Female genital mutilation is a custom practiced by indigenous peoples.

[MoonRiver]

Does that mean we should sanction and condone it? No? Well, then why is it OK for innocent baby seals to be brutally slaughtered because some say it is the "right" of aboriginals to do so? This argument is not even taking into account the fact that probably very little of this slaughter is carried out by native peoples. It is largely the dastardly work of commercial trappers, who are evil scum of the earth, imo. But, that aside, why is it not OK for native cultures to brutalize humans, but fine when they assault defenseless animals? And don't tell me it's to get food. Those baby seals are killed for their pelts.

[LeftyMom]

1. There's no profit in FGM.

The fashion industry converts those dead seals into money. Marketing and biased research can convince a fair number of people that damned near anything's moral and justifiable if you spend enough money.

[MoonRiver]

3. I'm talking ethics, not profits.

Hopefully, a few people in this world still care about the suffering of sentient beings.

[flvegan]

5. Both examples lack ethics.

One is based in "tradition" and one in, well, a shadowed "tradition" used to create profit.

Ethics never enters the playing field.

[MoonRiver]

8. Exactly! And in a just world neither should exist.

But seriously, because of the effects of a boycott, we are a lot more likely to stop the seal slaughter than the torture of young girls. And that is very sad.

[flvegan]

16. And why is that?

Because the word doesn't get spread far and wide enough. I'll spend much of this weekend looking into the mutilation spoken of here, and I'll put every bit of my activism behind it, JUST as I do for the seals/animals.

It also seems that one is commercial (money based) and one is "traditional" as much as I hate that sentiment. Commercial is easy, assets and liabilities...

Spread the word. If it's wrong, it's wrong...

[MoonRiver]

20. I totally agree. FGM is a horror. A lot has been done to educate

the groups who practice it and put pressure on them to stop. Women are often brutalized in society, and I find many similarities to how animals are treated.

[flvegan]

23. I agree, and I thank you

for the information you've given me. As I said, I'll spend significant time seeing what I can do, as a cog in the machine, to help end this practice.

Thank you, again.

[MoonRiver]

30. Welcome. I will research the issues you mentioned also.

We're all in this mad, mad, mad, mad, world together (animals included) :grouphug:

[LeftyMom]

6. I agree wholeheartedly

I'm just making a point about how and why the pro-seal bludgeoning nonsense gets perpetuated.

[MoonRiver]

10. I understand where you're coming from.

My frustration is showing I'm afraid. :hug:

[flvegan]

2. How DARE you espouse logic and sense.

It's about "want" which is the most evil word in the world...

[MoonRiver]

4. Yes, as the Bible says, "money is the root of all evil".

That is one saying I am absolutely convinced of.

[flvegan]

7. And the Bible is wrong.

Money is just one of many things acquired by desire. "Want" is the root of all evil. Not all desire/want is based in money.

It's close, though. VERY close...

[annabanana]

19. LOVE of money is the root...

(not the bucks themselves)
Timothy 6:10. 'For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.'

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. Male genital mutilation is practiced in America

On the same grounds, we should end that too.

[Beaverhausen]

11. not even close to the same thing

lets not go there.

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. It is so close to the same thing you must have a tree in your eye...

...to not be able to see that.

http://www.nocirc.org

[Beaverhausen]

17. No, I'm a woman and I know the difference.

I know that circumcision does cause some lessening of sensation but nothing like what happens to women, who after the FGM experience no sexual sensation whatsoever. None.

Hence, not the same.

Got it?

[Touchdown]

45. I'm a man, and butchered down there.

I don't call it circumcision anymore. I'm also insulted that you would minimize this just because "civilized America does it". Your opinion is nothing less than sexism.

[madeline_con]

52. Butchered?

I thought perhaps having a spike or a ring put through it would be "butchered". I never even considered the double standard.

:shrug:

[Touchdown]

108. Yes, butchered.

Considering that in America, every health, medical, or moral corrpution reason for the practice has been debunked and no longer valid reasons, the only remaining reason for this is asthetics. Some women think "it looks prettier", which is the same reason for FGM in other countries, and considering that it is still practiced on 55% of American boys, after 30 years of knowing this, is the real tragedy. The religious excuse (Judiasm, Islam) is just that, an excuse. During Abraham's time, only the very tip was supposed to be cut for God. The practice of severing off the entire foreskin didn't appear until the middle ages, when anti-semitism took on a meaning of identifying the targeted race of people. Gentiles were forbidden from total removal of the foreskin in newly Christian Rome, for the purpose of easily identifying Jews.

This practice was resurrected in America in the late 1800s, as a way to prevent boys from masturbating. Such an honorable reason for a recognized and respected surgical procedure, whioch nets a cool $600 in doctor's profits per baby boy.

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

[Cronus Protagonist]

67. You just don't get it

Perhaps that's because you don't have a penis. Take it from me and thousands of other MEN that it's barbaric and has no basis in health care. I take it you didn't read anything on the link I gave you. Ignorance can be cured, but willful ignorance is inexcusable. Still, it's not illegal to display ignorance, or to hold onto it as if it's your friend, but I do wish you wouldn't.

Lots of beautiful cocks are at stake.

:evilgrin:

[LeftyMom]

14. You'll get no argument from me

but you may want to duck, as the torches and pitchforks come out whenever one points out that the non-medical mutilation of young boys is in any way like the non-medical mutilation of young girls.

(Nobody wants to think of themselves as an enabler of child mutilation or as one who has had thier genitals mutilated however most of our posters, being American fall into one category or the other.)

[Touchdown]

43. Yes.

And it IS the same thing. 70,000 erogenous nerve endings are severed off when literally half of the penile skin is severed off, usually without anasthetic.

Barbarism begins at home.

[Cronus Protagonist]

71. I'm with you, Touchdown

And I'm glad to say that I am just as God made me, and I'm sure she didn't make a mistake that needs "correction" (for those who don't like the perfectly correct label, "barbaric amputation").

*ouch*

I had to think of it again. Not for me, no thanks, and if I had my way circumcision would be banned worldwide with prison sentences for those who condone, practice or pay for it.

Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[mongo]

12. The seals are a managed resource

of the people who take them.

Not much different from deer hunting in America in my book.

[MoonRiver]

15. And human females are considered to be male possessions

among the natives who disfigure them. Does that make mutilating them alright? Abuse and torture of sentient beings knows no species boundary. Pain is pain.

[mongo]

26. Do you eat meat?

Have pets that are carnivores?
Wear leather?
Use elmers glue?

Your analogy is over the top and invalid.

[flvegan]

29. I'm your huckleberry...

No.
No.
No.
and
No.

It's valid.

[MoonRiver]

33. NO. But that has nothing to do with the argument.

How would YOU like to be skinned alive. Why don't you try your big toe first to see?

