NationStates Jolt Archive

In view of the heated arguments about the past three Habardian resolutions, the government has decided to tackle less controversial issues. Thus upon revising UN law, it found a resolution that was passed even when it was illegal. Now, I do not personally approve of FGM, and in fact would have voted for this resolution. However, as can be read below, it is now illegal, according to UN law.

Repeal "Female Genital Mutilation"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #62


Proposed by: Habardia

Description: UN Resolution #62: Female Genital Mutilation (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNISING the good intentions behind this resolution.

OBSERVING, however, that through resolution #80 "Rights of Minorities & Women", this resolution has been rendered illegal, given that resolution #80 clearly states no culture shall be taken in higher regard to another.

SEEING that in some societies FGM is an integral part of culture.

PROPOSING the repeal of this resolution in view of its now illegal status.

Well, I hope my fellow delegates can look beyond the most apparent fact that this proposal tries to repeal what I consider a great resolution and see the fact that it is now, sadly, illegal.

Actually I would argue that since "Female Genital Mutilation" was passed first, it would be "Rights of Minorities & Women" that's illegal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

What are you talking about? Ban FGM only asks us to run a few education programmes. Cultures are free to carry on the practice all they like. There is a remote mountain tribe in Gruenberg which continues to do so, in fact; seemingly, they weren't paying attention in 'Don't Mutilate Female Genitalia' classes...if we'd bothered to run any. I think they're on very thin ground here, and I can't see that your legal argument holds water.

Actually I would argue that since "Female Genital Mutilation" was passed first, it would be "Rights of Minorities & Women" that's illegal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Upon further consideration, I agree fully. Besides, I would rather repeal the latter, since I really have no objection against the former.

Actually I would argue that since "Female Genital Mutilation" was passed first, it would be "Rights of Minorities & Women" that's illegal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
That is true but "Female Genital Mutilation" is still illegal under Resolution #25 "The Child Protection Act"

For that reason I support this repeal.

That is true but "Female Genital Mutilation" is still illegal under Resolution #25 "The Child Protection Act"

For that reason I support this repeal.
Can you explain how?
ARTICLE 2

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)

2. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present resolution to each minor within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the minor's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

3. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the minor is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the minor's parents, legal guardians, or family members.
(bolding mine)

Indeed, I would say on the basis of this article from the Child Protection Act that the resolution on Female Genital Mutilation is entirely legal.

Can you explain how?

(bolding mine)

Indeed, I would say on the basis of this article from the Child Protection Act that the resolution on Female Genital Mutilation is entirely legal.
Yes I fully agree that Genital Mutilation is and should be illegal but Resolution #62 "Female Genital Mutilation" itself is not legal.

ARTICLE 2 of The Child Protection Act:

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)

2. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present resolution to each minor within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the minor's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

3. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the minor is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the minor's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

See, that's where there's problems. If I'm reading your argument right, you're saying that the FGM resolution is descriminatory because it only deals with females. I don't believe so.

To put it frankly, show me a male with the ability to have their genitals mutilated in the same manner as females, and I'll join your side.

See, that's where there's problems. If I'm reading your argument right, you're saying that the FGM resolution is descriminatory because it only deals with females. I don't believe so.

To put it frankly, show me a male with the ability to have their genitals mutilated in the same manner as females, and I'll join your side.

Best RL example I can think of is ancient eygpt - didn't they turn kids into eunuchs from birth?

I'm not in favor of repealling this one (partially because the author is in my region, and partially because it was the most popular resolution at vote), but I remain interested in any proposed improvements.

See, that's where there's problems. If I'm reading your argument right, you're saying that the FGM resolution is descriminatory because it only deals with females. I don't believe so.
How is it not descriminatory, please explain?


To put it frankly, show me a male with the ability to have their genitals mutilated in the same manner as females, and I'll join your side.
Wha..?
I don't quite get what you mean.

Males have way more to worry about "down there" I don't even want to start to think about the possibilities...:(

SEEING that in some societies FGM is an integral part of culture.


