Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday July 14 2017, @03:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the cut-it-out! dept.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/12/536863961/michigan-laws-will-increase-penalties-for-performing-female-genital-mutilation

New legislation signed into law by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder on Tuesday makes female genital mutilation a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. The laws apply both to doctors who conduct the procedure and parents who transport a child to undergo it. "Those who commit these horrendous crimes should be held accountable for their actions, and these bills stiffen the penalties for offenders while providing additional support to victims," Gov. Snyder said in a statement. "This legislation is an important step toward eliminating this despicable practice in Michigan while empowering victims to find healing and justice."

The governor also signed a bill allowing for a health professional's license or registration to be revoked if he or she is convicted of female genital mutilation.

Michigan is the 26th state to ban the practice; the state laws go into effect in October. The practice was banned in the United States in 1996, but Michigan's laws impose harsher penalties than the federal law. The package of bills comes amid the federal criminal trial of an emergency room doctor in Michigan, Jumana Nagarwala, charged with performing the procedure on multiple girls at a clinic in suburban Detroit. The Department of Justice says it believes the case is the first to be brought under the federal law. Another doctor and his wife are also charged in the case, the AP reports.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Friday July 14 2017, @04:41PM (37 children)

    by Justin Case (4239) on Friday July 14 2017, @04:41PM (#539190) Journal

    An AC already mentioned it but it got buried in a different thread so I'll say it here.

    There should be exactly the same penalties for male genital mutilation.

    At a minimum, people should be 18 years old before surgery like this is done, so they are able to consent.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @04:44PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @04:44PM (#539192)

    That would be anti-semitic.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Friday July 14 2017, @04:48PM (3 children)

      by Justin Case (4239) on Friday July 14 2017, @04:48PM (#539195) Journal

      So it's bad to criticize the Semitic sky-fairy but criticizing the Islamic sky-fairy is your American Duty?

      They're both stupid and deserve to be shunned by all rational civilized peoples.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @06:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @06:42PM (#539267)

        Not saying it is fair, that's just the way it is. See also the position of the AAP, which can't bring itself to condemn male genital mutilation.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday July 14 2017, @08:27PM (1 child)

        So it's bad to criticize the Semitic sky-fairy but criticizing the Islamic sky-fairy is your American Duty?

        They're both stupid and deserve to be shunned by all rational civilized peoples.

        Given that both imaginary sky-fairies are actually the *same* imaginary sky-fairy (Allah == Yahweh), criticizing one is criticizing both.
        Aren't religious morons fun?

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @11:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @11:06PM (#539390)

          I'll just stick with my White Aryan Plastic Jesus, settin' on the dashboard o' muy truck.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @05:35PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @05:35PM (#539220)

    Age of consent for religeous indoctrination too, yeah, and to be fair no education, or vaccines, until then. /sarc.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @06:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @06:05PM (#539244)

      *gaffaw* they WANT this and you offer it like a punishment.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday July 14 2017, @07:48PM

      by Bot (3902) on Friday July 14 2017, @07:48PM (#539295) Journal

      If you want to avoid indoctrination you should avoid school, media, internet. If parents indoctrinate children today, it is a defensive measure. A wrong one, of course because doing good because you are following orders yields no merit.

      --
      Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 14 2017, @05:44PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday July 14 2017, @05:44PM (#539231) Journal

    Yes, performing elective surgery on anyone under the age of consent should be illegal.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by jcross on Friday July 14 2017, @06:13PM (20 children)

    by jcross (4009) on Friday July 14 2017, @06:13PM (#539249)

    Came here to say the same thing. What's funny is most of the shocked responses in the thread above applies just as well to MGM, e.g.:

    > And the most maddening part of it is that there's absolutely no medical benefit to doing it. So it's a self-perpetuating peer pressure thing for entirely cosmetic and cultural morality reasons. Apparently somebody at some point said, "Hey, let's take a knife to that. Just because."

    > Or it's been done to [him] and [he's] been brought up to believe it's the right and proper thing to do.