[mongo]

47. They are knocked unconscious first

As it would be nearly impossible to skin a conscious animal.

[flvegan]

66. You have no idea what you're talking about.

It's done, daily, to semi-conscious animals. This is about seals that have been, documented as such, skinned alive.

[mongo]

95. What the hell does semi-conscious mean?

[flvegan]

101. Slaughterhouses.

Look it up.

[ShadesOfGrey]

105. "Why don't you try your big toe first to see?"

ACK! I actually laughed out loud when I read that! Thank you for chuckle MPR!

The "humans are superior" types just don't get it! Grrr...

[flvegan]

18. When was the last time you saw 900,000 deer slaughtered, some

skinned alive, simply for profit and not for food.

Seals are seals, not a managed fucking resource. To your government, YOU are a managed fucking resource.

[LeftyMom]

21. The idea that a living being is a resource to be managed

causes a hell of a lot of evil in this world.

[mongo]

32. Better to have a third of the herd

die of starvation/disease is it?

[LeftyMom]

39. Seals aren't a herd animal

They can hunt thier own food and do quite well at it (which is why the sealers want to hunt them, the rest of the year they're commercial fishermen and they erroneously believe the seals diminish thier catch) and sharks and whales finish off the sick, injured and hungry seals long before starvation gets the chance.

But yes, it would be better for nature to take it's course and restore ecological balance than for humankind to exploit them for our own selfish ends.

[kalibex]

86. ...?

"...it would be better for nature to take it's course and restore ecological balance than for humankind to exploit them for our own selfish ends."

NewsFlash: We're 'part' of Nature.

How can you be so very sure that at least some human actions, including some hunting - aren't exactly just that - the ecological balance being restored in an area by... a part of Nature.

Just as something else 'culls' us humans, when we step too far out of balance and forsake ecologically sensible actions.


-B

[flvegan]

90. What exactly, specifically, "culls" us humans?

Please say nature. It'll make it much easier.

[kalibex]

115. *smiles*

Other animals. In our case, mostly other humans. (IMO, predators will step forward in any ecosystem to fullfill that role, whether they be another species...or a victim's fellow creatures, since we've so reduced the populations of our fellow predators and thus created that 'vacuum'.)

And we all know how Nature abhors a vacuum.

In other cases, we run accidentally afoul of the movement of energy through and above the surface of the planet. If we've forgone common sense (ie, have rejected ingidenous environmental knowledge, including memories of pretty basic cause & effect), we'll lose more individuals than we might have done otherwise.

-B

[LeftyMom]

91. Killing seals so people half a world away can wear thier pelts isn't

natural. Leaving thier bodies on the ice isn't natural.

In any case as humans we're capable of reason and to move beyond our natural programming to more ethical behavior toward our animal brethren.

Nature's quite capable of restoring ecological balance. If seals become overpopulated, thier natural predators (several of which are in decline and could use the added food) will show up and take care of that. That's what orcas and sharks do.

[ovidsen]

31. Duck!

I wonder sometimes if the extreme reaction that the killing of baby harp seals gets from people isn't directly related to their C&C (cute and cuddly) factor. I'm not promoting the clubbing of seals, but is it any worse than the killings of other animals by humans?

Baby harp seals are the Natalie Holloways of some animal rights activists. If they weren't so darn adorably huggable, they wouldn't get all this attention.

IMHO :hide:

[LeftyMom]

35. Well, Mongo compared 'em to deer

Feel free to dig up the deer hunting threads from a few months ago and see if the same people were posting on 'em.

[Batgirl]

78. you have got to be kidding

Dig up the deer hunting threads and "see if the same people were posting on 'em" -- Why? So you can compile a Bill O'Reilly list?

[LeftyMom]

80. Of course not.

I know damned well who posts on AR related threads, because I can read. As a donor, I have advanced search, if I wanted to keep some naughty and nice list of animal advocates and thier opponents for my own personal amusement (I have better shit to do, of course) I'd do that.

My point was that the same people advocating for the oh-so-adorable baby seals will be found on deer threads and veal cow threads and pretty much any other animal advocacy issue that comes up around here (or to put it more bluntly, that the implication that we only care aboout the cutest animals is bullshit.)

[Batgirl]

84. sorry, I misunderstood your remark.

I normally avoid flame wars, and maybe was naive in not realizing this would turn into one.

I began reading the thread, agreeing with the point being made, that baby seal clubbing (which I assume most people are revolted by) is bad. But then things took an unexpected turn and it started sounding like a strident condemnation of morally inferior, possibly psychopathic, non vegans. I don't think this is a good tactic for persuasion.

[ovidsen]

99. I've nothing against AR advocates here

My comment about the CC factor in baby harp seal protection campaigns was referring to the general media, not to DUers. Hence my Natalie Holloway reference. We all know that making any woman disappear is morally repugnant. To many, clubbing an animal to death is the same thing. I've got no problem with that.

But it's only the gorgeous, blond white girls and the cute furry baby animals that get the MSM all worked up. It's that flaw I was mocking.

Naturally, IMHO.

[MoonRiver]

38. Well, I feel the same way about pigs and cows, but that's another thread.

[mongo]

42. It's the cute and cuddly factor

I used to raise rabbits for food and I got a lot of flack from co-workers, etc. for killing 10 week old thumper for chimichangas.

Nevermind that my rabbits weren't chock full of anti-biotics, have a 4-1 feed/meat ratio as compared to 20-1 for cows (making them more earth friendly to eat), are higher in protein than chicken and turkey, etc.

[LeftyMom]

54. Rabbits are loving and sweet animals with amazing personalities

If you could look them in thier warm little eyes and then kill them for your plate, that says something about you that even your fellow omnivores may find disturbing.

[High Plains]

62. Farmers do it every day

Are you insinuating that they're somehow psychopathic?

[LeftyMom]

64. I'm saying that killing another animal for human wants

is immoral and that the natural human impulse toward compassion must be supressed to kill another being.

Is that psychopathic? I have no idea- I'm not a doctor.

[mongo]

93. My rabbits were very well taken care of

and given better than breeder's standards for care (cage size, etc)

When you have 13 juinors running around in the cage driving your doe crazy that you have tamed and raised for 2 years you know what you to do.

People are so far removed from the actual process of their daily meal it is ridiculus.

[flvegan]

55. To whom?

For many, it's the ethical factor. Don't diminish something you don't grasp.

[jpgray]

22. Animal life is not held to be of the same value as human life

In the minds of most, anyway. That's why one causes more uproar than the other. Plus one has to do with sex, and one has to do with profit--there are several reasons why they aren't very analogous.

[flvegan]

27. And why not?

Life is life, right?

Animal life isn't held to be the same value as human life because humans have dictated it as so. Value is a human term, oft misunderstood by same, when it's to be considered by a life that's not human.