I really hope you are not speaking here about Clitoridectomy or about Infibulation:

Clitoridectomy:
"the partial or total removal of of the clitoris"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision#Clitoridectomy

Infibulation:
"urgical closure of the female labia majora by sewing them together to seal off the female genitalia, leaving only a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood"
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infibulation

The people of Love and esterel is horrified by the text of this repeal

What about men castration which is an integral part of some culture:D

When I say FGM is integral to some cultures I am in no way condoning it.This repeal is based solely on legal technicalitites. I believe FGM should be illegal, but I do not see how one can have both #62 and #80 at the same time, they are mututally exclusive.

When I say FGM is integral to some cultures I am in no way condoning it.This repeal is based solely on legal technicalitites. I believe FGM should be illegal, but I do not see how one can have both #62 and #80 at the same time, they are mututally exclusive.

i hope so

but your clause:

"SEEING that in some societies FGM is an integral part of culture" can be interpretated in such ways, it made me sick, sorry

I really hope you are not speaking here about Clitoridectomy or about Infibulation:

Clitoridectomy:
"the partial or total removal of of the clitoris"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision#Clitoridectomy

Infibulation:
"urgical closure of the female labia majora by sewing them together to seal off the female genitalia, leaving only a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood"
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infibulation

The people of Love and esterel is horrified by the text of this repeal

What about men castration which is an integral part of some culture:D
I may agree with the repeal but I DO NOT agree with the reasons given for it.

How anyone could think there's nothing wrong with performing someting like a clitoridectomy/circumcision on a child is beyond words, let alone infibulation/castration.....

Male and female genital mutilation is just.... It's insanity, to say the least..... :|

I may agree with the repeal but I DO NOT agree with the reasons given for it.

How anyone could think there's nothing wrong with performing someting like a clitoridectomy/circumcision on a child is beyond words, let alone infibulation/castration..... It's insanity, to say the least..... :|

I think we can all agree that FGM is a bad thing (I have a way of understating things....)

And, yes, there is a clear agreement that it should be illegal.

What is debatable is why it should be repealled. it will be nigh on impossible to get this one replaced. 91% support when it came out. How do you plan to persuade that huge majority to reconsider?

Personally, I think it's fine as it is (shame it does not cover male genital mutilation, but that's a minor matter)

I think we can all agree that FGM is a bad thing (I have a way of understating things....)

And, yes, there is a clear agreement that it should be illegal.

What is debatable is why it should be repealled. it will be nigh on impossible to get this one replaced. 91% support when it came out. How do you plan to persuade that huge majority to reconsider?

Personally, I think it's fine as it is (shame it does not cover male genital mutilation, but that's a minor matter)
How is it only a "minor matter" when it discriminates against males and violates UN law?!

Do you know the reason as to why it wasn't written to cover male genital mutilation as well or how it got around UN law?

How is it only a "minor matter" when it discriminates against males and violates UN law?!

Do you know the reason as to why it wasn't written to cover male genital mutilation as well or how it got around UN law?

I have no idea why it did not cover MGM - although this does not stop someone writing another resolution for MGM. Would not be very difficult to do!

I'm not sure what you mean about "getting around" UN law. Please clarify. I can't see how it is illegal (apart from possibily conflicting with later resolutions). Sure it discriminates, but that's easily fixed.

I've asked Salfara to have a look at this topic as he might be better placed to answer certain questions.

I have no idea why it did not cover MGM - although this does not stop someone writing another resolution for MGM. Would not be very difficult to do!
Not as easy as you might think.....:rolleyes:

*remembers the hate mail and death threats*


I'm not sure what you mean about "getting around" UN law. Please clarify. I can't see how it is illegal (apart from possibily conflicting with later resolutions). Sure it discriminates, but that's easily fixed.

I've asked Salfara to have a look at this topic as he might be better placed to answer certain questions.

ARTICLE 2 of The Child Protection Act:

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)

2. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present resolution to each minor within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the minor's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

3. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the minor is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the minor's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

Not as easy as you might think.....:rolleyes:

*remembers the hate mail and death threats*

Yeah, I've done a resolution before, so I know that feeling ;)

If you wrote this arguement in a repeal, I'd be inclined to agree with it (providing it lead to a better re-write). I wouldn't ask my delegate to endorse (as Saf is part of my region).

