Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/19/09 01:21 AM, Ravariel wrote: Ding! And we have someone who's starting to get it. Bravo!

Excuse me? I'm the one who's been arguing the point that the effects are subjective here.

Except only in some cases is the clitoris completely removed...

The world health organization recognizes 4 different types of Female Genital Mutilation, and in all four of them some or all of the clitoris and labia are removed. This is not a "some cases" kind of issue, the whole point of it is to completely remove the ability to self stimulate in a culture that already puts women fairly low on the social hierarchy to begin with.

Whereas male circumcision, you still have full use of your equipment afterword.

The existence of numbing agents for such use is hardly an indication of a culture-wide movement.

There is an emphasis in American Culture that men should be rock hard powerhouses who can go forever in the sack, and there are products out there available for that purpose. I can go to google right now and pull up page after page of non-fda approved products intended to maximize performance or tutorials on how to last longer, and you're sitting there ignoring this fact going "WAH!!! SENSATION!!!"

but who are we as a culture to do it to unconsenting infants?

Why is it that there's such an emphasis on how bad we as Americans are as a culture on the world stage, but if I open my mouth to speak out against somebody else's culture or cultural heritage in the world (like I did in that topic about Mohamed's 9 year old bride), I'm told "it's cultural and we can't judge them by the same standards we do here?"

Is there something inherently more evil about American culture that I'm not picking up on here, or something?

So, me trying to say that mutilating the genitals of 13 million boys a year is a bad thing is misogyny?

The very definition of misogyny is a deep seated hatred for women, and you're placing more emphasis on how much of a travesty it is for males to have a minuscule piece of flesh cut off over females having a whole erogenous zone cut off.

So yeah, this whole fucking topic is misogynist in nature.

Of course they are.

No, they are not. The only medical procedure even remotely close to male circumcision for females is a clitoral hood appendectomy (as I stated earlier), because then you're removing the analogous foreskin from a woman. If FGM was made analogous to male circumcision, both your dick and sack would both be cut off.

These two procedures do not compare, not by a long shot.

Any RATIONAL argument against FGA, MUST be brought also against MGA. If you do not, you're a hypocrite.

Except here's the thing.... you're not making any arguments against fgm. Nobody is. The emphasis is being placed on the males in this topic and how male circumcision is so much worse than female circumcision.

At 2/19/09 06:20 AM, TimTheGreat wrote: The topic starter was actually saying That She opposed Male Circumcision you TWAT!

I wasn't asking the topic starter, I was asking you.

At 2/19/09 12:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/19/09 01:21 AM, Ravariel wrote: Ding! And we have someone who's starting to get it. Bravo!

Excuse me? I'm the one who's been arguing the point that the effects are subjective here.

Except only in some cases is the clitoris completely removed...

The world health organization recognizes 4 different types of Female Genital Mutilation, and in all four of them some or all of the clitoris and labia are removed. This is not a "some cases" kind of issue, the whole point of it is to completely remove the ability to self stimulate in a culture that already puts women fairly low on the social hierarchy to begin with.

Whereas male circumcision, you still have full use of your equipment afterword.

The existence of numbing agents for such use is hardly an indication of a culture-wide movement.

There is an emphasis in American Culture that men should be rock hard powerhouses who can go forever in the sack, and there are products out there available for that purpose. I can go to google right now and pull up page after page of non-fda approved products intended to maximize performance or tutorials on how to last longer, and you're sitting there ignoring this fact going "WAH!!! SENSATION!!!"

but who are we as a culture to do it to unconsenting infants?

Why is it that there's such an emphasis on how bad we as Americans are as a culture on the world stage, but if I open my mouth to speak out against somebody else's culture or cultural heritage in the world (like I did in that topic about Mohamed's 9 year old bride), I'm told "it's cultural and we can't judge them by the same standards we do here?"

Is there something inherently more evil about American culture that I'm not picking up on here, or something?

So, me trying to say that mutilating the genitals of 13 million boys a year is a bad thing is misogyny?

The very definition of misogyny is a deep seated hatred for women, and you're placing more emphasis on how much of a travesty it is for males to have a minuscule piece of flesh cut off over females having a whole erogenous zone cut off.

So yeah, this whole fucking topic is misogynist in nature.

Of course they are.

