Tried to identify arguments for why FGM is materially different than circumcision that didn't involve tautologies or a distinction by degree (FGM level 1-3) or sanitation. Results of the search were disturbing in their sophistry. Is FGM morally acceptable like circumcision if FGM is level 1 and performed under sanitary conditions?

Were females not the limiting factor in reproduction under evolutionary pressures of northern climates where farming and deferral of gratification were necessary for survival, would western civilization hold the same attitude toward FGM as African and middle eastern civilization?

"FGM is common in the Islamic world, particularly in Africa. According to UNICEF, 98% of Somali girls, and 87% of Egyptians have endured the procedure. FGM involves removing varying amounts of the victim’s, usually a pre-pubescent girl, clitoris, labia majoria, and labia minora. In its most extreme form, the victim [level 3] is 'infibulated,' having virtually all her external genitalia removed and being sown up, leaving her with only a tiny hole from which to urinate and menstruate."

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

FGM is highly controversial and has no place in this world.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

FGM is highly controversial and has no place in this world.

Les Grobstein's huge hog is proof that God has a sense of humor, isn't it?

Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.

Go ask Amy Schumer burrito

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

They'd be similar if circumcision involved cutting the head of a penis off.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

There are a few possible conclusions I'm inclined toward:

(1) If circumcision is legal, FMV level 1 should be legal as well. Or, if FMV level 1 is illegal, circumcision should also be illegal.

(2) Assuming no logical reason can be given for why the above are morally distinct as to justify vastly different legal and social treatment, the reason western culture holds this irrational contradiction is rooted in evolutionary psychology. As females are the limiting factor in reproduction and thus worth much more than men, cultures do more to protect females (work was not considered a "career" or symbol of status and value until modern offices were invented, leading to a legal structure to ensure access / "women and children 1st" etc.). Women were more important under evolutionary pressures of starvation during winter relative to populations closer to the equator (a population of 1 man and 100 women will survive; a population of 1 woman and 100 men will die). Perhaps other cultures would attribute the irrationality in the above (1) to emotions to protect women. (B) Thus, (1) would be irrational oppression of other cultures using our legal system if the latter of (1) were concluded or a revelation of misguided emotional prejudice of the culture resulting from evolutionary pressure (or to use counter-rhetoric to feminism, "misandry.").

(3) If the left continues to import other cultures who support FMV, eventually FMV will be legal here. The values of the other cultures (like Islam v. Spanish) are far different than was between cultures like Irish and Italian. Considering the birth rates and assuming a continuation in the importation strategy the left's leaders wants to resume asap, in a few generations America will have a lot of FMV going on.

Of course, all of the above is perhaps moot, if someone can explain why FMV level 1 under sanitary conditions is morally distinct as to justify arrest of Islamic leaders but not rabbis.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

FGM is highly controversial and has no place in this world.

Here was his response to me asking what he is arguing about.



This guy loves using two dozen words when one will do.

He's quite the dick bag.

A dialectic on the merits involving too much detail would gross out readers. I'm not convinced of your conclusion. I posited a possible reason it's worse for girls in my prior comment.

However, painfully stripping nerve endings on genitals is the same in principle. One involves bleeding, the other does not. With modern medical procedures, bleeding shouldn't be the material moral distinction regarding the mutilation. Otherwise, giving someone a bloody nose would be more morally offensive than punching them in the stomach.

That all said, I don't know enough information to come to a solid conclusion, just that the articles I read asserting your conclusion were devoid of substantive moral arguments.

Stripping away nerve endings on genitals without consent is horrific no matter which sex it's done on, regardless of bleeding, should be the default position unless someone can make a reasoned distinction.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.