Hit & Run

Some Female Genital Alteration Should Be Legal, Say U.S. Bioethicists

Not all "female genital mutilation" is destructive, they say, with some procedures no more problematic than male circumcision.



In the most recent Journal of Medical Ethics, U.S. doctors come out in support of some forms of female genital alteration (FGA), a controversial but common practice in many African, Middle-Eastern, and South-Asian communities. An estimated 80–140 million women worldwide have had such procedures. And though they're frequently all lumped together as forms of "female genital mutilation," many such procedures are no more problematic than circumcision for male infants or the "elective labiaplasty for which affluent women pay thousands of dollars," the researchers say.

The World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) all endorse legal circumcision of male children. Yet "FGA has been deemed a human rights violation by these same organizations as well as by the United Nations, note researchers Kavita Arora and and Allan J. Jacobs in their paper ("Female genital alteration: a compromise solution"). "In fact, the US government has expressly outlawed any procedure that incises or changes a female child's external genitalia in the absence of medical indications." 

While well-meaning, such positions fail to differentiate between alterations that are purely cosmetic and those that produce significant sexual or reproductive dysfunction. And in making the former illegal, countries could actually worsen outcomes by driving the practice underground, they say. 

Arora is a gynecologist at MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland and a bioethics professor at Case Western Reserve University. Jacobs is director of gynecologic oncology at Coney Island Hospital in Brooklyn and a professor of bioethics at Stony Brook University. "We are not arguing that any procedure on the female genitalia is desirable," the are quick to point out. Rather, Arora and Jacobs call for "a compromise solution in which liberal states would legally permit de minimis FGA in recognition of its fulfillment of cultural and religious obligations, but would proscribe those forms of FGA that are dangerous" or cause functional damage. 

Promoting minimally invasive FGA is "a compromise that respects culture and religion but provides the necessary protections against child abuse," they conclude, eschewing critics who worry that this compromise weakens efforts to eliminate FGA entirely.

Despite 30?years of advocacy, we have not made dents in the prevalence of the practice in many countries and have been largely unable to change the attitudes regarding the acceptability of FGA. The goal of eradicating procedures that do not cause significant harm is at worst, morally questionable and at best, an invitation to waste resources that could be applied to ends that are more likely to further human well-being. In order to better protect female children from the long-term harms of [destructive] FGA, we must adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges that [some FGA procedures] are not associated with long-term medical risks, are culturally sensitive, do not discriminate on the basis of gender and do not violate human rights.

In response to Arora and Jacobs' paper, Arianne Shahvisi, with the University of Sussex Medical School Department of Ethics, argued that they shouldn't "rely on the legitimacy of male circumcision in order to devise a parallel procedure for FGA." While it's fair to say that any society which tolerates male circumcision should permit comparable procedures for females, "it is not at all clear that male circumcision is an acceptable practice to be taken as a yardstick for tolerable levels of harm," Shahvisi writes. She is also skeptical that FGA-practicing communities will substitute more extreme procedures for those with ritual, but not functional, effects. This "is not compatible with the justifications for performing the procedure to start with," which—while aesthetic in some places—are largely centered on reducing women's potential for sexual pleasure.

Brian Earp, a visiting scholar with the Hastings Center Bioethics Research Institute in New York, worries that legalizing minimal FGA in countries such as the U.S. and Canada would encourage more invasive procedures to be done their guises. Earp also objects to the comparable-to-circumcision argument, not because the two aren't comparable but because he thinks the American approach to male circumcision must face "serious scrutiny." Physically and symbolically, there is "far more overlap between [FGA and circumcision] than is commonly understood: they should not be discussed, therefore, in hermetically sealed moral discourses," Earp continues. But he thinks the most "promising way forward would be to argue for an 'autonomy-based' ethical framework," in which children, regardless of sex or gender, should not be subjected to genital procedures. 

NEXT: Here Is the Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders, in One Chart

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Not all "female genital mutilation" is destructive, they say, with some procedures no more problematic than male circumcision.

    Someone give me my foreskin back!

