Intactivism & Genital Integrity

I started a new group for Genital Integrity & Intactivism, opposing sexual genital mutilation:

Intactivism & Genital Integrity

http://fimfiction.net/group/210956

Comments

[Walabio]

4036429

I can try to not be condescending, but it is hard because mutilating organs for sexual pleasure (genitals) seems as crazy as mutilating organs for sight (eyes) is to me. If you like, you can rewrite the paragraph for me. I just cannot wrap my mind around such dysfunctional desires and behavior.

[Walabio]

4036846

I am sorry about the "¡Does not compute!" screwing up my ability to write. If you go to the group, you will see that I use your version.

¡Thanks!

[Walabio]

4036918

I found out that sex-reassignment-surgery requires a psychological examination for making sure that patient is mentally competent. I changed the paragraph again:

> "We have no qualms with adults choosing what to do with their own bodies, after passing a psychological examination, which should be required before all body-modifications, including but not limited to scarring, tattooing, piercing, et al of any part of the body."

¿How do you feel about the change?

[Walabio]

4071850

I have to meditate about your suggestion:

I oppose medically unnecessary modifications of minors. I focus on sexual genital mutilation as the most egregious example. Including tattoos and piercing defocuses a bit by pulling out to from the subissue to the greater issue but is philosophically consistent with the group. This brings up a question:

¿Do you believe that we should not allow parents to pierce, tattoo, and scarify their children? I do not. Since sexual genital mutilation permanently reduces sexual sensation and function, I focus on that, but all medically unnecessary modification of minors should be illegal.

I shall sleep on your suggestion. I shall tell you what my decision will be.

¡Thanks!

[Walabio]

4071915

I suppose that you are right. I shall think about how to rewrite the paragraph. I am open to suggestions. This brings up an interesting point:

We have to choose our battles, but where to draw the line:

Feminists, only caring about girls, tell people to not sexually mutilate the genitals of their daughters. The mutilators point out that they do not do anything to girls they do not also do to boys too. The sexist focusing on only girls undermines the campaign against female sexual genital mutilation. One accomplishes more by opposing all sexual genital mutilation because the mutilators cannot use the argument "We do not do anything to girls we do not also do to boys."

On the other hand, if we go after every parent piercing the ears of their daughters —— I would love to ban all medically unnecessary modification of nonconcenting minors —— , but, if I did that, I would be running around all over the place, accomplishing nothing. Trying to ban medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of boys, intersexuals, and girls seems a good focus; but maybe however, we should focus all all medically unnecessary modifications of nonconsenting minors. ¿What is your opinion?

[Walabio]

4074759

You fell into the feminist trap:

If one can get parents to cut the genitals of their children, one can get them to do anything, plus one has marked the children so that they cannot just leave. As an example, Jewish Scholars acknowledge that Hebrew Law has more to do with making the Jews distinct. The health arguments about sand are bunk:

An intact præpuce has muscles allowing it to purse, so sand cannot enter. Besides, if sand could get under the præpuce of a penis, it could get under the præpuce of a clitoris, thus rendering the sand-argument unisex, thus supporting both male and female sexual genital mutilation.

Most importantly is distinction without a difference:

One compares præpucectomy to vulvectomy. Most sexually mutilated females suffer from præpucectomy (the sexual genital mutilators, who are usually women) only cutoff the clitoral præpuce, which is not worse than cutting off the penile præpuce. That is why feminist campaigns against only female sexual genital mutilation are self-defeating:

The Female sexual genital mutilators can honestly say that they do not do anything to girls that does not also happen to boys.

If one wants to go after sexual genital mutilation, one must go after all human sexual genital mutilation. Both range from ritual nicks to complete ablation of the genitals:

¿Are you aware of oriental eunuchs? Unlike occidental eunuchs who only loose their testicles, in the Mideast, the Indian Subcontinent and the Far East, eunuchs receive penectomies and castrations. What the feminists do is like masculinists claiming that all female sexual genital mutilation is only præpucectomies while all male sexual genital mutilation creates oriental eunuchs. It is self-defeating because the typical sexual genital mutilation of boys and girls is equivalent. The sexual genital mutilators just have to point out that that they do the same thing to both girls and boys. The way to make progress is to oppose all sexual genital mutilation of both boys and girls.

I shall apply your suggested wording.