Forum: Story Ideas

I'll step down from my box now...

Female circumcision: illegal.
Male genital mutilation: still legal.

There oughta be a civil rights case against lawmakers.

Female circumcision: illegal.
Male genital mutilation: still legal.

There oughta be a civil rights case against lawmakers.

Exactly my point!

I was referring explicitly to the discrimination based on gender, not the one based on age.

I was referring explicitly to the discrimination based on gender, not the one based on age.

I know, but I was referring to the OP where 'at birth' was the point. I don't care about gender, or color, or whatever. You should be able to make your own choice in what you want done to your body. That said, I personally hate any body disfigurement being it tattoos, piercings, circumcisions, or whatever other stupid thing some people manage to do to themselves. To me the only useful and non-intrusive thing is shaving/cutting hair.

There oughta be a civil rights case against lawmakers.

Why, specifically, the lawmakers? Were the lawmakers the cause? Why not sue the doctors? Or the hospitals? Or the parents? Or the insurance companies?

Why, specifically, the lawmakers?

Obviously, a law that protects only one sex and not another should be considered oppression, shouldn't it? Oh, wait, I forgot, men aren't entitled to human rights. Unless they're gay or black or something.

Yeah.

Mel Brooks explained the one pretty clearly in Robin Hood:Men in Tights

The female version is loosely Islamic, but it's more a cultural thing than actually part of the official religion.

I have no idea. I only know that I would oppose on moral grounds any purely elective (and medically unnecessary) surgeries, whether cosmetic or those that actually alter biological function in children.

What comes next? SRS on a male child because the parents really wanted a girl? It's been proposed, but under the guise that an 8 year old is competent enough to determine his/her gender.

And that too, would be an interesting story - "The Planned Nation of Trans" I would call it - but probably not one I would care to read.

Isn't a large proportion of the butchery performed by religionists with minimal medical training?

Maybe, but not so large as to be the majority. AFIK, only the Jewish community has it done by a religious officials.

Also it should be noted that male circumcision and female circumcision as traditionally performed in those cultural groups that have a tradition of it are not remotely comparable.

A comparable procedure for a male would involve not just removal of the foreskin but complete removal of the head of the penis.

A comparable procedure for a male would involve not just removal of the foreskin but complete removal of the head of the penis.

That's not entirely true. The female version varies widely, and clit piercings are far more invasive that the less drastic version for girls. The most drastic for girls, though, would be equivalent to a complete amputation

The female version varies widely, and clit piercings are far more invasive that the less drastic version for girls.

Yes, but but the least invasive form that would be equivalent to male circumcision (removal of just the clit hood) is not anywhere done for cultural/religious reasons. It exists only in the kink/body modification sub-cultures in the west.

Actually, the least invasive version I've heard of was just basically jabbing a needle into the clit, then removing the needle. It's a 'modern' version, since the exact details of what's "supposed to be done" weren't ever really official, just "girls need to have something done". So one of the moderate and modern subsects came up with the minimal version, just so the girls could claim they'd had something done.