    I grew up around a lot of old-school feminists and we got Ms Magazine at the house. I always thought all the activism to stop FGM in Africa was kind of odd when MGM is so widespread at home. In fact I think I could make a pretty good case to ban it on feminist principles, to wit: circumcision makes men less sensitive, therefore they require rougher sex, and that's not good for women. Of course a ban on MGM will never happen in the USA because white people do it, but hopefully it at least falls out of fashion.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday July 14 2017, @06:39PM (19 children)

      And the most maddening part of it is that there's absolutely no medical benefit to doing it.

      BZZT! Wrong! [nih.gov] Thanks for playing.

      In the US, back in the 1960s and early 70s, male circumcision was (regardless of religion) encouraged and was the default at many hospitals.

      These days (given that you folks apparently haven't had children), despite the acknowledged medical benefits, it's a check box on a form for new parents and is neither promoted nor discouraged.

      Assuming you can find a woman to procreate with (doubtful, you whiny little bitches) and have a son, don't check the box. Now that was easy, wasn't it?

      When I saw this article, I knew that you "MGM" morons would try to hijack this thread because you are misogynistic fucks who can only think of themselves and think women are second-class humans. As such, you have no problem equating the enormously more damaging cutting off the clitoris [wikipedia.org] and removing the foreskin of the penis [wikipedia.org].

      Anyone who has actually interacted with female genitals can tell you that removal of the clitoris is orders of magnitude worse than removing the foreskin of the penis.

      Whether male circumcision is appropriate for babies is another question, but putting these two on an equal footing is disingenuous at best.

      Go ahead an mod me down if you want. But facts are stubborn things.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @07:24PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @07:24PM (#539280)

        No medical benefits I've ever heard of, or encountered in my oh so natural state. Haven't had any women complain either. So, you're some sort of idiot defending a stupid tradition.

        All that said, yes FGM is worse than MGM but that doesn't mean MGM should be treated as unimportant. Kinda like men who suffer domestic abuse, they are laughed at instead of given sympathy and support.

        There is nothing wrong with putting this on equal footing, don't mutilate babies / children! Do we really need separate buckets of concern when it comes to this??

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday July 14 2017, @08:14PM (4 children)

          No medical benefits I've ever heard of, or encountered in my oh so natural state. Haven't had any women complain either. So, you're some sort of idiot defending a stupid tradition.

          I helpfully provided you with a link [nih.gov] specifically describing the medical benefits.

          Did you look at it and ignore it because it doesn't fit with your view? Or did you not even bother, as you don't want your specially constructed view of reality to be disturbed?

          All that said, yes FGM is worse than MGM but that doesn't mean MGM should be treated as unimportant. Kinda like men who suffer domestic abuse, they are laughed at instead of given sympathy and support.

          I never said that circumcision should be treated as unimportant. I pointed out that cutting off the clitoris is *much* worse (especially for sexual response) than male circumcision (which has not been shown to affect sexual response *at all*).

          There is nothing wrong with putting this on equal footing, don't mutilate babies / children! Do we really need separate buckets of concern when it comes to this??

          Yes, I get it. But I disagree that these two procedures are comparable.

          I pointed out that the question of performing these sorts of procedures on babies was a larger question. That's certainly problematic, but is tangential to the discussion, IMHO.

          My ire was drawn because these types of articles always draw in those males who need to hijack the discussion to put the focus on them, rather than the horrific (cutting off the clitoris is often done in incredibly unsanitary conditions) ways that girls are tortured.

          Given the enormous differences in medical outcomes, complications and reduced sexual response/function between cutting off the clitoris and removing the foreskin of the penis, there really is no valid comparison between the two.

          I don't advocate either one. I just find the comparison both inappropriate and, in some cases, downright misogynistic.

          Feel free to disagree with me. I have no designs on your (or anyone else's but my own) penis.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 14 2017, @09:38PM (2 children)

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday July 14 2017, @09:38PM (#539349) Journal

            Those "benefits" are a nothingburger. Cuts HIV transmission in half? So not nearly as effective as abstinence, condoms, and Truvada, and obsolete if HIV/AIDS is ever cured. Same for the other STIs.