    1. Yeah, we'll just handwave away circumcision as no big deal.

      1. You see, the patriarchy hurts men, too!

    2. The best speech I ever heard a 5-year old give started with: "Foreskin and four years ago...."

    3. Equality at last!

      Genital mutilation for everybody!

  2. Well, this'll be a fun thread. BRB, fixing popcorn.

    1. I'm fixing deep dish pizza.

      1. With foreskin and cervical topping?

      2. I immediately read that as fucking deep dish pizza. Which probably is the best use for it.

        1. "It's the cheese that gets you off."

          Two points to anyone who gets that reference.

    2. Let's see, Chapman's "lying within acceptable bounds", Planned Parenthood, libertarian case for Sanders, circumcision...

      Is there some end of fiscal year ad revenue shortfall Reason is making up for? Cause I think most of use switched to adblock of some kind in self-defence.

      1. The ad block for iPhone works well for the ads but crashes somewhat frequently. Over all I give it a C+.

        1. My iPhone is too old to do more than cursory checks of H&R, because it'll drain battery like nobody's business.

          1. That's SugarFree's fault.

          2. I got the 6+ just so I can dick around here longer between charges.

        2. Shit, now I feel like a dick for suggesting it; hasn't crashed for me yet, but I'm on android. I would have looked at the iPhone reviews if I knew you were using one.

          1. I happy overall, the crashes are minor annoyance.

            1. As long as I don't have to worry about methed up 'gators or some such being sent to enact your vengeance.

  3. Does this enhance or detract from the Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders?

    1. The Labiatarian Case for Bernie Sanders.

      1. Very nice.

  4. Seems like a reasonable argument. Hope they are successful in not only legalization but in moving cultures towards more ceremonial forms of FGA than practical.

    1. See the last comment in this thread.

  5. Male genital mutilation is a problem for those of us who are consistent on this issue.

    1. You know who else checked for hoods?

      1. Eliot Ness and his Untouchables?

      2. The Sheriff of Nottingham?

        1. *remembers Alan Rickman, sheds tear*

      3. My kid's middle school?

      4. White Hispanics?

      5. Drug peddling CIA agents?

    2. Exactly. Don't slice, prick, cut, fold, spindle or otherwise mutilate any infant's genitals.

      1. "Better not cut up, nor otherwise harm no whores... or I'll come back and kill every one of you sons of bitches. "

      2. As a matter of persuasion, I'm with you, SF.

        As a matter of law, I hesitate.

        That said, I would have no problem with a law outlawing the sort of surgery that impairs function, and having orgasms is definitely a function.

        1. That said, I would have no problem with a law outlawing the sort of surgery that impairs function, and having orgasms is definitely a function.

          Assuming deliberate or some manner of intent and/or high probability; I'm with this right up until it comes to transgender surgery. Even then, I'm still with this, but acknowledge the 'impairs function' criteria itself becomes grotesquely mutilated.

          1. I was referring to surgery on children.

            Adults can fuck themselves all they want. On their own dime, of course.

            1. I was referring to surgery on children.

              I was too but with an eye to the fact that, as the transgender community (or the know-nothing advocate whacko portion anyway) *loves* to point out, some kids are literally born transgender and that, more often, what ends with reassignment surgery, starts by saturating kids with hormones well before the age of consent.

      3. Why is this so hard to understand?

  6. Apart from Canada and the US, male genital mutilation is only common in Muslim countries.

    1. Thanks Obama.

    2. Well, except for Israel, of course. I'm surprised more right-wingers haven't gone all anti-circ as a cultural identity thing, but the fundagelicals tend to identify with the jews and I've even heard some fundagelicals speaking proudly about mutilating their kids as a "covenant."

      1. This God fellow has some odd habits.

          1. Richard Cancer is really just misunderstood.

          2. Yeah, the whole cancer thing is a big selling point for me. Sure, they may have cut off a small piece of my dick when I was a baby, but pretty much eliminating any chance they'll have to cut off the whole thing means I don't really hold a grudge.

        1. ...Yeah, that is one of the many practices that I toss into the pile of, "Things the Jews did for health reasons that became religious reasons, because the religious reasons present a really weird picture of God."