No, they are not. The only medical procedure even remotely close to male circumcision for females is a clitoral hood appendectomy (as I stated earlier), because then you're removing the analogous foreskin from a woman. If FGM was made analogous to male circumcision, both your dick and sack would both be cut off.

These two procedures do not compare, not by a long shot.

Any RATIONAL argument against FGA, MUST be brought also against MGA. If you do not, you're a hypocrite.

Except here's the thing.... you're not making any arguments against fgm. Nobody is. The emphasis is being placed on the males in this topic and how male circumcision is so much worse than female circumcision.

Thats because MALE CIRCUMCISION is what the topic was intended to be about. The Topic Starter was using Female circumcision to show the hippocracy!!! That allthough Female Circumcision is very much seen as bad. Male circumcision is not.

If this was about who and who's against FGM. Unless we have some African Tribal people who practice the procedure on here. It's going to be a pretty boring Debate.

At 2/19/09 06:20 AM, TimTheGreat wrote: The topic starter was actually saying That She opposed Male Circumcision you TWAT!

I wasn't asking the topic starter, I was asking you.

And I was putting in my views on about Male Circumcision. As That was really wat the topic should of been about. Before twats like yourself came on.

If It makes you feel better. Yes I am against FGM as well.

Get your Facts sorted out. And read up on what your debating and what other people have posted. Because there are numerous errors and false accusitions and assumptions you have made.

At 2/19/09 03:06 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: Thats because MALE CIRCUMCISION is what the topic was intended to be about. The Topic Starter was using Female circumcision to show the hippocracy!!! That allthough Female Circumcision is very much seen as bad. Male circumcision is not.

If this was about who and who's against FGM. Unless we have some African Tribal people who practice the procedure on here. It's going to be a pretty boring Debate.

THANK YOU!!!!

My god... is this board really so dense that it takes a 20-post newbie (no offense) to understand the point?

Frankly, I don't see the problem with circumcision at all just since I think whatever happens to you as a tot is the parent's choice and they are responsible for the repercussions. Usually parents without a cultural obligation to fulfill won't have their daughters circumsized because the effects are far less traumatizing than they are for a male.

baby don't decide anything for themselves anyway. Parents go to all sorts of measure simply because they have this idea that raising a child a certain way will result in good outcome (playing mozart while the baby sleep). a 13 year old saying "how could you take my foreskin away from me!?" is essentially the same thing as him saying "how could just go and raise me without my permission!?" If I was a conjoined twin and the docs cut me away from my brother, should later claim that it was supposed to be our choices whether to be separated or not? I might've liked being a conjoined twin. But like every other medical procedure done on babies It's something that has been passed down the generations as a parental choice and it seems trivial to say otherwise.

At 2/19/09 03:06 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: Thats because MALE CIRCUMCISION is what the topic was intended to be about. The Topic Starter was using Female circumcision to show the hippocracy!!!

Fair enough, a mea culpa is order.

That allthough Female Circumcision is very much seen as bad. Male circumcision is not.

This is where I should have done something I should have done days ago... I'm going to call bullshit on the topic starter.

How exactly would infubaltion make it to the Supreme Court, when all forms of fgm have been outlawed since 1996?

At 2/19/09 10:36 PM, Proteas wrote: How exactly would infubaltion make it to the Supreme Court, when all forms of fgm have been outlawed since 1996?

Because the irony is that a woman can't alter her own genitals (she can pierce, but not remove), but can alter the genitals of her male son. So if she got an infibulation, she would be charged with a crime which could then, based on how the trial/appeals go, could reach the supreme court. It's likely they wouldn't touch the issue with a 10-foot pole, but the possibility exists.

At 2/20/09 03:14 AM, Ravariel wrote: Because the irony is that a woman can't alter her own genitals (she can pierce, but not remove), but can alter the genitals of her male son.

But as we know from the going back and forth in this topic, infibulation involves removal of both sets of labia, most or all of the clitoris, and sewing shut of the vagina.

So...

(1) How does that in anyway compare to male circumcision?
(2) Why the hell would you want to have it done?
(3) What doctor would agree to do it?

And lastly...

(4) Is there enough of a demand for it in this country to be perceived as a human right's issue?

It's likely they wouldn't touch the issue with a 10-foot pole, but the possibility exists.

Is this one of those "pigs will fly" possibilities, or "you might get struck by lightning" possibilities?

At 2/20/09 08:48 AM, Proteas wrote: (1) How does that in anyway compare to male circumcision?