I hold all life sacred.

[jpgray]

34. Well, would you rather a child or an insect die, for example?

We're back in the sophomore dorms with these kind of hypotheticals, but I believe everyone has an order of animal life they wouldn't equate with human life. And some life is too alien to our animal existence for us to really understand (plants, virii, etc.), let alone place a value on. To me human life has more value than animal life, though I value animal life more than most people.

[MoonRiver]

37. This is the way I look at it.

If an animal has a central nervous system, including brain and spinal cord, it is able to feel pain, physical and emotional. I am a vegetarian based on ethical considerations, but my health has dramatically improved as a byproduct. Anyway, despite my ethical beliefs, I recognize that there are humane and cruel ways to kill. There are also different reasons to kill animals. Killing fish, which don't have a CNS, humanely for food is the most justifiable. Killing sentient beings cruelly for fashion is the lowest, most despicable reason I can imagine. Hence my outrage over the baby seal slaughter.

[jpgray]

40. I'm not especially comfortable assigning value to orders of life

But when put to it I'd still rank humans above other pain-feeling animals. That's why I believe there is more outrage concerning female genital mutilation--most people see things as I do. But again, I also don't think a direct comparison betweens seal-killing and female genital mutilation is really possible.

[Zodiak]

118. Five things

1. Fish have a central nervous system (brain and spinal cord), but they do not have C-type nociceptors (pain nerves). It is not the brain that imparts pain, it is nociceptors and the processing units they are attached to in the central nervous system. It is generally agreed upon that anything fish and below do not feel pain, at least not in the way that we do.

2. No one has proven "sentience" in seals. We are hard-pressed to prove such a thing in whales and porpoises, much less seals. You will have to wait for the research to be complete before making such statements. We still are ot sure about this issue with other primates.

3. We stopped clubbing seals some time ago, and the seal population boomed (in the absence of natural predators), causing cod populations to diminish (a food source for humans). Hence, the seals were to be clubbed again to reduce population numbers to help restore the cod population. A lot of jobs depend on those cod populations. At least that is how I heard this issue.

4. I am not "for" or "against" the clubbing of seals, but I can tell you that if you are to launch a campaign to stop it, it would be wise to consult with actual biologists before making biological statements that are demonstrably false or misleading. You will get more people to believe you if you can demonstrate a command of the facts.

This is not a flame, it is simply a clarification.

[flvegan]

51. Why would I rather a child or an insect die?

Why can't I rather that neither one die?

It's not sophomore dorms at all. It's about refusing to accept that it's one or the other.

[jpgray]

56. In some cases it is a choice between animal or human life

Aborignal people in the American plains, for example, killed buffalo for sustenance, shelter, clothes, &c. To my mind they're not murderers for that, unless populations of field mice make Hitlers of housecats. To be sure there is much more concern for getting the ultimate value out of the cost of killing a living creature in my example above than in many modern examples that exist, but the choice is still there and I'd have no difficulty saying "ice some buffalo" to sustain a starving family if no other means existed.

[flvegan]

58. No, what you said was this

"Animal life is not held to be of the same value as human life"

Kinda drawing lines in the sand there. Don't back off your statement and justify it by "feeding a starving family" and whatnot.

[jpgray]

61. "It's about refusing to accept that it's one or the other."

That's you, one post ago. And my scenario gives you that exact problem--either buffalo or human lives are going to be lost. There's no way that neither will be lost. If the lives are equal in value, should the humans in this situation let a few people die of starvation in an attempt to balance the number of human dead with the number of eaten buffalo? That seems silly to me.

[flvegan]

65. Thanks for the reminder. Oh, hey, when exactly was it that buffalo

was sustenance, etc? I never called a native a murderer. Your strawman argument just isn't going to fly here (fair warning).

[jpgray]

69. If all lives have equal value, killing a buffalo is murder

Or, by the same note, if killing a buffalo for sustenance ceases to be murder, cannibalism for sustenance becomes permissable. Since all lives are equally valuable, killing a human for food would be no different than devouring the bacteria in cheese or yogurt, or eating a buffalo. I'm just trying to put your abstraction out into uncomfortable reality--it's all very well to say "all life is equal" but the practical application of that would pose some real dilemmas.

Buffalo were used for sustenance chiefly before the arrival of guns and horses, or Europeans in general, among the plains Native Americans.

[flvegan]

73. Actually, you're very wrong.

If all lives have equal value, then one would have to find the least destructive way to sustenance. If one killed a human for food because the killer was starving and faced with death, then yes, to that person, it'd be permissable. However, I'd have to ask how many folks in this light, are faced with death.

You haven't put anything (to me) into uncomfortable reality. Cheese and yogurt aren't life sustaining, so your bacterial analogy is just that.

[jpgray]

77. Okay

Let me try to be more clear as to what my problem with your philosophy is.

Now, let's assume all life is of equal value. Take the buffalo scenario (again, sorry, but think of it as any nomadic population that depends on a herd animal for livelihood). Is the human population licensed to kill as many buffalo as it needs to just survive, to be healthy, or to be happy? In my mind there's absolutely nothing wrong with killing however many buffalo are needed to keep the human population healthy. Under your scenario killing for survival only could be justified, yes?

[flvegan]

81. Well, to me

survival and "healthy" seem to go more hand in hand than your other suggestion ("happy").

However, to your actual question, survival v. healthy, I'd have to know what my other options were.

BTW, your question here, begs the suggestion that you haven't taken your own assumption that "all life is of equal value" huh.

[jpgray]

82. Maybe I should give a non-human scenario

The buffalo are starting to muddle my brain, because clearly I am not putting this across well.

Having lived with a few malicious housecats, in the country and otherwise, I know they will regularly pull apart a mouse just for the pure hell of it. These were well-fed cats (and in the case of my mom's cat, more than well-fed) so sustenance was not an issue. If killing can only be justified for maintaining health, does that make cats in general a malevolent species? To me, that could be written off as natural instinct, even though it isn't necessary for survival. If it's okay for cats (and other animals) to kill for pleasure or otherwise non-survival reasons, why is it wrong for humans? We do it on a more terrible scale and in more elaborate ways, but if it's natural to cats, isn't it natural to us as well?

[LeftyMom]

83. Cats are obligate carnivores and absent synthetic supplements must eat

meat to survive. Human beings can and do thrive without eating flesh.

Sorry to butt in, you'll probably get a better (and more philosophical) answer from the person you actually asked in a minute.

[flvegan]

85. Cats are carnivores...predators. People are not.

How's that? People (should) also exercise ethical behavior, whereas cats are barely domesticated. There really isn't a comparison.

If you want to justify killing for pleasure, you should check out...no..nevermind. I do respect you. I won't go there. Killing for pleasure is wrong.

