Traditional initiation is a rite of passage into manhood for young males that is practiced by various ethnic groups in Africa, including parts of South Africa. Among them are the Xhosa, Ndebele, Sotho and Venda communities.
Not from what I’ve seen in n America - most girls under 16 already have their ears pierced. And such ear mutilation of girls without their ability to consent seems to be culturally fine.
Of course the two situations aren’t identical, that’s how analogies work and it’s still a useful part of critical thinking.
The point is that it’s not quite as black and white as many people think. If these boys at 16 want their diicks cut and it’s part of their culture and done properly, I’m not going to say it’s bad. Obviously in the case of this article, it was not done right.
Circumcision just after birth is a separate issue; but I’m not particularly against it having had it done to me and not feeling that I am lacking anything as a result.
Are you even aware of how common foreskin infections are among young boys? What you call an “unnecessary procedure” is considered a preventative measure for millions of fathers around the world. Why would you choose to risk your son’s health and well-being, when a simple procedure at birth can effectively remove that risk entirely?
Unnecessary procedures to mutilate the body are morally and ethically wrong regardless of the age of the patient.
For fucks sake. How on earth can you be in defense of this abuse? Please, explain why you support this.
Like getting ears pierced?
Ears are predominantly pierced when age of consent is reached and no place will do it without that consent.
Parents doing this to their children without consent- are abusing their children.
So in a way, yeah- like ears being pierced.
Additionally, pieced ears heal back if left alone. Circumcision is permanent mutilation.
Man I love blowing up false equivalency fallacies! Thanks for this!
Not from what I’ve seen in n America - most girls under 16 already have their ears pierced. And such ear mutilation of girls without their ability to consent seems to be culturally fine.
Of course the two situations aren’t identical, that’s how analogies work and it’s still a useful part of critical thinking.
The point is that it’s not quite as black and white as many people think. If these boys at 16 want their diicks cut and it’s part of their culture and done properly, I’m not going to say it’s bad. Obviously in the case of this article, it was not done right. Circumcision just after birth is a separate issue; but I’m not particularly against it having had it done to me and not feeling that I am lacking anything as a result.
We’re going to agree to disagree on this.
Are you even aware of how common foreskin infections are among young boys? What you call an “unnecessary procedure” is considered a preventative measure for millions of fathers around the world. Why would you choose to risk your son’s health and well-being, when a simple procedure at birth can effectively remove that risk entirely?
Read up