          Like, OT God is some bizarre health nut who refuses to eat cheeseburgers and cares a lot about what kind of clothes you wear and what your dick looks like.

          OMG, God in the Old Testament is a teenage mean girl!

          "Ugh, pigs- they, are, like, literally, the most unclean animal, of all time. The only thing worse than sticking a pig in your mouth is putting in an uncut dick, am I right ladies? Ok, I'm going to go to the market, but I swear if I see Cindy wearing clothing worn from two different kinds of thread, I will just not be able to even!"

          1. Or, perhaps, if there really is a God, he told them not to do a bunch of stuff that would likely kill them (eating pork was a lot more dangerous then than it is now) and told them to do a few things that would help keep them alive (circumcision).

            That would also explain why Christ told them not to do them anymore, as the health reasons weren't nearly as important at that point.

      2. I've even heard some fundagelicals speaking proudly about mutilating their kids as a "covenant."

        Setting aside your stupid name for them, isn't there an entire epistle dedicated to circumcision and how there is no reason for Christians to do it?

        1. posting in the right thread this time...

          To answer myself (hey, isn't this fitting, pulling an Eddie in a discussion about the Bible), there is such an epistle, it's Galatians. However, like everything, no two sects will agree on what it actually means.

          1. Acts is even more clear on it.

            1. Just askin for a friend but which acts would those be?

              1. Acts of the Apostles. 5th book of the NT.

        2. Yeah, Paul laid into some Christians who were doing it in a letter, saying that it was a new covenant, etc. It's one of the ways that he and other early Church leaders used to define Christianity as a separate religion and a new understanding of God as opposed to "Jesus as Jewish prophet" which is how some followers took it.

          Practically, it would have really hurt early Christian recruitment if this new mystery cult had required taking a knife to your dick while the Cult of Isis (the historic one, not the current one. That one will totally cut your dick off) just asked you to wear some weird robes and chant some shit at midnite.

        3. It sounds like evangelicals + fun. Say, clowns and balloon animals?

      3. fundagelicals

        I'm not sure how this slur works. Is the punchline just that you pushed two words together? I'm not sure exactly how that shows derision, but, hey, do you, rock pilgrim.

        1. He's trying to make it a "thing."

      4. With all the Russian Jews there, the circumcision rate in Israel must have declined somewhat.

      5. I dont get the christian arguments for circumcision. The NT is explicit that it isnt required for gentiles.

        That said, Im cut and dont give a damn.

    3. Eh, there's also Israel, Philippines, bunch of countries in Africa that are not majority-muslim and this bit surprised me

      In 2005 the interview found that the prevalence of circumcision in Australia was roughly 58%. Circumcision status was more common with males over 30 than males under 30, and more common with males who were born in Australia. 66% of males born in Australia were circumcised and less than 1/3 of males under 30 were circumcised.

      2001 study of 20-year-old South Korean men found that 78% were circumcised.[38] At the time, the authors commented that "South Korea has possibly the largest absolute number of teenage or adult circumcisions anywhere in the world. Because circumcision started through contact with the American military during the Korean War, South Korea has an unusual history of circumcision." According to a 2002 study, 86.3% of South Korean males aged 14?29 were circumcised.[39] In 2012, it's the case of 75.8% of the same age group

      1. American imperialism leads to male genital mutilation around the world. See, South Korea, the Philippines.

        1. A good theory! Doesn't explain lack of it in South and Central America, though. Or Japan and Taiwan for that matter. But I'm sure we can fit the data, "American Imperialism is at fault" is a proven model, with 97% consensus!

    1. Did you go to UC Irvine?


      It's Peter the Anteater's 50th birthday!

    2. The topic is about FGM, not uterine prolapse dummy.

      1. Leave Hillary Clinton out of this!

        1. It's not me, it's crusty!

  7. "Not all "female genital mutilation" is destructive, they say, with some procedures no more problematic than male circumcision."

    Serious. Trolling.

    1. "While well-meaning, such positions fail to differentiate between alterations that are purely cosmetic and those that produce significant sexual or reproductive dysfunction."

