[ SECRET POST #5767 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5767 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.



__________________________________________________



12.



__________________________________________________



13.



__________________________________________________



14.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 15 secrets from Secret Submission Post #825.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Non-fandom secrets!

[(Anonymous)]

So a version of FGM is comparable to male circumcision should by your logic be totally fine? Cool. And no, "this is worse so it should be the only thing we care about" is very much NOT relevant because guess what? FGM is actually outlawed in plenty of countries while male circumcision is not. That's the main issue. Most people are absolutely in agreement that FGM is a barbaric practice that should be outlawed yet at the same time, male circumcision is widely practiced without second thought. More or less everyone who is against male infant circumcision is also against FGM. The other way around? Not so much. And that is a shitty double standard.

Also, there are a lot of instances of little boys dying or being majorly hurt after botched circumcisions. But hey, fuck them I guess. A completely medically unnecessary amputation of a body part without consent is, by definition, causing harm. It doesn't matter if many men don't appear to have lasting impairments afterwards, it is harming the child the moment you cut away at their genitals.

Re: Non-fandom secrets!

[(Anonymous)]

A version of female circumcision that caused the same level of harm as male circumcision would not be totally fine, but there would be a completely different cultural/social/legal reaction to it than FGM as it stands. Because of degrees of harm, as I mentioned in my original comment and which you completely ignored.

Re: Non-fandom secrets!

[(Anonymous)]

There are several types of FGM and one of them (which is practiced, not just theoretically a type) is the amputation of the skin around the clitoris. So by your whole "degrees of harm" thing, it would be a FGM type you are fine with because you're also fine with male infant circumcision because it's "not as bad".

Re: Non-fandom secrets!

[(Anonymous)]

FGM types as they are practised (so not the theoretical rule we discussed in the previous comment) all do a far greater degree of harm than male circumcision. So no.