Only slightly.

(2) Why the hell would you want to have it done?

No clue... why would males want part of their dick cut off?

(3) What doctor would agree to do it?

Any doctor who'd also be willing to shove pieces of plastic into our bodies to make our bumps bigger, or those who do the more extreme piercings and other body modifications.

(4) Is there enough of a demand for it in this country to be perceived as a human right's issue?

Obviously not. As seen in this discussion we are so culturally opposed to the practice that it was hard for me to eek out even the slightest concession of comparability from a board I usually consider pretty open-minded. However, there are people who like Prince Albert piercings and other more extreme mods... so why should this be any different than those?

Is this one of those "pigs will fly" possibilities, or "you might get struck by lightning" possibilities?

Somewhere between the two I would figure.

At 2/20/09 03:30 PM, Ravariel wrote: Only slightly.

Only slightly?

why would males want part of their dick cut off?

I'm not going to bring up the previous medical reasons brought up, so I'll just do one that will hit close to home for every man reading this right now; you're girlfriend likes it. 80% of men in America are circumcised, that's 4 out of every 5, it's the norm and a fair amount of girls are grossed out by men who are uncircumcised. So socially, you have a better chance of getting laid.

And you also have less of a chance of getting laughed at in the high school showers.

or those who do the more extreme piercings and other body modifications.

Can't seem to find it in google search, so... yeah right.

However, there are people who like Prince Albert piercings and other more extreme mods... so why should this be any different than those?

Because people who are into extreme body modification do it to alter the appearance of their body as an expression of who they truly think themselves to be. You can put a vibrator piercing on the end of a prince albert, and the piercing itself does not interfere with the ability to give or receive sexual pleasure. Female genital mutalition on the other hand eliminates an entire erogenous zone and puts responsibility for the woman's orgasm off on the man (which is the entire point of doing the procedure).

You'll sooner see the topic starter go to the supreme court over her right to infublate herself than you will find any American (much less European or Asian) woman (or the topic starter for that matter) who would want to do it.

Somewhere between the two I would figure.

I thought as much.

At 2/20/09 05:23 PM, Proteas wrote: So socially, you have a better chance of getting laid.

And you also have less of a chance of getting laughed at in the high school showers.

So... because of social norms...? Interesting...

Can't seem to find it in google search, so... yeah right.

Merely an educated guess.

Because people who are into extreme body modification do it to alter the appearance of their body as an expression of who they truly think themselves to be. You can put a vibrator piercing on the end of a prince albert, and the piercing itself does not interfere with the ability to give or receive sexual pleasure. Female genital mutalition on the other hand eliminates an entire erogenous zone and puts responsibility for the woman's orgasm off on the man (which is the entire point of doing the procedure).

So? Extreme Body Modders remove fingers, those in the pain olympics remove their own junk and other things without anaesthetic, so who cares if someone doesn't want their clitoris? Importance of sexual stimulation is another one of those cultural norms, not a human universal. If a culture doesn't value sexual stimulation, then who are we to say what they are doing is wrong? Especially if the women are as proud and pleased with their circumcision as you all seem to be here?

At 2/20/09 05:51 PM, Ravariel wrote: so who cares if someone doesn't want their clitoris?

Then I'm sure you can find someone in that community who has, or would be willing to, because I sincerely doubt the topic start will.

Importance of sexual stimulation is another one of those cultural norms, not a human universal. If a culture doesn't value sexual stimulation, then who are we to say what they are doing is wrong?

And by the same measure, who are you to say that we as Americans are wrong for having a culture that condones male circumcision?

socieital norms should not dictate law EVER

At 2/20/09 06:11 PM, thedo12 wrote: socieital norms should not dictate law EVER

So... women should have the right to mutilate themselves in this manner?

Again, I'd like to hear from the female persuasion on this one.

At 2/20/09 06:45 PM, Proteas wrote: So... women should have the right to mutilate themselves in this manner?

Again, I'd like to hear from the female persuasion on this one.

I think body modification, even mutilation, should be a right, so long as the person is an adult, consenting, and sane. To have something like this done you should need to have a psychological evaluation, but it shouldn't be illegal for a woman to have a procedure like this performed.

In the body mod scene there are plenty of people who have had their primary and secondary sexual organs altered. Arguably they may suffer from Body Dismorphic Disorder, but at the same time they are arguably sane.