      Oh no. That's an important point to make . . . for some reason.

      1. No, it's totally okay for parents to make major, unchangeable cosmetic changes to their child's genitals.

        I branded my son in the middle of his forehead, but it's alright because it hasn't impacted his ability to taste food. That's not even considering the fact that even in western societies, there's always the possibility of an accident that could cause actual damage. Why put babies in that position when there's no benefit to the change?

        There are situations in the US where complications in circumcision result in babies having to go back to the hospital to try and resolve the problems surgically. Why is it justifiable, no matter how small the risk of that is, to put your child at risk without their consent for something that is purely cosmetic?

        1. I wonder how many anti-circ folks have daughters with pierced ears?

          BTW, my daughter can pierce her ears when she turns 18.

          1. ???

            Most girls I know chose to get their own ears pierced. That's completely different.

            Are there people out there getting their baby's ears pierced or something?

            1. Yes, lots of them. Im not sure how early, but some I would call newborn.

              1. From a quick google search, first link a doctor recommends waiting until 6 months.

              2. Yeah, I don't like that either. It makes no sense since if a girl wants to get her own ears pierced, she can do it when she's old enough to choose.

                1. She'll also be old enough to care for them properly.

              3. Yes, newborn babies can have their ears pierced. It is considered a tradition to some.

            2. Are there people out there getting their baby's ears pierced or something?

              Yes...all my wife's Thai friends here in America pierced their daughters' ears when they were infants. I've seen plenty of white folk who've pierced their kid's ears when they were babies too.

              It's not how I was raised, but it's a thing.

              1. Latinas too. Which is odd because their parents lose their shit over belly rings.

                1. They do that in the middle east too

              2. My husband's relatives were aghast that I did not pierce my daughter's ears as an infant. So aghast, in fact, that when I let them take her shopping one day, she returned with pierced ears. This is okay, theoretically, because I merely fail to understand the needs of Hispanic culture.

                They have since been educated on the needs of my libertarian "open up a can of whoopass" culture.

          2. I'm not a big fan of ear piercing on infants. However, ear piercing does not actually change the physiological makeup of the ear, unlike cutting off the foreskin.

            1. ^My basic thoughts as well.

              You shouldn't do it, still, because... just why? I don't want to have to be dealing with pierced ear stuff in addition to all the other care and maintenance a baby requires. I'd just be paranoid that the kid would swallow the sharp of an earring or something.

              On the other hand, I just don't find it as objectionable because if you take out the earrings, the holes seal up with minimal cosmetic change. It's like giving your baby Moutain Dew- I look down on you for being an idiot.

        2. Honestly, I think its because if you actually apply logic, you'd have to ban both. But people HATE it when you apply logic to this issue, as I learned in college (back when I argued with the leftists very aggressively. Not fun times)

          Basically, male circumcision is in our society's moral Overton window, while FGM is outside of it. Now, that has a lot more to do with history and culture than logical, clear, moral principle. And it was a fine one to stick to, while all the people practicing FGM were in foreign lands. It was easy to cluck about how barbaric it was.

          The problem now is that people from cultures where FGM is the norm are coming here. And when they are told that the practice is unacceptable, they are loudly making the argument that it is no different than the accepted practices. Now, people are face with the horrifying prospect of logical consistency, and once people become accustomed to something being the moral norm, any changes to it are attacked vigorously (see: The entire history of human racism).

          Because, and this is the one thing that doesn't make any fucking sense to me- for some reason, a lot of people are VERY attached to the idea that they have an irrefutable right to take a knife to their baby son's dick. The same people who would condemn spanking... are okay with cutting their baby's dick while their son screams with pain. Just... how do you live with that level of dissonance?

          On this issue, I feel like I'm taking goddamn crazy pills. Sorry guys.

          1. "basically, male circumcision is in our society's moral Overton window, while FGM is outside of it."

            This is 100% true. I never even thought about the subject until I started posting here, actually, and was confused why people would get worked up over circumcision. Then I actually started thinking about it and realized that there's really no justification for the practice. I've never heard a strong argument in favor of circumcision, whereas there are potential dangers.