I still think you'd be better off writing a MGM proposal rather than repealling to do a generic genitial mutilation resolution. It'll be easier, shouldn't infringe on any past resolutions.

How is it only a "minor matter" when it discriminates against males and violates UN law?!

Do you know the reason as to why it wasn't written to cover male genital mutilation as well or how it got around UN law?

I think the reason why is that male genital mutilation is less frequent, and that it's not easy to write a perfect resolution either

but you right: the reslution would have been better to cover it

Yeah, I've done a resolution before, so I know that feeling ;)

If you wrote this arguement in a repeal, I'd be inclined to agree with it (providing it lead to a better re-write). I wouldn't ask my delegate to endorse (as Saf is part of my region).

I still think you'd be better off writing a MGM proposal rather than repealling to do a generic genitial mutilation resolution. It'll be easier, shouldn't infringe on any past resolutions.
You're probably right about that. Plus I should have the time now to give either one another go.

I'll start looking into it again I guess. :)

Well, in terms of repeals, this would probably be the hardest repeal and the one most unlikely to pass or even reach quorum. That, given that the original resolution holds the record for consensus among UN members (the highest affirmative vote), and in RL there's a general taboo against opposing legislation or viewpoints that are seen as "empowering women".

"empowering women".

Well, i fail to see were #62 Female Genital Mutilation empowers women:confused:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #62
Female Genital Mutilation


The General Assembly,

Observing that female genital mutilation (hereafter 'FGM') is performed ritually in some cultures,

Alarmed by the long-term effects of FGM, including prolonged pain and increased risk of death during childbirth,

Deeply disturbed that many women are subjected to FGM against their will,

Recognising that when dealing with other cultures, legislation leads to confrontation, whilst education leads to willing change,

1. Condemns the practice of FGM;

2. Calls upon States to fund programmes educating citizens about the dangers of FGM;

3. Urges States to avoid using the alternative phrase 'female circumcision', as this leads to comparison with the safe male circumcision.

"safe male circumcision

Safe? Isn't that discrimating? I'm sure male circumcision/MGM is just as dangerous as female circumcision/FGM.

And the resolution says education is the answer. It's not. How do we know if those programs are funded very well, and is working as intended to stop FGM? No national stats are given to figure it out. Plus, all the pro-FGM people have to do is educate people about the glories of FGM!

This resolution manes nothing. It doesn't force us to do anything, and it doesn't stop FGM. I support giving this resolution more meat, maybe even outlawing FGM in all UN nations unless the female consent to it. If somebody wants to do FGM, they can go outside the UN.

Well, i fail to see were #62 Female Genital Mutilation empowers women:confused:
First, I didn't say is was empowering women, I said it was seen as empowering women. I'm not going inject my own opinions on whether or not it's actually "empowering women".

And the reason I feel it's seen as empowering women is because the procedure is generally (if I remember correctly) performed by men on very young women. This in itself sets up a power relationship with women at the bottom, and implies that the women are under the thumb of the men (the man has dominion over the woman's body). Thus the elimination of that procedure would be seen as empowering women from that possible oppression.

I have read nothing to persuade me that the resolution in question is deserving of repeal. I also note that, no matter the reason it is not discriminatory is that 'MGM' and FGM are not equivalent. The argument against female circumcision has been won. The argument against male circumcision has not.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

First, I didn't say is was empowering women, I said it was seen as empowering women. I'm not going inject my own opinions on whether or not it's actually "empowering women".

And the reason I feel it's seen as empowering women is because the procedure is generally (if I remember correctly) performed by men on very young women. This in itself sets up a power relationship with women at the bottom, and implies that the women are under the thumb of the men (the man has dominion over the woman's body). Thus the elimination of that procedure would be seen as empowering women from that possible oppression.

It really seems to me you are playing with words here;) as it seems there are 2 different definitions
I recognize i'm very far to be an english Dictionary expert, but i was not easy with your sentence, sorry


EMPOWER

WordNet Dictionary

1. [v] give or delegate power or authority to; "She authorized her assistant to sign the papers"
2. [v] give qualities or abilities to


Webster's 1913 Dictionary

1. To give authority to; to delegate power to; to commission;
to authorize (having commonly a legal force); as, the
Supreme Court is empowered to try and decide cases, civil
or criminal; the attorney is empowered to sign an
acquittance, and discharge the debtor.