[jpgray]

87. But killing for no justifiable reason can be found in omnivores.

Cats are a carnivorous example, but squirrels are known to do this. I think recently some squirrels tore apart a stray dog in Russia, and it's doubtful a pinecone shortage is to blame. My dad and I watched a squirrel kill and eat a chipmunk in the park when I was young. This was a fat squirrel, and I remember it being very shocking and asking why, and there was no good answer for it. Now, are these killings justified, or aren't they?

[flvegan]

89. What did those squirrels say when you asked them why they did that?

I surely can't answer for them. I don't know what they were going without. However, I doubt that either scenario involved the selling of the pelts of the stray dog nor the chipmunk.

Killing for no justifiable reason can certainly be found in omnivores. We have prisons full of prime examples.

[jpgray]

92. In non-human omnivores, I should say

But at any rate I'm of the belief that all human behavior is natural--both the seal-slayings and the impulse to end such things forever. I do not believe that humans are unique or set apart from the rest of nature, though I also believe "do the least harm" is a good creed to live by. Non-human creatures can be needlessly violent, wasteful, and cruel with the lives of other creatures. They just lack the ability to do it on the same scale that we do.

[flvegan]

96. But what drives such behavior?

The seal slayings and the impulse to end such things forever. Why such a difference in beliefs/thoughts/opinions?

"Do the least harm" is a great creed to live by. Thanks for saying that.

Your last two statements are perfection. Well stated.

[jpgray]

97. Dunno. As Goedel would say "no system can explain itself"

I have a lot of respect for some of the vegans I know here in the Twin Cities, who cycle everywhere rather than drive, buy expensive-as-hell non-exploitative products, &c. However I have an innate part of me that values human life above all else, so that I'm much less horrified when someone shoots a deer for sport than I was when Diallo got shot, for example. So my future as a Jainist isn't very promising.

:D

[flvegan]

100. But what's wrong with that?

Value human life above all else. Fine (though I know you're not looking for me to justify your thoughts...just adding my 2 cents). Be less horrified. Less horrified doesn't mean non-horrified, right? Don't compare, I guess, is what I'm saying. Justification is bullshit in this and every forum (almost). Attacking Iraq as justification, or torturing Gitmo detainees as justification...I don't know. Just a lot of suffering and death that gets written off, both human and animal. I'm not saying you, just saying in general.

A Jainist gets the best of both worlds, though. Equal outrage, equal sorrow, equal anger, equal remorse.

[Marnieworld]

120. I would have like to be in a dorm with you

You so know how to debate. :toast:

[High Plains]

60. Please stay off the grass

[flvegan]

76. Your point?

[JAbuchan08]

24. I'm sorry, but I think that your comparison is in really poor taste

it just really bothers me when human and animal suffering are equated.

[flvegan]

28. Why?

[JAbuchan08]

36. Because, I do.

that's the way I feel. Until whites came along this is how these people lived, but now thanks to us they can stop their evil native ways and become good like whites. :sarcasm:

[MoonRiver]

41. You meant that sarcastically, but there's a lot of truth in your statement

"Brown" and "black" people were brutalized just like animals for centuries. They were conveniently labeled as "less than human".

Why can't we treat all God's creatures with love, caring and respect? WHY?

[flvegan]

53. Must be cool to be God.

I mean, you're deciding value here. Because you "feel" value for one over another makes it so.

Thumbs up. Enjoy the omnipotence.

[JAbuchan08]

107. I didn't say it "made it so" I just stated how I feel

but I now I know I'm not allowed to believe that a human's suffering is more important than an animals? I object to the comparison and its not because I enjoy or promote the suffering of animals.

Who's God here, me? I'm following a pretty well established heirarchy of importance. I think you're being quite a bit more elitist and self-important than I am. If you're an absolutist on the issue of animal rights, fine, but remember that veganism is a luxury that not everyone can afford and because not everyone can be expected to adhere to it it is not a moral imperative. I don't think that humans are morally obligated to be "better" than other animals that have been omnivores for thousands of years.
But I digress, I don't agree with the abuse or wholesale slaughter of animals for clothing, but I find the equivalence with serious human pain to be disgusting. Perhaps I can't outline perfectly WHY I feel this way, but I just do. I'm sorry I don't have a fifteen page essay to back up my feelings, but then again I didn't realize the right to have feelings was conditioned upon the ability of others to accept those feelings.

[MoonRiver]

112. So,

first you profess outrage that some put animal life on an equal footing with human life (I don't do that, btw, but I put needless and/or inhumane suffering of animals on a par with that experienced by humans). Then you justify our killing of animals because other animals do it! So are we the same as other animals, or "special"? Can't have it both ways.

[JAbuchan08]

126. all people are animals,. but not all animals are people

that's about as simply as I can put it, and I don't believe that that is inconsistent or a double standard.

[madeline_con]

25. "Those baby seals are killed for their pelts."

So, indigenous populations may have food, but no clothing? :shrug:

[MoonRiver]

44. You know that was a disingenuous statement.

Even the indigenous people kill the seals to sell their pelts for profit. Just not as many of them engage in this practice as commercial trappers.

[madeline_con]

49. I was being difficult....

faced with a difficult post to begin with. :)

FGM should not be condoned or tolerated regardless of which group may engage in it. I don't see a parallel with baby seals. :shrug:

[MoonRiver]

104. Well, I view the torture for fashion and/or profit of females and seals,

both sentient beings, as analogous. I also do not view humans as innately superior to other animals. Certainly we, currently, rein supreme, but that does not make us God. And, just because we CAN kill to satisfy the vanity of heartless consumers, or choose to mutilate females because culturally brainwashed men won't marry them otherwise, doesn't mean we should.

[gulfcoastliberal]

46. How about women in Burkas, women who are subjugated to the husband based

on their religion? Is that ok? Take Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan as examples. Is it ok to stone women to death? Make them wear burkas and deny them drivers licenses? That's a cultural/religious custom practiced in many Muslim countries. Shall we end that, too?

[madeline_con]

50. It's cultural in some M.E. countiries.

My hostess in Bahrain during the 70's only donned her abaia to drive to her Mom's house one morning before she was "properly dressed". Only older women or those with strict dads or husbands wore them. I suspect some may have been Saudis.

IMO, no one should be stripped of their personhood by having to become an anonymous lump while in public. At least, that's how it made me feel.

[gulfcoastliberal]

63. I agree...

Just playing devils advocate to the devils advocate. ;)

[MoonRiver]

119. International groups such as Amnesty International are trying.

Just like animal rights groups are trying to stop the killing of baby seals. There are many kind and caring people in this world.