            Plus, you shouldn't be irreparably changing how your kid's penis looks without his consent. I think a lot of people would agree if they actually considered the issue, but it's such a part of American culture most people don't even think about it.

          2. I think its because if you actually apply logic, you'd have to ban both.

            You're confusing logic with axiology. Not a huge sin, as they are cousins, but still...

            1. I defer on this one to you, my professorial friend.

              1. I believe that logic is a tool one can use in moral reasoning, as long as one is careful to avoid the naturalistic fallacy. For example, it is proper to use logic to prove that male circumcision is of the same species as female circumcision, but what one cannot do is use logic to determine if one is less, equally, or more "bad" than the other, as logic has nothing to say about value. One needs to use another tool, axiology, if one wishes to advance a premise like that.

                Of course, in everyday reasoning, we conflate the two, but I'm just saying that you should be cautious in just calling it "logic" as by unwittingly limiting the conversation, you run the risk of being accused of violating either the moralistic or naturalistic fallacies (depending on which ways your is and oughts run)

          3. Honestly, I think its because if you actually apply logic, you'd have to ban both.
            Honestly, I think its because if you actually apply logic, you'd have to ban both.

            What the Holy Fuck?!?

            The only *logical* libertarian stances is to use the fist of government to crush it!

            The main reason FGM is out in Western Society is because it's been sold as bush people in Africa sewing little girls' vagina's closed with horse hair.

            As long as we aren't talking huge medical risk and gross deformity there are far more torturous things, both physically and psychologically, that parents do to their kids as a part of 'normal' parenting.

            Circumcision at an age when he/she won't remember it is taboo. If we give them braces or they sign up for a sport where we make them squat until they puke and then run them to death, those are the breaks. Even more brilliantly, if he/she identifies as gender fluid and is selected for/conditioned into gender re-assignement surgery despite it's abundance of failure it is, legally/popularly, a full-tilt go.

            Up until a few years ago

            1. So, because society has historically looked on children as property, it's okay that we still do in a lot of ways?

              The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is predated by the ASPCA; there were laws against abusing animals on the books before there were laws against abusing children.

              Yes, there have been state interventions for fucking with your kids, but that was more that the kid was sent to an orphanage, and less that you got punished for abusing another human being. Our culture comes from a belief that children are, in essence, property- you can marry them off to whomever you like, do with them what you like, and while that may cause moral censure from the rest of society, well- a man's home is his castle.

              Look, I get why we come from that: Kids don't know what is best for them, their consent or lack thereof can not be too binding, and unless we go Brave New World you gotta let parents raise their kids. But look at that phrasing "their kids". Even in that case, we see how our language implies that parents own offspring.


              1. And, once again, it was illegal to beat your dog before it was illegal to beat your kids, and our services for abused animals are better funded and better publicized than our services for abused children.

                And on the other side, a lot of the discipline problem shit I hear where cops get called by a teenager seems to always involve divorce. Or, it's the kid lying that you hit them... and the issue to me there is more the lying and the lack of the proper investigation. The censure for that act is based on the fact that we all agree that you shouldn't hit your kids- we aren't having a society debate on the morality of beating your children in the way we do other abusive acts.

                So, while I don't have the answer, I do come a bit from the side of, "We let parents get away with being pretty shitty."

          4. "how do you live with that level of dissonance?"

            Because the alternative is accepting their own mutilation, that they inflicted mutilation on their own children, and that our society has inflicted mutilation on its children for decades.

        3. I think this is supposed to mimic the back alley abortion narrative. If we don't let people . . . um . . . accessorize . . . their daughter's vaginas in hospitals, then God only knows what these girls fathers might do using a broken bottle and some hydrogen peroxide!

          Of course, a girl having an abortion without her parents' knowledge isn't anything like a girl's parents pushing her to get a female circumcision.

          1. Well, Ken, we wouldn't want to be racists against the noble refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, now would we?

            Even though these set of beliefs have nothing to do with skin color... it's just their culture... the Crusades... look, here's a picture of Justin Trudeau holding a baby!

