evidence of Islamophobia? You need look no further than the hysteria in the U.S. over building new mosques or the NYPD's unwarranted surveillance (including wiretapping and undercover agents) for years of the entire Muslim community across the NY/NJ area. They caught zero terrorists during their investigation, BTW, while wasting untold millions in taxpaper dollars in the process.