            Neonatal male circumcision provides other potential benefits during childhood such as prevention of infant urinary tract infections, meatitis, balanitis, and phimosis, as well as protection from viral STIs.

            All treatable and can be reduced with proper hygiene.

            There were no significant differences in male sexual satisfaction or dysfunction among trial participants, and in one trial, circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm.

            Ahahahahaha! What a benefit!

            Even if these benefits were compelling, and they're not according to the AAP, whose statement [aap.org] was written after this paper was published, the mutilation procedure is done without the patient's consent and remains a violation of human rights. If you want it cut, do it as an adult. You'll love it and get to make some nice memories.

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @11:11PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @11:11PM (#539393)

              This is why it must be stopped, right here, right now! There is nothing that is a "nothingburger"! Do NOT start using that term! It is a cultural disease, spreading from New York, and has infected Washington DC. Do not let it spread to SN!!!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @05:54AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @05:54AM (#539476)

                I'll nothingburger your nothingburger until you can only nothingburger, you nothingburger!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @12:36AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @12:36AM (#539414)

            So yeah, cut the head off a guy's penis and see if he has the same sensitivity problems as a woman who has had a 'total' FGM done.

            Yeah they would have problems too, not including any potential problems with peeing and other issues pertaining to having the whole tip cut off.

            The point is: both are terrible, and both should be abolished on the same legal grounds and for the same reasons. It is time to stop this masculism vs feminism crap and start saying what should be right for both until they are old enough to legally decide for themselves.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Friday July 14 2017, @07:24PM (6 children)

        by Justin Case (4239) on Friday July 14 2017, @07:24PM (#539282) Journal

        have a son, don't check the box. Now that was easy, wasn't it?

        Where's the box I check to become retroactively un-mutilated? Not so easy, hmmm?

        removal of the clitoris is orders of magnitude worse than removing the foreskin of the penis.

        So that makes it OK? Perhaps if we just cut away a smaller part of the female region that would be OK too?

        What part of "don't cut up someone else's body without their permission" do you have a problem with?

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday July 14 2017, @08:20PM (5 children)

          Where's the box I check to become retroactively un-mutilated? Not so easy, hmmm?

          Take it up with your parents. But don't try to force your own bitterness on others. Heinlein had it right, IMHO:

          The correct way to punctuate a sentence that states: "Of course it is none of my business, but -- " is to place a period after the word "but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.

          removal of the clitoris is orders of magnitude worse than removing the foreskin of the penis.

          So that makes it OK? Perhaps if we just cut away a smaller part of the female region that would be OK too?

          What part of "don't cut up someone else's body without their permission" do you have a problem with?

          Where exactly did I say that? Look long and hard. Nope. You can't find it, because I never said anything close to that.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @09:05PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @09:05PM (#539331)

            But don't try to force your own bitterness on others.

            Whether someone later turns out to be okay with their mutilation genitals or not is inconsequential; their human rights were still violated, since it was done without consent.

            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Friday July 14 2017, @09:23PM (3 children)

              Whether someone later turns out to be okay with their mutilation genitals or not is inconsequential; their human rights were still violated, since it was done without consent.

              Absolutely. And so the whiny little bitch complaining about it should, as I pointed out, take it up with the people who did it. That would be his parents. Anything else is just gratuitous bullshit.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Friday July 14 2017, @09:58PM (1 child)

                by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday July 14 2017, @09:58PM (#539363) Journal

                Nobody is impressed with your so-called benefits, allegations of misogyny, and excuses for routine human rights violations. I'm not sure if you're malfunctioning or just heated. Hopefully the latter.

                Male genital mutilation has nothing to do with female genital mutilation? If only there was some sort of relationship between the clitoris and the penis...

                --
                [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
                • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday July 14 2017, @11:15PM

                  I'm not going to argue the point with you Takyon.

                  Don't like circumcision? Don't do it.

                  Don't like cutting off the clitoris? Don't do it.

                  But the former is like clipping your cat's nails, the latter is like declawing (which, if you don't know, is cutting off their "fingers" at the first knuckle) the cat. The differences are striking and broad.

                  The two are not comparable. Those are facts. What you do with them is up to you.