            (NOTE: God, that article will make you lose respect for Canada)

        4. Why put babies in that position when there's no benefit to the change?

          C'mon Irish, "For the children!" Really?

          Cheerleading is largely optics/cosmetics and produces injuries at a rate far greater than circumcision. Do we start telling parents they can't enroll their kids in cheerleading without their consent/against their will? Should we start hauling parents off to prison for forcing kids to ride bikes? Ban braces?

          The 'aesthetics vs. function' distinction is important because, as libertarians, the question is about the point where the NAP has been violated and the hammer of gov't should be brough to bear. If I take a razor to someone's head, I may be scalping them or I may just be shaving them. The critical differences being permanent damage and against their will.

          And, fucking yes, if you brand your son in the middle of his forehead, as long as it doesn't represent a serious and/or ongoing threat to his health, it's your business. Otherwise, as we all know, everyone legally gets to question everything no matter how fucking cosmetic. Then, just seeing a kid in a car becomes, regardless of any actual harm, a fucking crime.

      2. many such procedures are no more problematic than circumcision for male infants or the "elective labiaplasty for which affluent women pay thousands of dollars," the researchers say.

        Keyword elective, another word for voluntary. Suddenly, the need for busybodies to draw these distinctions vanishes when you allow people to make voluntary decisions that impact themselves.

    2. Obviously, Irish doesn't realize what a big threat it is that little girls won't get their genitals . . . um . . . reconfigured . . . because of overblown concerns about genital mutilation.

      Why, just the other day, I was talking to someone's mom in the grocery store, and she said, . . .

      Actually, I can't imagine what the problem is here. Are we supposed to be worried about back alley female circumcisions like they're back alley abortions or something? We should throw people in jail if they subject their daughters to something like that.

      Solution in search of a problem aka concern trollolololo.

  8. Well, we know that there's nothing wrong with amputating parts of little boys' penises*, so we should be logically consistent.

    *Because smegma, after all.

  9. It's interesting. I consider the practice of male circumcision immoral, although I don't want to ban it. It just always seemed to me that the two arguments for it-"I want my son's dick to look like mine" and "It's cultural"- are not very strong arguments.

    I mean, I'm uncut, but if at some point my kid wanted to get cut, I wouldn't stop him. Way I see it, by not cutting him, I'm preserving that choice for him (and yea, I know the surgery is a way bigger hassle when you are older). If he chooses that, well, look- it's okay if my kid wants to be different than what I am. It's okay if my kid has different wants, needs, and desires than I do. They aren't my fucking property to do with as I like- that's the historic norm for our society, BTW (that was why the idea of child abuse took so long to be brought about... it was illegal to be cruel to animals before it was illegal to be cruel to children).


    1. Actually, here is what I don't get, and what has always really bothered me. Now, I don't know many Muslims, but I have throughout my life known a number of Jews. And even the ones who don't observe a single Jewish law, don't keep kosher, basically only do Passover if that- even they seem to do the circumcision thing. And I just simply don't get it- like, of all the Jewish practices and beliefs,THAT's the hill you die on? The baby junk cutting hill? Not the slaughter of animals to reduce suffering, which actually seems to have a moral component- no. You go with the story about how God instructed a guy to, instead of sacrificing his son, merely take some skin off his dick.

      BTW, it wouldn't surprise me if non-observant Muslims do the same thing, and it still wouldn't make sense. Of all the practices to preserve into the 21rst century, why is it the cutting a baby's dick? Especially when modern medicine has made it so that you can do the surgery much, much later? I'm not going to say that a 9 or 10 year old would have a ton of choice or agency in that situation, but they have a shit ton more of a chance to raise a fuss than a fucking baby.

      On the subject of FGM? Just get your shit together, Islam. If you don't, I think Mecca may soon be glowing in the dark.

      1. I think a lot of it is that, if you are cut and not bothered by it, then arguments that it's a terrible thing to do to someone are less persuasive. Oh no, my child may suffer as horribly as I... havent.

    2. I am circumcised and it's never bothered me or anything, though obviously I can't possibly know if sex would feel different if I had foreskin.

