- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 83,707
- Reaction score
- 58,417
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
straw man. Show me where I said I'm opposed to a military.
So you're opposed to a military? What happens when some other country attacks the US? Do you have something in mind?
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau marked International Women's Day by promising $650 million for reproductive health and rights around the world.
The money, which will be invested over a three-year period, will support projects that provide sex education, strengthen reproductive health services, and support family planning and contraceptives. It will also fund programs to prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence, including forced marriage and female genital mutilation, and supporting the right of women to get safe and legal abortions.
The figure represents a doubling of current funding, Trudeau said in Ottawa this morning.
Canada is also supporting initiatives that will accelerate the use of contraceptives by 2020.
Justin Trudeau marks International Women's Day with $650M for reproductive rights - Politics - CBC News
=================================================================================================
I find it sad that each country doesn't provide this for it's citizens, especially sex ed and affordable contraception.
It does to point for both sexes. It also depends on how far you go with FGM as before a certain point it doesn't have much affect on pleasure.
Why you think you can rationalize MGM because of pleasure arguments is kind of interesting though. Are you suggesting that FGM would be fine if it didn't affect pleasure?
Oh and btw, I'm fully aware of the double standard in your mind from past threads. You want men to fight for you, but you won't do anything in return. How you think that is a fair arrangement is beyond me.
So the UN claims 133 million women suffer from FGM around the world.
Does anyone want to tell me how many men are circumcised at birth around the world? Hint: it's more than a 133 million.
You realize FGM and male circumcision aren't even closely related, right?
They're both genital mutilation and they both cause damage to functionality. Exactly why are they not comparable? One type of FGM is the clitoral hood and that is pretty comparable in many ways to the foreskin.
You mean because it causes less births and therefore less taxpayers and less GDP? Not exactly sure how that causes a return on the investment.
Care to elaborate?
Please show where I ever said I want men to fight for me or that I won't do anything in return. While you're at it, show where I've given an opinion either way on circumcision. And then please stop derailing my thread. Thanks.
International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau called on men and boys to rally behind the feminist cause to empower women and girls.
Whatever, you are simply wrong.
My statements are related to that comment in your article. I want to know why exactly men should do what she wants. What has she done for men and boys? Anything? I bet not. Chances are she is another one of those women that aren't even aware men have issues to combat.
They're both genital mutilation and they both cause damage to functionality. Exactly why are they not comparable? One type of FGM is the clitoral hood and that is pretty comparable in many ways to the foreskin.
It causes less unwanted births. Unwanted or unplanned pregnancies are far more likely to be a burden on the state than wanted. Not just because of the child but also because of the parents.
Easier access to birth control enables young men, women and couples to have a choice about how they want to plan and live their lives. Lives and family that go according to plan (whether that's have children early, late or not at all) usually work out better than lives and families that don't.
FGM is a physically more harmful procedure than male circumcision.
That said, I agree with you that circumcision done on babies is a pretty detestable act. I myself am against it and I know many feminists who are also. It violates consent, bodily ownership/integrity, is painful, can inhibit sexual enjoyment and is largely done for little more than looks.
They're both genital mutilation and they both cause damage to functionality. Exactly why are they not comparable? One type of FGM is the clitoral hood and that is pretty comparable in many ways to the foreskin.
removal of some or all of the external female genitalia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
People are not generally referring to a cosmetic procedure with the term FGM. In no case is male circumcision the removal of all. One cannot equate two things with a tiny fraction of one compared to the other.
Both FGM and MGM are umbrella terms. If you want to compare them directly then the extremes are things like the removal of the clitoris and castration.
Also, you should be aware that one of the large reasons for FGM in the past was cosmetic. You're going to run into problems when you start to say the reasons that exist for circumcision today weren't used for FGM because they largely were.
The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and beauty. It is usually initiated and carried out by women, who see it as a source of honour, and who fear that failing to have their daughters and granddaughters cut will expose the girls to social exclusion.[a] The health effects depend on the procedure; they can include recurrent infections, difficulty urinating and passing menstrual flow, chronic pain, the development of cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth, and fatal bleeding.[6] There are no known health benefits.[9]
Really? So you don't know the functions of the foreskin and how that relates to the functions of the clitoral hood? Notice how one is illegal to remove outside of medical necessity and the other is not? That's important.
Having sex and letting him cum in you causes unwanted pregnancies and thus unwanted births.
Having sex and letting him cum in you causes unwanted pregnancies and thus unwanted births.
It still causes damage and loss of function to the individual and still destroys genital integrity. I don't know about you, but billions of men mutilated at birth is higher than 133 million women mutilated at birth in my book. :shrug:
There's a reason male circumcision is not referred to as MGM.
Ignorance.
FGM can cause permanently painful urination and menstruation, complications in childbirth, urinary infection, cysts, painful sex, and an increased risk of neonatal infant death to name a few of the side effects.
So not even in the same ballpark as circumcision.
You may as well prohibit men from ejaculating during sex.
It is under the umbrella, so yeah it kind of is.
Hardly. Circumcision was practiced to control men sexually and stop them from masturbating and it was done for cosmetics. There was also seen as health benefits to FGM being done at a certain point in time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?