2. To give moral or physical power, faculties, or abilities
to. ``These eyes . . . empowered to gaze.'' --Keble.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=empower&sourceid=Mozilla-search

and

1 To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. See Synonyms at authorize.
2 To equip or supply with an ability; enable: “Computers... empower students to become intellectual explorers”

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empower

It really seems to me you are playing with words here;) as it seems there are 2 different definitions
I recognize i'm very far to be an english Dictionary expert, but i was not easy with your sentence, sorryIt's okay. :)

A lot of times I need to be called out to be more specific or choosy with my words. I seem write things a little backward: I usually find the very "descriptive" way of saying something ("descriptive" in that its long-winded, over-sophisticated, confusing, and sometimes misusing words) and then have to prune that down to eliminate redundancies and increase the general succinctness and accessibility of my statement. I'm often "dumbing-down" my writing to make it understandable (though it isn't really "dumbing-down", since it wasn't over-intelligent to being with, just over-sophisticated).

Lemme get to what I mean by "empower".

EMPOWER

WordNet Dictionary

1. [v] give or delegate power or authority to; "She authorized her assistant to sign the papers"
2. [v] give qualities or abilities to
I actually mean both. Or at least, I think both would fit.

Eliminating FGM would be seen as "giving or delegating power or authority to" women because it is seen as decreasing their powerlessness in male-dominated societies. Thus a net increase of power within the women (from .5 to .6 or whatnot).

Eliminating FGM would be seem as "give qualities or abilities to" in that it gives the women the ability to live life with functioning genitals, which aren't causing them pain and endangering their lives. If we take the abilities of a woman with FGM (cannot live without pain, medical danger) and compare them to a woman without FGM (has the ability to live with no foreseeable pain or medical danger) we can see a net increase in ability.

One could argue that it is this net increase in ability which causes the increase in power, as power might in some instances be defined as a measurement of instantaneous ability (like the instantaneous slope of a curve at a given point). Anyway, I think both definitions fit, even if its one that causes the other.

It's okay. :)

A lot of times I need to be called out to be more specific or choosy with my words. I seem write things a little backward: I usually find the very "descriptive" way of saying something ("descriptive" in that its long-winded, over-sophisticated, confusing, and sometimes misusing words) and then have to prune that down to eliminate redundancies and increase the general succinctness and accessibility of my statement. I'm often "dumbing-down" my writing to make it understandable (though it isn't really "dumbing-down", since it wasn't over-intelligent to being with, just over-sophisticated).

Lemme get to what I mean by "empower".
I actually mean both. Or at least, I think both would fit.

Eliminating FGM would be seen as "giving or delegating power or authority to" women because it is seen as decreasing their powerlessness in male-dominated societies. Thus a net increase of power within the women (from .5 to .6 or whatnot).

Eliminating FGM would be seem as "give qualities or abilities to" in that it gives the women the ability to live life with functioning genitals, which aren't causing them pain and endangering their lives. If we take the abilities of a woman with FGM (cannot live without pain, medical danger) and compare them to a woman without FGM (has the ability to live with no foreseeable pain or medical danger) we can see a net increase in ability.

One could argue that it is this net increase in ability which causes the increase in power, as power might in some instances be defined as a measurement of instantaneous ability (like the instantaneous slope of a curve at a given point). Anyway, I think both definitions fit, even if its one that causes the other.

Thanks for your nice explanation

How is it only a "minor matter" when it discriminates against males and violates UN law?!


In the same way that no one argued abortion rights was discriminatory against men when it was written - no where in it does it give the males rights to have an abortion, yet strangely no men are complaining that they can't have one.

And circumcision is WAY less dangerous (even if some men cross their legs at the thought).

I think the reason why is that male genital mutilation is less frequent, and that it's not easy to write a perfect resolution either
Actually MGM is more common than FGM world wide by more then a 6:1 ratio. The sad truth is that while a FGM occurs every 16 seconds (around 2 million times annually), a MGM occurs every 2.4 seconds. (Around 13 million times annually)

Plus on top of all that, MGM is done in the same unclean and unsafe conditions as FGM when either are done in the third world.