      I just don't think it's right to subject kids to elective surgeries with potential complications without their consent, particularly when the surgery is on their genitals. Call me crazy I guess.


        1. I've been waiting for the thread were someone at Salon, or somewhere, tells us that white women who won't date or sleep with black guys are racist.

          I'm sure that thread is coming.

          White guys that haven't slept with black women . . . same racist thing.

          1. I've been waiting for the thread were someone at Salon, or somewhere, tells us that white women who won't date or sleep with black guys are racist.

            Two words: Connor Habib

          2. What we need is some kind of program for white guys who haven't slept with black women. To cure us... er, I mean them, of their horrible racism.

            1. I believe it's called Tinder.

            2. I have been around the world. I assure you, when the lights are out you can't tell.

          3. But if a white person prefers to have sex with people of a different race, thats fetishizing it, and also racist. The only progressively halal way to have sex is to have an orgy physically implementing the progressive stack.

      2. I maintain that uncircumcised guys probably get less oral.

        They may feel more when they get some sugar, but do they get less sugar than they would otherwise?

        1. Y'know, it's funny. I like blow jobs, but I find it stunning how many women are quite bad at that. Them seem to basically think the idea if to just vaguely shove it down their throat and create a bit of suction and that's it. Seriously, a lot of chicks seem to think deep throat=good blowjob, when all the fun bits are near the top.

          It's probably that a lot of girls don't like doing it, so they never actually get that good at it, and idk- maybe most guys are a little more sensitive than me (It takes me a bit to get going, which is not supposed to happen with uncut but I don't mind).

          It's honestly never really been hard for me to get blow jobs. I enjoy going down on chicks to the point where it is a mild fetish, and if you do that pretty often she basically CAN'T do the whole, "I suppose I'll blow you..."

          It's more like, "Okay, I've just given YOU multiple orgasms with my mouth, wanna return the favor lady?"


          I just realized that this is the most explicit post I have ever written on H&R. I stand by it.

          1. It is almost as if I wrote it myself.

          2. Bad blowjobs are like my worst day surfing.

            I just don't complain when good things happen.

  10. What the hell is the point of having children if you aren't allowed to chop their dicks and/or clits off?

    1. Free labor?

  11. Every single mention I've seen of bioethicists has shown them to be a bunch of sick, evil scumbags who love human suffering and think there should be more of it. This article is perfectly in line with that record.

    1. "Bioethicist" appearsbto be a euphemism for "sadistic Luddite."

  12. There's enough subject matter to be laughed about in the shower without being an anteater.

  13. Undiluted savagery.

    Cannibalism and human sacrifice has been practiced everywhere by all cultures at some time or other. The best records we have are pretty sketchy but there is a pattern. The people practicing it claimed spiritual justification (consuming enemy strength generally or gaining favor with gods) but in fact they were making up for protein they could not obtain otherwise. Practices would evolve to become more and more ritualized until it would disappear altogether. The tribe that lived where I do now were some of the worst cannibals in NA but the practice evolved to merely sucking blood through the skin (hickies) before it disappeared. The reason it did that, and the reason these practices disappeared everywhere is more or less the same: The people doing it knew they would be killed if they kept it up. Their culture would not allow them to dispense with it altogether so they incrementally softened it down until they felt no need for it.

    Pussy cutting has the same remedy and will follow the same pattern. The purpose of it is to remove female sexual pleasure because every good cave man knows that if a woman can have sexual pleasure she will be impossible to control as a wife.
    In some cultures it has evolved from functional to aesthetic for the same reason cannibalism was softened down. This will have the same remedy.

    1. Here is an idea: Your daughter can have her pussy cut when she is of majority age and of her own choice. Otherwise, you get shot.

      Yeah, I know, save your pixels. I am a colonialist patriarchal cis-shitlord son of a bitch.

      Footnote: I walk around in my yard and see stone flakes in my yard and wonder what horrors this hill has been witness to in the last 20,000 years.

    2. Cannibalism and human sacrifice has been practiced everywhere by all cultures at some time or other.

      Is this true?