[Touchdown]

48. I see no difference.

Religious rituals, especially the brutal ones like FGM are rooted in religion. Commerce, profit, and the magical market is also a religion to some. Both are used as tools. One by the powerful to placate and domesticize the weak and easily led, and the other by the rest of us, because commerce/ownership/trade is the the human construct we've been born into at this time in history, and we are forced to use it to survive.

[Lorien]

57. Brutality is brutality, no matter who it's directed towards

there's no justification for seal clubbing, period. We have synthetics that keep people warmer, and the old bullshit line about "those people needing jobs"... well, if educational systems were more valued in some of our first world nations, then "those people" would be equipped with very good jobs that didn't involve being on the ice, sliding on the blood of an innocent creature they just brutally killed for profit. Liberals, historically, see "killing for profit" as a bad thing. Apparently there are some "liberals" who are so insecure in their own self worth that they need to demean other living, thinking, feeling creatures as "things" "just a resource", or try to justify killing for vanity and profit as being no different than eating a fish sandwich. I have no use for such brutal, thoughtless, bloodthirsty, uncivilized, illogical thugs. :puke:

[Clara T]

59. Industrial slaughter

Why Harp seals, one may ask? What is it about this particular species of animal that has made it the target of such an intense campaign of slaughter every year for hundreds of years? The answer is complex and varies depending on the time of history being discussed.
      The exploitation and commercial slaughter of the harp seal is one of the most tragic stories ever known to mankind, and in particular, to people who care about such things. Before the advent of "modern technology" and hunting methods, the harp seal was an honored animal playing an invaluable role in thevery existance of human beings on the eastern seaboard of Canada. Fur, meat, and bone were utilized in every conceivable fashion by the native peoples and were necessary for sustaining daily life in the arctic...

<snip>

Although the SUSTAINABLE killing of harp and hooded seals for food and fur has indeed been occuring for thousands of years by native peoples of northern lattitudes, the past 300 years brought about a new reason for the taking of the seal: commercial exploitation, and with that, the end to any shred of earlier, necessary sustainment by the animal. An incessant desire and greed for the profits to be made from the seal's oil and pelts drove many men and businesses into a pathetic circle of death and despair for most involved. (Sealing was an extremely dangerous business throughout history and many sealers lost thier lives while pursuing their sealing livelihood.) Only a few aristocratic families earned immense wealth and profits from the hard work and uneducated despair of the average man trying to earn a living the only way he thought he knew how... from the slaughter of seals.
History of the seal hunt in North America- 16th century to present: *Online Resource-(credit: Pagaphilus.org website)-

<snip>

Todays typical modern day Canadian sealers are ignorant, unfeeling, and, more often than not, unwitting participants in the corporate profit machine of a select few businesses and the government that subsidizes their cherished lifestyles.
Sealers speak out- Extreme cruelty at the hunt: *Online Resource- credit: Global Action Network (GAN)

<snip>

It all makes one wonder why? Which brings us to one more modern day reason for sealing: The seal penis bone. Although not officially admitted to by the government, the seal penis bone has become more valuable than the price of an unwanted pelt. Asian businesses eagerly seek out these penis bones as aphrodiasics for a booming quack industry commonly utilizing rare or endangered animal parts. (proven by countless scientific studies to be non-effective) These businesses contract with Canadian businesses sponsored by the government... (wouldn't want to implicate themselves direct now would they?)... hmmm... sound fishy? Although penis bones certainly aren't the only reason for the seal kill, they are just one more reason the goverment justifies the slaughter of the innocents.

http://ecodefense.com/marine/seals/

[McCamy Taylor]

68. Violence against humans is not the same as harvesting animals.

When dealing with economic use of wildlife, the moral issues are taking only as much as is needed, making sure that the population remains healthy and using the most humane methods possible.

You can not say that using animal life is a no no but harvesting plants is ok, because plants have just as much feeling and desire to survive as animals, they just do not have eyes and faces. So, since we survive of consumption, we have to decide what we will consume.

Female genital mutilation is a practice that perpetuates sex discrimation, as well as causing needless death and infection in girls and health problems in women. There is no economic or health benefit from the practice and therefore no excuse to continue the practice. Cannabilism is another practice of aboriginale peeople which has been discouraged, for similar reasons. Blood letting among europeans in the 18th century was quite popular but they were willing to let go of their favorite practice when it proved to be worthless.

[LeftyMom]

72. How does a plant have feeling and desire to live without a CNS?

Plants have chemical responses to stimuli including light and injury but they do not feel pain as animals do. Nice thread hijack, BTW.

In any case, nobody's eating the seals, after thier skins are ripped off and thier penises are removed for ineffective virility remedies, the rest of the carcass is left on the ice.

[McCamy Taylor]

129. I am against harvesting fur and skins. But DONT need CNS for a soul.

Read "Swampthing" the comic/manga esp the Alan Moore run of the series and you will realize how egocentric human beings are. We believe that only we count and that the closer a creature comes to looking like us the more it counts. I hvae known plants that have as much soul as animals and more soul that some people. Plants show evidence of distress or pain when they are uprooted. They have defense mechanisms to ensure their survival. If we are going to value life on earth, value ALL life on earth. It is about balance, not just taking care of cute cuddly creatures that look at you with big anime eyes like baby seals.

[flvegan]

74. I stopped reading at "economic"

Mix "economic use" with morals? Wow. That's Republican alllllllll the wayyy.

[SidDithers]

111. I stopped reading at "flvegan"...

becuase I knew that nobody else could live up to your standard of purity.

Sid

[omega minimo]

70. Nominated for FLAMEBAIT OF THE YEAR 2005!!!!!!!!!!

Equal opportunity bullshit-- something for everyone to hate!!!!!!! and mouth off on something "relevant" to what right now? I missed the memo.

Thank you! And Happy New Year!!!!! :toast:

[flvegan]

75. Wait'll 2006

when it comes back tenfold.

Whatever. Bullshit indeed.

[manic expression]

79. Indigenous traditions should be protected

to a point.

We have destroyed just about every indigenous culture on the planet. How about, for a change, letting these cultures survive? How about NOT playing mr. do-good missionary, and subsequently ruining cultural diversity?

If commercial trappers are using such things as cover, they should be arrested and subject to harsh penalties (as in harsh jailtime). Period. However, the actual aboriginals should be allowed to carry on their traditions.

[flvegan]

88. So, then female genital mutilation is okay?

I don't want to be mr. do-good missionary, subsequently ruining cultural diversity...

[manic expression]

98. What about male genital mutilation?

What do you propose, to tell one culture to stop something, but do nothing with another culture's very similar practices?

Oh, and thanks for forgetting: "To a point."

You could propose something constructive, such as the use of anesthesia (sp) during the circumcision, or you could promote symbolic rituals in place of the actual ones. However, it is simply wrong to further ruin the cultures of the world when we have done so to a sickening degree already.