The real reason(s) it’s ignored is basically because the forces initially behind fighting against it decided that opposing MGM or even calling it a form of mutilation, in some way trivialized FGM....? :| To the point where it’s now even PI to condemn it.

This quote from an article by a true feminist puts it best.
The bifurcation of male circumcision from female circumcision can no longer be tolerated. Claims that the two cannot be linked perpetuates the continued legitimacy of one human rights abuse, male circumcision, through the condemnation of another.


Well, in terms of repeals, this would probably be the hardest repeal and the one most unlikely to pass or even reach quorum. That, given that the original resolution holds the record for consensus among UN members (the highest affirmative vote), and in RL there's a general taboo against opposing legislation or viewpoints that are seen as "empowering women".
I understand perfectly what you mean....:rolleyes:

>_>

<_<

It’s probably best to stop talking about this before it’s too late...


And the reason I feel it's seen as empowering women is because the procedure is generally (if I remember correctly) performed by men on very young women. This in itself sets up a power relationship with women at the bottom, and implies that the women are under the thumb of the men (the man has dominion over the woman's body). Thus the elimination of that procedure would be seen as empowering women from that possible oppression.
That’s not really true. In most cases, especially in the third world it’s usually done by a village/community matriarch as a right of passage. Not in every case though.


I have read nothing to persuade me that the resolution in question is deserving of repeal. I also note that, no matter the reason it is not discriminatory is that 'MGM' and FGM are not equivalent. The argument against female circumcision has been won. The argument against male circumcision has not.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN
Too late...

That’s where you’re wrong. As I’ve pointed out earlier. ^

Here are some quick facts about both male and female genital mutilation. (http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm)

If you want to see the truth for yourself then here’s the best place to start.

http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm (http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm)

Too late...

That’s where you’re wrong. As I’ve pointed out earlier. ^

Here are some quick facts about both male and female genital mutilation. (http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm)

If you want to see the truth for yourself then here’s the best place to start.

http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm (http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm)
OOC: No. The argument against male circumcision has not been won, either in NS or RL. It is intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise. I'm not saying it can't be won, just that it hasn't yet.

OOC: No. The argument against male circumcision has not been won, either in NS or RL. It is intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise. I'm not saying it can't be won, just that it hasn't yet.
The problem with your argument is the fact that there is no big difference between MGM and FGM. As I've shown before, every year more males suffer the same type of mutilation as females, not to mention die because of it but nobody says anything for fear of reprisal for not being PC.

Also, I wasn't talking about any theoretical positive medical issues. This was about the long settled Ethical and Human Rights issues of male and female genital mutilation. One can't be good and the other bad when they're both the same thing!

Actually MGM is more common than FGM world wide by more then a 6:1 ratio. The sad truth is that while a FGM occurs every 16 seconds (around 2 million times annually), a MGM occurs every 2.4 seconds. (Around 13 million times annually)

Plus on top of all that, MGM is done in the same unclean and unsafe conditions as FGM when either are done in the third world.

The real reason(s) it’s ignored is basically because the forces initially behind fighting against it decided that opposing MGM or even calling it a form of mutilation, in some way trivialized FGM....? :| To the point where it’s now even PI to condemn it.


Please, there is no comparaison possible

You can condamn MGM, no pb about that, and i will agree with you, but

FGM = a cut or a closure of a sexual organ

MGM = a cut or a portion of skin
is the penis cut in most MGM?

Wow, I seem to have created a monster here. What I thought was a way to step away from controversy seems to just have plunged me deeper in it, but hey, that's how t goes, right? Anyway, I must again reiterate my firm opposition against both FGM and MGM, however, I still see this resolution as conflicting with others. And even if it wasn't, I would like to see MGM included, but as was said, it can be fixed easily. I would liketo take the opportunity to revel my intentions of working on an anti-MGM (and anti-FGM, if this repeal should happen) proposal and invite any delegates interested to collaborate.

Please, there is no comparaison possible

You can condamn MGM, no pb about that, and i will agree with you, but

FGM = a cut or a closure of a sexual organ

MGM = a cut or a portion of skin
is the penis cut in most MGM?

