Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-4

Dumai wrote (edited )

better think of a way to rephrase that or else you're accusing every jew and muslim of child abuse along with most african countries, muslim or otherwise

19

libre_dev wrote

Well that's good because I am accusing them of child abuse.

-6

Dumai wrote

nice

have fun with your incredibly paternalistic colonial rhetoric

14

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Lack of consent = child abuse.

Am I calling these people child abusers? NO. But is cutting off a part of a child's body without their consent child abuse? I think so.

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

if you are calling it child abuse then it kind of does naturally follow that they're child abusers

but, for example, seeing as there are compelling medical reasons for the procedure in much of sub-saharan africa it feels a little bit tone-deaf to accuse parents of abuse for making the decision to lessen their child's chances of contracting hiv

11

amongstclouds wrote

Fair point. I still wish I would've had a choice in it. If I hadn't been circumcised I'd have more skin to work with when I finally get bottom surgery.

5

Dumai wrote

this isn't necessarily even an argument against opposing circumcision in the west i'm just a bit concerned about the use of language here

4

amongstclouds wrote

I totally understand and you're correct. Child abuse might not be the best term for it because there are many reasons for choosing to do this -- but I think that modern western countries have very little need for this procedure.

5

libre_dev wrote

This is your brain on cultural relativism

0

Dumai wrote (edited )

oh and now you're bringing the language of political reaction into this, nice one let's see how racist your rhetoric can get

but you may notice i did not make a moral argument for or against circumcision, i just objected to you naming a practice with a complex cultural and medical history as abuse because i can't help but notice how it mirrors colonial ideology

2

libre_dev wrote

If you say so

2

Dumai wrote

well you shouldn't need my say so to avoid accusing literally every muslim and jew alive of child abuse and parroting reactionary memes

1

libre_dev wrote

You know, I was going to apologize for snapping at you after looked at what else you wrote and having slept on it. Like the HIV thing which is quite interesting. But you seem intent on defending circumcision for no other discernable reason than "a lot of people do it"

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

well that's weird because i wasn't even arguing in defence of it and i namechecked a few reasons to dislike it elsewhere in this thread

i'll say again, i just objected to your language, for reasons more complex than "well lots of people do it!" if you aren't going to put the effort in noticing why then do me a favour and never talk about cultures other than yours again

1

selver wrote

Dumai you are too reasonable for the internet.

2

Dumai wrote

i sincerely hope that is sarcasm haha

5

selver wrote

Well, you just seem to change my mind a lot with some nuanced answer after I initially vehemently disagreed with you.

3

____deleted____ wrote (edited )

They are permanently disfiguring their child's body without the child's consent. It is almost as deplorable as other forms of mutilation as flower bowl shoes.

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

oh my god are you serious

please do not compare penile circumcision to flower bowl shoes, i can't think of an easier way to trivialise foot-binding and erase its nature as a form of gendered violence

anyhow even if you do oppose circumcision that's not an excuse to echo colonial tropes that portray africans and arabs as barbaric and perpetual victims of their own cultures

4

____deleted____ wrote (edited )

I stated it was lesser; 'almost' was certainly wrong to say entirely. Flower bowl shoes are another tier and a bad comparison to make. The intent was only to highlight it's nature as permanent shaping of the body.

I live in America. I was circumcized. All my male partners have been circumcized. I speak not of other continents.

1

Dumai wrote

if youre talking about a practice that has a loooong cultural history in africa and the middle east then you are speaking of other continents

5

____deleted____ wrote (edited )

Bloodletting had a long cultural history in Europe, circumcision still has extended history in America. And regardless of which culture, I point no fingers at them, only of the practice. Papua New Guinea; rape capital of the world statistically. Some cultures have aspects that are dirty, but I do not wish to portray any culture entirely this way.

1

Dumai wrote

i'm not arguing it's morally justified because it has a cultural history, you could justify literally anything with that kind of argument. what i am saying is that its particular cultural history is morally complex and this means naming this practice as abusive could open the door to some worrying power dynamics.

2

____deleted____ wrote

I suppose I started the argument on a misinterpretation then tripped on my words and made bad comparisons multiple time. Looks like you've won this debate.

1

jerrimu wrote

So are you just as chill with cultures that practice FGM?

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

oh good i knew somebody would say this eventually, i never even said circumcision was morally justified what's so fucking hard to understand about this

nice job downplaying the function of genital mutilation as a practice of patriarchal violence by comparing it to circumcision though!