BjornP wrote:While both can be characterized as mutilation, i.e the deliberate amputation of healthy tissue, the difference between male and female genital circumcision is the sexual control element with FGM. The idea (among most of those cultures that practise it), is that it is a great way of controlling the "wild" female libido from committing acts of adultery. Simply put: Woman who feels less horny is a woman less likely to cheat on her husband.
Anglo-North American culture treats male circumcision the same way women and men in cultures accept FGM as ethically valid and neccesary. I guarentee you that they will present "logical" arguments for why women ought to be clitorectimized. Maybe one of them will go the StA route and incredously scoff at the notion of un-FGM'ed women, arguing that "logically" they must be women who run around sex-crazed and comitting acts of infidelity at every second of the day. Their (witch) doctors will probably agree with them, too. It's like that 80's movie about a cola bottle getting worshipped by an African tribe or something ("The gods are/must be crazy"?)
In this context, StA is the pious follower of everything the witch doctors say, last seen trying to catch a cheetah because the witch doctor told him he must teabag it blindfolded a hundred and sixty times, while singing "Hakuna Matata" in a posh British accent.
Is there a rational reason a non-Jew, non-Muslim young male should be circumcised? Sure, if the household severely lacks access to clean water and soap and cannot afford antibiotics if their kid were to get a UTI. In a certain, specific context, male circumcision makes sense. That certain, specfic context just doesn't apply to modern, Western societies with abundant clean water supplies and access to advanced health care - advanced compared to the time of the ancient egyptians and hebrews who came up with it (I believe ancient egyptians did FGM, too, btw.) Your medical industry profits from selling male circumcision to easily scared parents.
The sensible thing to do at this point is look up rates of STD's of US and Canada (I think Canada has the same extent of circumcised males?) and compare those numbers to all the other countries in the world that don't practise male circumcision (which is practically any culture and country that isn't Jewish, Muslim or East African/Egyptian). So, for example...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... eague.html
/sigh
I am not really committed either way. Attacking a stupid ass proposition (i.e. male circumcision is the moral equivalent of female genital mutilation) does not mean I am not open to arguments to end male circumcision on actually rational grounds.
The fact that you people throw tantrums when I ex0lain the issue is not quite so simple as you attempt to present it shows you don't really possess a good argument to end the practice. All you have is OMFG it's like female genital mutilation, and if you don't nod your head in intellectually-vacant compliance, then you believe the witch doctors!
Nigga please.