Here is the thing. People have way too long considered women to have NO sexual organs, and that is the problem. But the truth is, just as the penis is not removed in MGM, neither is the whole female sexual apparatus in FGM (at least in the majority of cases). The truth is, both procedures are exactly the same, in that in most cases what they do is remove the most sexually sensitive part of the sexual organ (prepuce in men, clitoris in women). The UN must recognise this and legislate these two atrocities as what they are, and stop worrying about PI issues. Yet I still believe in order to do this, #80 would have to not be there.

Wow, I seem to have created a monster here. What I thought was a way to step away controversy seems to just have plunged me deeper in it, but hey, that's how t goes, right? Anyway, I must again reiterate my firm opposition against both FGM and MGM, however, I still see this resolution as conflicting with others. And even if it wasn't, I would like to see MGM included, but as was said, it can be fixed easily. I would liketo take the opportunity to revel my intentions of working on an anti-MGM (and anti-FGM, if this repeal should happen) proposal and invite any delegates interested to collaborate.

I'm a sovereigntist. I admit it, and I'm proud of it. Nonetheless, I can see how, sometimes, the UN might feel the need to meddle with my classrooms. With my hospitals. Even with my military. But now you're telling me the UN should interfere with my misters? No. There, sir, I draw a line.

But now you're telling me the UN should interfere with my misters?
What do you mean by misters?? Do you mean your testicles??

A "minor matter?" Next you will be saying it's just a little thing after all.

There is no way you can compare FGM to male circumcision and no way you can suggest that circumcision is "MGM." The equivalent in the male of FGM is the complete removal of the male penis, because the clitoris in the female is the penis in the male.

Circumcision might hinder sexual enjoyment in the male. (Might, because having been circumcized by doctors I certanly still have enjoyment.) FGM in the female significantly hinders sexual enjoyment. There is no comparison. This is not a matter of culture, but a basic human right.

One could argue for a ban against circumsition, but it is a weaker argument because it does not eliminate the major organ of sexual enjoyment in the male. No culture has GFM as a means to bond a people to their god, but only to bound their women to the service of the men. That's discrimination, and not culture. It should never be tollerated.

The truth is, both procedures are exactly the same, in that in most cases what they do is remove the most sexually sensitive part of the sexual organ (prepuce in men, clitoris in women)

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong here, it's absolutly dramatic to compare the 2

the prepuce is only skin, how can you compare that to :

Clitoridectomy:
"the partial or total removal of of the clitoris"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision#Clitoridectomy

Infibulation:
"urgical closure of the female labia majora by sewing them together to seal off the female genitalia, leaving only a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood"
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infibulation

Is your prepuce your most sexually sensitive part? ... of course not, i really hope for you :D

A "minor matter?" Next you will be saying it's just a little thing after all.Yes it is minor, because it does not ruin the validity of the resolution at all. We can still do a resolution on MGM.There is no way you can compare FGM to male circumcision and no way you can suggest that circumcision is "MGM." The equivalent in the male of FGM is the complete removal of the male penis, because the clitoris in the female is the penis in the male.Errr....not it's not. The complete removal of the penis = the complete removal of the womb. It's difficult to equate a like for like on these things, so it's best not to try. FGM is bad, and MGM (such as....having the testicles removed) is bad. That's as far as I see the comparrison going. But does it matter on bit? Nope.One could argue for a ban against circumsition, but it is a weaker argument because it does not eliminate the major organ of sexual enjoyment in the male. No culture has GFM as a means to bond a people to their god, but only to bound their women to the service of the men. That's discrimination, and not culture. It should never be tollerated.I think you are missing the point. Circumcision is not neccessarily mutilation. Removing the testicles would be. Don't focus on circumcision so much and you'll do fine.

The prepuce is not only skin, and it is a proven medical fact that circumcision lessen sexual enjoyment in men. Now, or course it is not as impairing as FGM, but truth be told, that is a matter of anatomy, not ethics or human rights. And the clitoris does not equal the penis in men. In that I have to completely disagree, since the removal of the clitoris does not hinder reproduction, as does castration.

And it sees today I am agreeing with all Hirota says, because I cancompletely see his point. There should be no comparison.