      1. Somewhere in their family tree, I think it's safe to say that everyone has someone who ate another human being if you look far back enough. It's also amazing to think that if you have any ancestry from the Eurasian super-continent or North Africa, you are descended from people who survived the fucking Plague. I bet you feel like a super-strong badass now.

      2. As far as I know, yes. Archaeologists have found skeletons with knife/teeth marks on them the world over. Suthenboy's crackpot theory is that environmental pressure brings it into practice.

        In deserts and jungles there just isnt that much protein available. If you have more than a small tribe you have to get protein from somewhere or you starve. Since your tribe are the only real people it is perfectly ok to take those folks over the hill and put them in a soup pot. After all, they aren't real people, they are animals. Incidentally, it appears that Cromagnon, human, and neandertal all preyed on each other. It has always been around.

        Ex. - The Anasazi. I think they lived in a fairly good environment at the edges of the ice sheet and probably preyed on herd animals. Then the ice age ended and the herds disappeared. The place became a desert. They built cliffside fortresses to defend from the other tribes that were preying on them and they preyed back. When agriculture and animal husbandry advance or if conditions change and there is enough food in the wild the practice goes away.

        The Aztecs are another great example.

        All of my posts here are very superficial but I think accurate.

        1. I'll take superficial but accurate over truthy any day.

  14. Male circumcision has documented medical benefits.


    These things do not. That makes this debate different from the male circumcision debate. Whatever you think of male circumcision, it is not strictly a religious or cultural practice. There are medical benefits to it and it is always possible that a family is making a informed medical choice for the benefit of the child rather than risking the child's health to satisfy some barbaric cultural norm.

    1. John, if this were the 300 BC, that would be a great argument. In fact, I'm sure the health benefits are why the practice began, and play a part in why it continued for so long. The reduced rate of some STDs was probably really valuable in an era before the germ theory of disease.

      Here's the problem, John: We are in America, in the 21st century. There are these wonderful things called latex condoms, and they prevent STDs at a much better rate than circumcision!

      Wanna know what else we don't do in 2016? Remove a toddler's tonsils or an adolescent's appendix, because who knows when those things could get infected? They're vestigial organs anyway!

      No, John, it would be insane to do a semi-invasive surgery which can cause nasty complications in return for only a mild health benefit that is easily replicated through careful application of technology. Look, we don't force insulin pumps on diabetics- if they want to, they can test themselves regularly and take shots. Just as if a man wants to, for health or religious reasons, cut off the skin on his dick- he can. We just don't do that shit to babies unless it is absolutely necessary- actually, the insulin thing applies there to, as the only reason to do that kind of surgery to a baby is medical necessity (yes, circumcise rather than amputate a dick; put in whatever you need to make giving a baby insulin easier)

      1. John, it would be insane to do a semi-invasive surgery which can cause nasty complications in return for only a mild health benefit that is easily replicated through careful application of technology.

        No what is insane is thinking that male circumcision is any significant danger of complications since it has been done hundreds of millions of times in this country and was never an issue until a bunch of gay men decided they might be missing out on some kind of feeling because they were circumcised.

        If circumcision is so dangerous, why did no one notice for so many years.

        My point is that if you think it is horrible, have fun. I don't care really. But don't compare it to female circumcision. It is not the same thing.

        And when you do join the save the dick jihad, understand you will be joining a lot of people who have very bad motives for wanting this, namely to fuck with Jews.

        1. Benefit or no benefit, complications or no complications, unless your son has an existing problem that can be remedied by circumcision it not your call. You don't get to deprive someone else of their freedom to choose based on your personal preferences.

          This is not complicated.

    2. Not one size fits all benefits. It should only ever be done when an individual has a problem that can be remedied that way.

      Be careful about scientific evidence supporting things people have strong personal reasons for wanting. I read a study showing that there really was no little ice age, one showing no hiatus in the climate warming and another showing that seas are rising faster than ever.

      1. It is the mayo clinic. I really don't think they have a dog in the fight about the dick wars.

  15. It is hard for us to really understand this issue without seeing a bunch of pictures that would land us in jail.

    In the meantime, I vote for no cutting. Likewise baptism should be for self aware people who can make their own decisions.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.