[flvegan]

102. What about it?

I was referring back to the OP of the thread...

Ruin culture. Good one. Culture, when it's cruel, is okay, because it's culture.

Hey, in that case, I've got a cockfight in the morning and a dogfight in the afternoon. Hope I can make both...

[manic expression]

103. What about my post?

You should have referred back there as well. I was asking you about the West's fad of male genital mutilation for no real reason. I guess some cultural practices are acceptable to you and others are not...or do I overstate?

There are ways of NOT destroying a cultural practice while negating the inhumane parts of it (quite subjective, however). I outlined a few. If you stopped and looked at world history you will see a disgusting pattern of declining traditions. We need to preserve all that we can.

Oh, and bullfights are pretty popular in Spain and Latin America. Will I see you crusading against them? I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Colorado Blue]

116. OK, I'll speak up here. Female Genital Mutilation has been

defended by politically correct sociologists as being no worse or no different than the wearing of high heels or voluntary nose jobs in the west, and as such representing esthetic values.

BULL. Female Genital Mutilation severely damages the body, it is excruciating although, it is now being performed in some cases under anesthesia and by trained nurse-midwives or even doctors and the custom in fact is spreading - to London for example.

In even its mildest forms, removal of all or part of the clitoris, FMG damages or destroys a woman's ability to enjoy her G*ddess given sexuality. At worst, as in the "pharonic" versions practiced widely in the Sudan and elsewhere, the external and internal labia are removed as well as the clitoris and all related tissue and a tiny hole is left for both menstruation and urination. Oh and this tiny hole, which must be cut open to provide room for intercourse and childbirth, is often surrounded by keloidal scar tissue which can hamper movement.

The removal of the male foreskin in infancy doesn't begin to compare with this destruction so I don't want to hear how they're equivalent.

Also, this is completely cultural. Among the Israel Bedouin the practice has disappeared. The women won't put up with it if they see that it isn't necessary to their survival as acceptable women. It is brainwashing pure and simple and anybody who can defend this needs an attitude adjustment.

Yet, writers like Alice Walker have been condemned because they want to eradicate the practice - as though eradicating this barbarity is a bad thing.

And I don't think bullfighting is such a hot idea either. But then I don't eat my fellow creatures, let alone endorse torturing them to death, regardless of how darkly beautiful the art may be. I think clubbing baby seals to death is appalling and so is whale hunting. I think slavery should be outlawed even though "indigenous peoples" have practiced it since the days of the caves.

One could on and on about the joys of indigenous culture but FMG takes the absolute f***ing cake.

[Marnieworld]

121. Hear freakin' Hear!

:yourock: :applause:

I was troubled by the correlation between circumscision and FGM in posts in this thread but I didn't have the energy to refute them. I do not dispute that circumscision is a practice without purpose, that nerve endings are destroyed, and that it should stop here and elsewhere. However to compare the two experiences as equal is either dishonest or misinformed.

I read that Alice Walker book and it was horrifying. These women have their genitals completely removed and have this tiny hole as you described. It's not just a ritual, a cultural practice, it is an instrument to oppress. It is designed to tame women and hobble them sexually. They have no purpose other than what the men want them to be- the men decide when they have intercourse, damage them again and again and each time to hole is repaired until the next time. It's a life of torture, pain and infection at the hands of the controlling men. It's a spiritual death. And it happens every day all over the world.

[Colorado Blue]

132. It is horrifying and I can't believe that our esteemed colleague

thinks it's ok under anesthetic.

One does run out of energy.

But, we have to keep on truckin':)

[manic expression]

135. Tiring, indeed

OK, what if a bunch of people from another culture come here and start demanding that we end abortion immediately. I mean, they have a point, we are destroying a life, aren't we?

That's exactly it, when someone puts their values in front of someone else's society, that is much like imperialism.

[manic expression]

124. Again

read my post. Traditional practices need to be protected. Doing it in a mild form, under anesthesia and performed by trained persons, is not unacceptable. You could even promote a symbolic ritual instead of the actual mutilation itself. However, the fact remains that targeting traditions of cultures is perpetuating the destruction of those precious few cultures we have left.

The removal of male foreskin is unnecessary, but do I hear calls of condemnation at all from you? Didn't think so. Actually, I hear rationalization of it and demonization of other practices. Try being consistent.

If you just stopped to look at history, you'd see a disgusting campaign against all indigenous cultures of the world. One by one, they have fallen to the bloodthirsty cultural imperialists that are all too common. If this is an indigenous tradition, it deserves preservation, as it will evolve into a better practice if it is treated correctly. This will also NOT destroy yet another indigenous tradition, something the world has precious few of.

Seriously, if you want to eradicate it, not only are you targeting indigenous traditions and joining the league of such big-hearted people as the conquistadors, the missionaries and all the rest, but it is much like trying to treat drugs like a crime. If we accept those traditions and make them better for those involved, that is actual progress, not cultural destruction.

The point about bullfights was that people are so eager to condemn the "barbaric" practices of indigenous peoples, but no one gives a toss about equivalent practices that happen in the "civilized" cultures. I feel like I'm in 1492 for goodness sakes.

[Colorado Blue]

133. I heard you loud and clear. Using an anesthetic and only

cutting off part of a girl's genitals isn't up my alley. Sorry. The usual "not so severe" prescription is for removal of the clitoris only and frankly I find that perhaps even more appalling done in a high-end London clinic.

However, preservation of a certain RITUAL, that doesn't do actual harm, is another story and I can understand why people would want to preserve such rites.

In fact this appears to be the case within the Ethiopian Jewish community. These women, when they moved to Israel, told people they'd been circumcised. In fact, they were found to have a small nick in the labia, maybe 1/4" in length. Thus social and ritual demands were satisfied but the woman wasn't actually damaged.

Male circumcision - removal of the foreskin - has been PROVEN to prevent disease including cervical cancer. Like many ancient dietary restrictions, this one seems to have been rooted in sound if primitive science. Nevertheless there is nobody being FORCED to make their male children be circumcised, though it is prescribed by both Judaism and Islam. I do recall however, that whereas Jewish boys are circumcised at birth, some Muslim groups perform the ritual later, when the boy is older and can "appeciate" the experience. One Turkish dancer I performed with couldn't bear the idea of her son going through this at age nine - apparently traditional in her region - and took him to Turkey to be circumcised at age four.

On the other hand women who aren't "circumcised" are often outcast, regarded as unmarriageable and unclean. In their world this is tantamount to exile and can doom a girl to a miserable, humiliating existence or even death. It is different for women in our culture, who can work, who can choose their own path. In the Sudan, for example, that just isn't the case.

As far as preserving traditional arts and sciences - I'm all for that. But we have to be careful here, about preserving entire cultures, whole or in part. For a start - who is to judge WHICH ONES?