And it sees today I am agreeing with all Hirota says, because I cancompletely see his point. There should be no comparison.

Thanks Harbardia and welcome to the UN :D

That’s not really true. In most cases, especially in the third world it’s usually done by a village/community matriarch as a right of passage. Not in every case though.
See, my point is proven. I assumed it was something "the man" was forcing upon little girls. I can just imagine similar assumptions running through 30,000 minds as they consider which big red button to press: "for" or "against".

In the same way that no one argued abortion rights was discriminatory against men when it was written - no where in it does it give the males rights to have an abortion, yet strangely no men are complaining that they can't have one.
Ah yes people did and still do even more now then before.
There are quite a few people debating over the discriminatory nature of it and the inequality it brings about.


And circumcision is WAY less dangerous (even if some men cross their legs at the thought).
As I stated before. Only using the 1%-10% complication rate, which ONLY applies to "medicalized" circumcisions and circumcisions only. And since the majority of male circumcisions in the world (like female) are NOT done in a medical setting, but in unsanitary conditions with rudimentary and/or unsterilized cutting tools (used razor blades, glass shards, swords, machetes, etc.), there is a strong likelihood that the complication rate far exceeds 10%. Plus seeing as how the occurrence of just male circumcision outnumbers (6:1) that of female circumcision, as well as the other female specific forms of genital mutilation. I find your assertion that “circumcision is WAY less dangerous” to be dubious, un-factual and quite laughable.


There is no way you can compare FGM to male circumcision and no way you can suggest that circumcision is "MGM."
Firstly, people need to stop comparing circumcision to all of the forms of female specific genital mutilation.

Circumcision = one type of male genital mutilation, circumcision does NOT = all forms of FGM. MGM = FGM.

Quite to the contrary. Looking at it realistically and without bias, it’s clear that while having some procedural differences, fundamentally genital mutilation is genital mutilation no matter the gender of the victim.


The equivalent in the male of FGM is the complete removal of the male penis, because the clitoris in the female is the penis in the male.
No sorry but FGM is nothing but a term that refers to different types of genital mutilation practices specific to females.

I’ll assume you were talking about infibulation. In which case then yes, it is comparable to the removal of the male penis though I wouldn’t necessarily call it the “equivalent.” The Equivalent would be removing a third of the penis, glan included and then sew-together what’s left, in a way to make it imposable to get an erection.


Circumcision might hinder sexual enjoyment in the male. (Might, because having been circumcized by doctors I certanly still have enjoyment.) FGM in the female significantly hinders sexual enjoyment. There is no comparison. This is not a matter of culture, but a basic human right.
Again. What type of genital mutilation are you talking about?
I’m not disputing the fact that genital mutilation significantly hinders sexual enjoyment. I mean that was the original point of doing it. To hinders sexual enjoyment for males and females.

On a side note I’d just like to point out that you bring up with your little side comment, one of the major hindrances in trying to stop genital mutilation. The men and woman that will argue “well I’m circumcised and I certainly still get enjoyment out of sex.” Which isn’t really the point.

But you are right about one thing. This is not a matter of culture, but of basic human rights for both sexes.


One could argue for a ban against circumsition, but it is a weaker argument because it does not eliminate the major organ of sexual enjoyment in the male. No culture has GFM as a means to bond a people to their god, but only to bound their women to the service of the men. That's discrimination, and not culture. It should never be tollerated.
Sorry but the argument against circumcision is only as weak or as strong as the argument against FGM, specifically in this case clitoridectomy.

That’s completely incorrect. The foreskin is just as much a part of the penile organ as the glan.
It’s like someone ripping off your eyelids and then argue that they’re not a part of the eye nor are they important to it.

Here’s a little info on the foreskin.

1. The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis. These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations of texture.

2. Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands-glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our skin.11 The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health of the surface of the glans.

3. The mucous membranes that line all body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.12 Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface.13 Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection.

You should do some reading before you go off making claims.

The Foreskin Advantage (http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm)

The Foreskin is Necessary (http://www.noharmm.org/mothering.htm)

I’ll excuse your ignorance on this issue because you didn’t know.