                  If you disagree, fine. I have no interest in forcing anything on anyone.

                  That said, I have no interest in hearing about kittens with their nails clipped claiming it's the same as being declawed. It ain't.

                  If they don't like it, they should sue their parents.

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @11:11PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @11:11PM (#539392)

                Well, maybe he should have a discussion with his parents, but that should not be all. Since there needs to be a ban on non-consensual genital mutilation, he should probably also contact legislators and try to inform other people about the issue.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @09:14PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @09:14PM (#539337)

        BZZT! Wrong! [nih.gov] Thanks for playing.

        They're trying to rationalize mutilating someone's genitals because they might behave unwisely (i.e. be careless when having sex, fail to practice proper hygiene, etc.) in the future, and that is totally unjust. The differences between genital mutilation and vaccinations are clear; one alters your body in a very visible way and one does not; one protects you against diseases that are nearly unavoidable and the other (if it protects you from diseases at all) merely decreases your chances of getting diseases that can be avoided by avoiding certain behaviors. The kinds of diseases that MGM may protect you from to some extent are not airborne or any other such thing. All the supposed benefits of MGM can be had in other ways that don't involve preemptively mutilating genitals, which is a violation of someone's fundamental right to control their own body. That the medical world would ever accept this is disgusting.

        It's true that the quality of the evidence for vaccinations is much greater than for MGM, but I don't like making the conversation about that, because I would oppose MGM even if I knew absolutely that these benefits existed. That's what it means to support human rights.

        When I saw this article, I knew that you "MGM" morons would try to hijack this thread because you are misogynistic fucks who can only think of themselves and think women are second-class humans.

        There's nothing inherently misogynist about bringing up MGM here. I suspect part of the reason that people always bring it up is because they are frustrated that such a blatant violation of human rights not only still happens in the 21st century but is completely legal and largely accepted/ignored.

        It also doesn't matter whether FGM is worse or not, since both should be banned entirely unless there is consent. It's a pointless argument unless someone is actually claiming that MGM is worse.

        Maybe MGM should be allowed if there is an imminent medical necessity, but not 'Well, you might do unwise things in the future, so we'll mutilate your genitals now.' Maybe someone will practice safe sex and good hygiene. Maybe someone will be asexual. Maybe someone will be selective about their partners. But proponents of human rights violations don't care about your individual future behavior and would rather preemptively mutilate your genitals.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @10:32PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @10:32PM (#539376)

          Also, from the link:

          Additionally, a ban on neonatal male circumcision denies religious freedoms to Jewish and Muslim parents, which would be potentially unconstitutional.

          It actually brings up religious freedom arguments about MGM, and this is a medical site! That is frankly unbelievable, because their arguments should be entirely based on the medical benefits of MGM. Although those arguments are ultimately unconvincing to me, at least they make some amount of sense. Arguing that you have the freedom to surgically alter other people's bodies because of your religion beggars belief. Following that logic, you could do anything (ritual sacrifice, cutting off other people's arms) in the name of your religion and any attempt to stop you would violate your rights. The reality is that one's religion doesn't give one the right to violate other people's rights. The people who use religious-based arguments for genital mutilation would probably engage in special pleading and act as if the logic magically ends with things like genital mutilation, but they are simply being inconsistent. No one should ever bring up religious-based arguments, personal preference arguments, or general parental choice arguments in an attempt to argue for genital mutilation, because they make absolutely no sense.

          The most stunning thing to me is that it was actually brought up on a site like that at all.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @09:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @09:26PM (#539342)

        Wikipedia on FGM [wikipedia.org]:

        Procedures differ according to the country or ethnic group. They include removal of the clitoral hood and clitoral glans; removal of the inner labia; and removal of the inner and outer labia and closure of the vulva. ... Type Ia (circumcision) involves removal of the clitoral hood only and is rarely performed alone.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by jcross on Sunday July 16 2017, @02:27AM (2 children)

        by jcross (4009) on Sunday July 16 2017, @02:27AM (#539752)

        I completely agree it's not the same order of magnitude. What bothers me is that people went to the trouble of passing a law against a very specific custom, when they could have protected the rights of children in a much broader way. For instance what about intersex people whose genitals are surgically altered at birth without their consent? I'm sure this can and does drastically diminish their sexual function in some cases, aside from the problems of being assigned what will later feel like the wrong gender to them. Are they only protected if they have XX chromosomes? What if they're XXY? My guess is this law wouldn't be brought to bear in a case like that because it's not the specific custom it was meant to prevent, and babies are unable to speak up for themselves. I just feel laws protecting human rights should be as comprehensive as possible, and avoid separating people into classes if it can be avoided.