For example: the Pueblo tribes of the Southwestern US - the Hopi, Acoma, Zuni, et.al., are peaceful, artistic, agricultural people who owe their existence to - THE U.S. ARMY. Why? The Navajo, another indigenous group, skilled warriors, hunter-gatherers, were on the verge of wiping them out. They predated the Pueblo, stealing their animals, their women, but not enough to kill them all together because then they lose the source of their easy pickings.

Curiously, after the tragedy that befell the Navajo - their utter defeat and humiliation at the hands of the US army - with the aid of the Pueblo by the way - the Pueblo started to recover and the Navajo are by far the largest US tribe. And, they've adapted Pueblo arts - to the extent that the Hopi, for example, are furious with them for ripping off their Kachina doll art and making much cheaper copies for sale to the tourists. They've learned pottery and jewelry making, also Pueblo arts. They excel particularly at silver work with turquoise and coral and have become world-class weavers. Many of the patterns they use actually evolved from TURKISH and even Persian designs taught to them by Anglo traders.

The fact is, things change. They often change for the better. We can be sad about the loss of indigenous cultures but must remember that the Aztec, for example, though fabulous artists, also practiced extremely cruel human sacrifice. Other groups shrink heads, enforce the laws of suttee - burning the widow alive - and practice honor killings. There is value in - dare I say it - progress.

We can't manage change nor can we predict it and nor are we gods who can say which custom or tribe or indigenous culture should survive. What if THEY want to change? It is "progressive" to prevent that or to encourage the continuing practice of barbarism because it's representative of a culture we deem "indigenous"?

Also - we're all indigenous to someplace - usually someplace else. The Turkmen of Central Asia, for example, might be romantic and tribal and definitely exhibit skills - weaving, hunting, horsemanship, animal husbandry and embroidery - that should be preserved. But they aren't indigenous - they're originally from the Mongolian region and in fact, like the Navajo, predated other groups and were in turn, attacked by Russia and proletarianized by the Soviets. Yet their identity, their language and their arts, gloriously, survive.

This planet is fluid, it is always changing. That isn't bad or good, it just IS. And I really don't think that taking this particular moment in time and declaring, we should stop that change NOW, for certain groups, is either possible or progressive.

[manic expression]

134. That's nice

but is cutting off part of the male genitals acceptable to you?

Yes, carrying it out to a very small degree is what we should be working toward. What we should NOT be working for is the extermination of these rights and cultures, which goes quite hand in hand with blindly condemning all genital practices (read post #117) and a lack of understanding of them.

Male foreskin removal has also been proven to be unnecessary, and that much has been argued for on this thread.

We are not to judge which cultures to preserve.

In case you forgot, the US Army brought along a little thing called, oh, what was it? Oh yeah, ethnic cleansing and smallpox. These things alone decimated pretty much most of the Native tribes, and you are trying to make them out as a savior?

Yes, cultures DO evolve, but the act of forcing other values upon a people is disgusting. That is why so many indigenous cultures are struggling to survive today.

Change is natural, but cultural imperialism is not. Here's an example: In Polynesia, the art of tatooing was quite extensive. It signalled many things for an individual, and had a central role in the societies of the region. The art itself was very beautiful, and it varied between people and groups. When the Europeans came, they worked hard to extinguish this art. Yes, it was painful, but it was something that was A PART of the culture, and something that should never have been ended. An art was lost, an identity was stolen. Tell me how that is good.

Populations do shift, but this is also natural. Furthermore, it does not justify destroying cultural practices, as many cultures today are the way they are because of natural changes, not forced ones. The migration of the Aztecs to central Mexico was a tremendous event and changed the landscape of the region, but it was not akin to colonization. The Vikings set up shop in the Slavic lands, Sicily and elsewhere, but did they condemn the cultures of the places they went to and destroyed them? Not quite.

The difference between natural evolution and forced, destructive colonization from alien influences is paramount.

If we work with those societies, we can make sure the practices evolve for the better. It should not bow down to western values, it should find a way to its own best change.

Also, see post #117, the practice is not a simple issue.

[Colorado Blue]

136. WHAT?

OK, your quote:

"The migration of the Aztecs to central Mexico was a tremendous event and changed the landscape of the region, but it was not akin to colonization. The Vikings set up shop in the Slavic lands, Sicily and elsewhere, but did they condemn the cultures of the places they went to and destroyed them? Not quite."

Please explain. Your history is just a little off base. Please tell me why the Aztec invasion was not akin to colonization. Why is it different? And why is it wrong for people to move and "set up shop" in one case, as you claim in the Aztec situation; but not in another? In fact I'm not really sure why it's WRONG in the first place. I do sense more than a little of the same judgementalism you claim to deplore. Why is a certain pattern of human behavior acceptable if one culture does it, but not another? Is it OK for the Turks to have migrated westward from Mongolia eventually not only "colonizing" Central and West Asia, but creating mighty empires? Or is it wrong only if Christopher Columbus or the Puritans did the deed?

Also, "setting up shop" - the Vikings burned, raped, robbed and pillaged. They invaded and COLONIZED - what do you call Iceland? Big parts of England? I think, if you could see geneological information on residents of the British Isles you'd see a lot of Scandanavian genes. One of my uncles by marriage, and my step-father, both immigrants from Britain, are clearly Viking types though one was English and other Irish. The Englishman traced the family name all the way back to Norway.

Secondly, there is simply NO equivalence between foreskin circumcision of the male foreskin and FMG. If you think there is you are

a) a man
b) in need of an anatomy lesson.

That said I'm not sure why people feel it's necessary to mess around with each others' private parts, let alone with knives. Male foreskin circumcision DOES have health benefits at least, and that IS a fact. Also the motive is different. I do agree, there are other rituals that shouldn't be compared to FMG and bundling them all together is wrong.

I also don't think any one culture has a monopoly on being right or "normal". That part of your argument, I agree with. There is plenty of room on this planet for diversity and it should be encouraged. And, as far as I'm concerned if people want to inflict painful designs on themselves that's their business. Tattoo art is hardly in danger of going out of style. I've seen Maori, other Polynesian designs, on haole Hawaiians. So in a sense the tradition is spreading to other cultures.

Scarification rituals - be my guest though I wonder if inflicting pain is really a good way to socialize people. And I agree that tattoo art and scarifications aren't the same thing as FMG.

But let's leave this issue for now and go to the heart of your argument, which seems to boil down to this:

Change, colonization, migration, "setting up shop", all seem to be ok with you as long as they weren't driven by the (Christian? judgemental?) West. Is that your point? What about depradations by indigeneous people against other indigenous people?

I don't need a history lesson on the US army vis a vis the Native Americans. What I was TRYING to point out is the gray area - that intervention in the case of the Pueblo saved an ancient culture from being wiped out by another ancient culture.