Please, there is no comparaison possible

You can condamn MGM, no pb about that, and i will agree with you, but

FGM = a cut or a closure of a sexual organ

MGM = a cut or a portion of skin
is the penis cut in most MGM?
Yes! The foreskin is not just skin, it’s part of the penis itself. *Read above quotes and links.*
And it’s not only just cut, but cut off! And again you can’t compare one type of MGM to all types of FGM.


Sorry, but you are 100% wrong here, it's absolutly dramatic to compare the 2
In what way? What makes it “absolutely dramatic to compare?“ I keep hearing people claim that it’s “completely different” but I’ve yet to see a single reason as to why. Other then “OMG!!1! ITS TOTALLY WORSER!!”

My god... The level of sexism with this issue is beyond words!



the prepuce is only skin, how can you compare that to

Is your prepuce your most sexually sensitive part? ... of course not, i really hope for you :D
...............

Again read above quotes and links. ^

-

Oh and on a final note I’d just like to add that I was mostly comparing them on a ethical and human rights level but everybody jumped the gun with the typical feminazi like outrage.

Ah yes people did and still do even more now then before.
There are quite a few people debating over the discriminatory nature of it and the inequality it brings about.


Then they are insane. If someone raised a proposal saying "men are permitted to have abortions" (meaning the man himself goes in for the surgery, not the man is permitted to decide about the woman's fate) then they would be mocked and quite rightly.

Further more, to one degree or another, almost all resolutions are discriminatory in one way or another, as they deal with very specific situations.

Gay rights says nothing about protecing hetrosexual marriage. And yet it is not discriminatory because it didn't set out to screw over hetrosexuals, and doesn't make mention of it one way or the other.

Sexual Freedom says nothing about protecting privacies other than sexual within a house. (And it is not...)
The Good Samaritan Laws say nothing about what happens if there isn't a disaster of some type. (And it is not....)

Abortion rights was written in the way it was because (in all most all cases) women were the ones who needed protecting under it.

And this was written specifically to stop female mutilation.

Further more it does not discriminate against men one way or the other. It doesn't ban nations from mutilating men, and it doesn't enforce it on them either. So how is that discrimination?

Further more it does not discriminate against men one way or the other. It doesn't ban nations from mutilating men, and it doesn't enforce it on them either. So how is that discrimination?

Quite right! Which is why I think if anyone is truly worried about discrimination on this that they should make their own proposal for MGM.

Don't repeal, because:

A) That means you have to do 2 proposals (one to get rid of FGM, and then another to do genital mutilation without distinction).

b) FGM is the most popular resolution based on the percentage of support it received - which means you'd have better luck tryiong to avoid repealling it.

...unusual.

I feel that, as a 'mutilated' (circumcised) male, I should have some right to voice my opinion on male circumcision. Frankly, I have no problems with it.

There are - from what I've read in this argument - two types of female circumcision: removal of the clitoris, and the sewing the thing shut. To compare, there are three types of male circumcision: removal of the foreskin (I would think this would be the most common type), removal of the testicles (castration), and removal of the whole thing (more extreme form of castration).

I can say from experience that removal of the foreskin is not a process which leaves the male particularily pained or damaged, and is - as far as I know, as I have no experience being uncircumcised - basically a cosmetic change. The other two forms of circumcision I can see as being objectionable, since they eleminate a person's ability to reproduce, and (in the case of extreme castration) may present day-to-day difficulties in things such as urination. I would also imagine that these last two forms of circumcision would be more comparable to FGM, seeing as how both have a significant effect on a persons reproductive processes.

In any case-
You may find your repeal proposal to be more easily accepted if you include a clause that states a more well-defined and more acceptable resolution is to follow it.

The people of Mr Deaths do not support this resolution at all, FGM puts the female through unnessisary pain and suffering. Not only is fgm gladly banned throughout Mr Deaths, MGM (Male Circumcision), is also banned throughout this country and anyone caught practicing is put to death.

Being a circumcised male from birth myself, I View circumcision as an unnessisary evil. A human rights violation that newborns are tortured with forcibly without their consent. I hate every minute of being circumcised and I wish I could prevent my parents from making that decision when I was born.

This resolution died a long time ago. And I have no plans of submitting it again. Just to let everyone know. I thought this was a dead topic.