        As for the medical argument, it wouldn't be hard to make a case that FGM reduces STD transmission as well. I'm sure the studies haven't been done and hopefully won't be done to show this, but I'd guess a woman without a clitoris is a lot less likely to have sex at all except out of "spousal obligation", and of course with a complete sewing up it's pretty much out of the question. I mean if we're justifying medical procedures by saying they protect people against future risky behavior, where's the limit? Sewing up the nostrils at birth reduces greatly reduces the incidence of cocaine addiction, and you can still breathe through your mouth so "function is not impaired". But as another poster has said, even if there were such a medical benefit, practices like FGM, circumcision, and nose-sewing would still be unjustified.

        In my opinion this is a *human* rights issue, and shouldn't be applied to only one kind of human. I'm pretty sure that's not misogyny. It would be misogynistic to say boys get cut and it's no big deal, so it should be okay for girls to get cut too, but I haven't seen anyone saying that so far. Why do we have to keep pitching things as a battle of the sexes, such that speaking up for men somehow means hating women? Especially after feminists have spent decades fighting the accusation that speaking up for women means hating men.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Sunday July 16 2017, @04:55AM (1 child)

          I don't really disagree with you.

          The law was passed to target Africans as a virtue signal against muslims (especially since this was already a felony), given that most cultures that practice this particular form of torture against women and girls are mostly (althought not exclusively) islamic cultures.

          The issues surrounding surgical sexual assignment, as well as circumcision for babies are rather fraught, and are deserving of discussion around appropriateness and consent. However, the former is pretty rare (~1 in 2000 births are even *considered* for such procedures) and the latter, while problematic, especially around questions of consent, have extremely low rates of complications of any kind [circinfo.net].

          That said, I'm not advocating either, nor am I saying that these issues shouldn't be discussed.
          I do find it interesting that it's often that those who decry the "nanny state" (e.g., attempting to criminalize parents who let their kids walk home alone), yet demand that the same state prevent parents from making health choices for their minor children.

          What does disturb me (and moved me to post the comment to which you responded) is that comparing removing the foreskin of the penis with cutting off the clitoris isn't a valid comparison. It's not even close.

          As I pointed out in another comment about circumcision vs. cutting off the clitoris [soylentnews.org]:

          But the former is like clipping your cat's nails, the latter is like declawing (which, if you don't know, is cutting off their "fingers" at the first knuckle) the cat. The differences are striking and broad.

          While there is certainly no reason to ignore the issues surrounding infant gender (re)assignment surgery and male circumcision, the torture of girls and women by cutting off their clitoris, sewing their vaginas closed and other atrocities are orders of magnitude more dangerous and should be treated as such.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by jcross on Sunday July 16 2017, @03:01PM

            by jcross (4009) on Sunday July 16 2017, @03:01PM (#539901)

            Thanks for the clarification.

            > I do find it interesting that it's often that those who decry the "nanny state" (e.g., attempting to criminalize parents who let their kids walk home alone), yet demand that the same state prevent parents from making health choices for their minor children.

            Actually this is no contradiction at all if what you believe in is freedom, and consider the rights of children on an equal footing with the rights of adults as much as possible. I think the most basic reason to have a government at all is to protect the rights of the weak from the strong, because if you don't want that then anarchy will work just fine in many respects. Unfortunately, although US law purports to protect the "natural rights of man", there is a cutoff at age 18 or so below which these rights don't apply. I'm not going to enumerate all the constraints on children's rights, and you may argue they're all necessary in any case, but just consider that a parent assaulting their child is perfectly legal as long as the marks don't last more than 24 hours. So if you believe that freedom is good for children, allowing parents the freedom to grant their children freedom is good (e.g. kids can walk home alone), and so is protecting the freedom of children from their parents in extreme cases (e.g. no elective surgery without consent).

  • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by driven on Friday July 14 2017, @07:39PM (6 children)

    by driven (6295) on Friday July 14 2017, @07:39PM (#539291)

    Nothing significant is lost with male circumcision (I'm assuming that is what you're talking about).
    Female genital manipulation results in the patient/victim being unable to enjoy sex or orgasm.
    Big difference.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @08:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @08:03PM (#539305)

      Over 2/3 of the penis nerve endings are in the part that is removed, including 100% of the male body's external estrogen receptors.

      Sometimes the tightness of the scar causes scrotal skin to be pulled onto the shaft of the penis. This is gets discovered at puberty, when the person gets a hairy penis.

      Sometimes the result is a bent penis, again due to tight scar tissue.

      Sometimes the penis, or the tip of it, ends up getting removed. (infection, inept cutting, etc. -- the usual surgical risks)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @09:20PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @09:20PM (#539339)

      Nothing significant is lost with male circumcision (I'm assuming that is what you're talking about).

      Who are you to decide what is and is not significant? That is subjective Mutilating someone's genitals doesn't suddenly become okay merely because you feel that the procedure changes nothing of significance. I would feel the same way even if it was literally just a snip; we shouldn't be mutilating or cutting people's genitals at all without their consent, period. The supposed medical benefits don't matter because they can be had in other ways (good hygiene, safe sex practices, being selective about partners, or not having partners) and because violating people's rights is not okay merely because there are (or may be) a few medical benefits.

      People tend to get caught up in arguments about how bad MGM is and how many nerve endings are destroyed and whatnot, which I believe is a mistake. We must oppose all of these unnecessary procedures because they violate someone's fundamental right to control their own bodies.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by driven on Saturday July 15 2017, @01:03AM (3 children)

        by driven (6295) on Saturday July 15 2017, @01:03AM (#539420)

        Who are you to decide what is and is not significant?

        Well being circumcised I'm qualified to say that, in at least my case, sex has never been an issue. I can't speak for everyone out there, but I think making male circumcision out as some kind of genocidal nightmare is blowing it out of proportion. On the global list of problems to tackle, I think it's a lot further down than female genital mutilation.

        What about cutting the umbilical cord? Fuck, I have a right to remain attached to my mother until the cord falls off naturally. Bloody barbaric medical procedures.

        • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by isostatic on Saturday July 15 2017, @01:48AM (1 child)

          by isostatic (365) on Saturday July 15 2017, @01:48AM (#539427) Journal

          So because you've only got half a cock you think little boys should be equally disfigured?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @03:57AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @03:57AM (#539459)

            You need to learn how to read.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @02:43AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @02:43AM (#539443)

          Well being circumcised I'm qualified to say that, in at least my case, sex has never been an issue.

          I said it is subjective. To me, the problem isn't whether it actually makes sex less pleasurable, but that we are violating people's right to control their own bodies, even if they later say they are okay with their mutilated genitals.

          but I think making male circumcision out as some kind of genocidal nightmare is blowing it out of proportion.

          Every violation of someone's human rights is a large issue. There are bigger issues, but that is inconsequential since we can try to solve multiple issues at once.

          On the global list of problems to tackle, I think it's a lot further down than female genital mutilation.

          MGM is still something that happens at an alarming rate in first world countries, so it needs to be tackled. Both should be banned.

          What about cutting the umbilical cord? Fuck, I have a right to remain attached to my mother until the cord falls off naturally. Bloody barbaric medical procedures.

          I fail to see your logic in this case. Does the foreskin fall off naturally and cause you to be attached to your mother? You could also use this line to mock anyone who is opposed to any non-consensual surgical alteration of people's bodies, not just for MGM. Oh, you're opposed to FGM? Well, what about the umbilical cord, then? Gotcha! Even lopping people's arms off would be no exception, because your argument did not take into account the severity of the procedure or the properties of the body part being altered/removed/cut.