[MoonRiver]

106. How about letting the Chinese continue to kill off bears around the world,

including right here in the US, because their culture believes various parts of the bear cure what ails them. According to your logic, it seems like any old cultural habit should be allowed to run amok, regardless of the amount of suffering and death it brings to the earth and its creatures. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

[manic expression]

125. That,

however, is different. FGM can be made safe and acceptable through various means. Killing bears cannot be made so.

Furthermore, there is a difference between a cultural tradition and a widespread belief. I can say ivory is a sign of manhood (this fuels elephant poaching), but that does little to enter me into a culture, does it not?

[MoonRiver]

127. Torture and killing for reasons other than survival are wrong, imo.

I don't care if people do it for cultural or pathological reasons.

[manic expression]

128. Sure

but I think you should read post #117.

For the practices that ARE really torture (not nearly all), they can be made less painful, non-debilitating or even replaced with symbolic rituals. All that I ask is that we do not so callously destroy those cultural practices, for so many others have suffered this form of imperialism.

[Warren DeMontague]

94. The infield fly rule should be abolished IMMEDIATELY

because my cat has jaundice.

Goodnight.

[mainegreen]

109. That would hurt the game! Screw your cat!

[Bridget Burke]

110. Mixed up much?

Comparing two incorrect assumptions doesn't make a logical statement.

[MoonRiver]

113. The analogy has to do with cultural habits of indigenous peoples,

which result in the suffering of innocent sentient life. Does that spell it out enough for you?

[Bridget Burke]

114. Unfortunately, Female Mutiliation is not limited to "indigenous people"

It's also practiced by educated people who've been living in cities for several generations.

[MoonRiver]

122. That may be true. But my analogy did relate to indigenous people.

Many are defending the slaughter of innocents based on a need to preserve the "culture" of aboriginals. I am refuting that argument.

[NuttyFluffers]

117. *sigh* two issues disgustingly intertwined...

first off, "female genital mutiliation" is a blanket term that covers a wide range of cultural ritual ceremonies, several quite falsely so. after taking extensive courses on anthropology and ethnic studies (i almost switched my degree from biochem to an ethnic study w/ women studies minor) i find this a very gross simplification and, in fact, offensive, in particular to the grotesque abuse that occurs in this country of the intersexed community.

before i go on a needlessly long tirade, not even remotely touching the incredibly in poor taste intermingling issue of seal killing/harvesting/whateverthefuck, i am clearly giong to state for the record that most of this stuff is widely learnable at various libraries, so outside of gently pursuasion in the right direction i'm not gonna do your fucking research for you, and i'm not going to get into a deep discussion utilizing push-button, stereotyped, blanket statements.

"genital mutilation" does exist, in part, in several ethnic communities currently, and i do not condone it. but i'm not of those communities and have no say in what they do, and honestly, i have bigger fish to fry at home, namely zealots and robber barons with their finger on the 'football.' often cultures that had a ritualized adulthood ceremony have had their previously innocuous ceremonies adapted to correspond to the changing beliefs, often of rigid patriarchy and patrilineage, by invading larger cultures. that said, this blanket statement has gone too far covering ceremonies that haven't been altered so much. yes, there are distasteful and cruel (and some even fatal) acts of mutilation involving clitoral removal, vaginal sewing, etc. in some societies. and yet in others there's mere ceremonial light scarification, akin to tattoos and other body modification. it is these, which have been grossly overlapped with the former, which i get pretty upset about when people defame in their zeal to wield their latest "crusade" as a bludgeon against all.

and remember, such ceremonies do not exist only for women, from what i hear far too often in zealotous circles. there's plenty of communities that do penile body modification in their adulthood ritual. for a quick example there's an australian aboriginal culture (whose name i do not have off the top of my head, and my anthro textbooks are under feet of compiled crap in the garage), that performs what would be in many eyes a severe modification of the penis. between the scrotum and the shaft of the penis they cut a significant diamond shaped chunk off the body; this is to represent that in every man there's a bit of woman, so don't take women for granted. so on the underside of these men's shafts there is a considerable chunk gouged out. and yet it isn't done to the point where bodily functions are impeded, sensation isn't destroyed (just altered a bit), and life isn't threatened. the urethra still works, the spongiosum still works, etc. and the same thing happens in several cultures that do female ritualized genital body modification for adulthood. some only do a very small nic upon the clitoris, leaving a little scar. others perform a light nic upon the walls of the labia majora. these do not endanger the body's functions (elimination, reproduction, etc), nor do they remove wholesale sexual sensation (they just alter it a bit, like a prince albert or fremt or labial piercings), or endanger one's life.

and, to add hypocrisy to this mix, which has deeply insulted me, our beloved america is one of the last holdouts in the industrialized world to perform intersexed operations on infants (a very dangerous thing indeed, far moreso than on teenagers or adults). if a clitoris is too long doctors in this country, almost reflexively, are encouraged to snip it to "desirable length." if the penis is deemed too small the penis is removed and the child is reassigned at childhood to life as a girl. is sensation, life, and health changed considerably? oh hell yes, when half your clitoris is snipped off, or your penis is ripped off entirely and they try to recraft your genitals into a girl (often with not enough sensation due to the complexity of infant gender reassignment surgery) you bet something changed considerably. add to this the utter horror of occasional mistakes in circumcision. there are documented cases where the cauterizer burned off the baby boy's penis by accident and the child had sexual reassignment to a girl. similar cases of improper incisions leading to massive bleeding, loss of extra penile tissue upon the glans, or the glans entirely, and in some gross malpractice cases, death.

we are the last society to be talking so boldly about issues of gender body modification. at least there's some consent, awareness, cultural identity, etc going on in some other societies, particularly those that are villified wrongly; we perform these atrocities in this country at infancy and for mere aesthetics. so, it seems a grotesque misuse and conflation of issues is being used here. this saddens and upsets me. perhaps everyone would be better off taking a break from the computer, or hanging out in the lounge, before we say more improper things that we'll regret.

[Marnieworld]

123. Thank you for every word that you wrote

Some much serious knowledge for someone with such a silly screen name. ;-) :hi:

[Jamastiene]

130. Good post. Good points.

Even if they are going to kill the baby seals, why club them to death? It's fucking brutal. People who can do that shouldn't be classified as civilized.

[Vektor]

131. Ooooh careful! I brought this up once and was called a fundie and a

freeper. I was accused of being "culturally insensitive", of "not caring about people", and most ludicrous of all, told that bashing an animal's head in with a pick-axe was "humane."

I expected that Liberals would be as upset about this as I was. I was sorely mistaken. I totally agree with you, but for some bizarre reason, some folks defended the gratuitous animal slaughter. It was mind-boggling.