At 2/20/09 05:23 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/20/09 03:30 PM, Ravariel wrote: Only slightly.

Only slightly?

why would males want part of their dick cut off?

I'm not going to bring up the previous medical reasons brought up, so I'll just do one that will hit close to home for every man reading this right now; you're girlfriend likes it. 80% of men in America are circumcised, that's 4 out of every 5, it's the norm and a fair amount of girls are grossed out by men who are uncircumcised. So socially, you have a better chance of getting laid.

This is true in the United States. From what I've read on the internet the other day. Most American girls are grossed out by an uncircumcised Penis. But this is simply just ignorance. As I also noticed American girls (and any girl) who have actually had an Intact dick as well as Circumcised. Prefer it not cut.

This is a good site to show you the foreskins function in sex. NSFW (not that this thread is lol)

Seriously have a read of that site. I know it's weird looking at pictures of dodgy looking cocks. lol But It explains that the foreskin is a big part of sex.

(Also in most of the world It's weird to have a circumcised dick.)

Seriously mate. Circumcision is outdated and wrong. I hope by the time you have kids. You'll realise that.

At 2/20/09 06:55 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: but it shouldn't be illegal for a woman to have a procedure like this performed.

Would you do it, or is this simply a matter of Lawful Neutral (as the d&d players would put it)?

At 2/20/09 07:14 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: But this is simply just ignorance.

An ignorance you intend to overcome this, how?

This is a good site to show you the foreskins function in sex. NSFW (not that this thread is lol)

Have you ever sat and wondered how that particular part of your unit evolved?

The coronal ridge hook evolved as a means of scraping sperm out of the uterus if a female in heat, to help ensure that your own sperm takes. It is a unique biological adaptation for humans, very few other animals in the wild have it.

So you could say that circumcision gives that male an evolutionary advantage over other females. And seeing as how the practice actually predates judaism, I suspect that's part of the reason it was done.

Clicky (page 11).

At 2/20/09 07:36 PM, Proteas wrote: uterus

My bad, I meant to say vagina.

At 2/20/09 05:54 PM, Proteas wrote: And by the same measure, who are you to say that we as Americans are wrong for having a culture that condones male circumcision?

Indeed. I'm only trying to expose the hypocrisy in the west's (and specifically, America's) view of the two practices. I, personally am overjoyed that my parents didn't have me cut... and I would never, barring medical necessity, have it done to my son (if I have one). However barbaric I think you might be for mutilating your own son (were you to have one), I can only bring the barest of moral arguments against it. However, we as a society look at female circumcision as this horrible, barbaric and singularly EVIL act...

And again, as I consider it, personally, as or more barbaric than the male version, I would never do it to my daughter, and would bring only slightly more strenuous argument against you if you were to want to do it to yours. Because the two are directly comparable... the only difference is in scale, severity, and cultural perspective. But, while we can't minimize these differences, neither can we minimize the similarities... especially in order to try and rationalize our own barbarism.

At 2/20/09 07:36 PM, Proteas wrote: Would you do it, or is this simply a matter of Lawful Neutral (as the d&d players would put it)?

I'm at the lower end of the body mod spectrum, I'll stick to my tattoos. But I think the piercing crowd and the amputation people and all of that have the right to do with their bodies as they please, and that the people who perform those procedures for them shouldn't be subject to prosecution.

Here's a little something to chew on:
There ARE, in fact, people in the Western world advocating FGM.

Also, when I told my mom about my plan, she told me to "treasure what God gave me." Excuse me, but couldn't you have taken that attitude with my BROTHER and saved a few thousand bucks in the process?!? Ding-dong, LOGIC ERROR!

At 2/20/09 07:14 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: But this is simply just ignorance.

An ignorance you intend to overcome this, how?

By Staying away from Yank birds untill America sorts it's little penis mutilation problem out. ;)
lol
You can't deny it's ignorance. If 80% of Male Nipples were cut of at birth in a paticular country. The people in that country would find a nippled male strange and many would indeed be grossed out.

This is a good site to show you the foreskins function in sex. NSFW (not that this thread is lol)

Have you ever sat and wondered how that particular part of your unit evolved?

The coronal ridge hook evolved as a means of scraping sperm out of the uterus if a female in heat, to help ensure that your own sperm takes. It is a unique biological adaptation for humans, very few other animals in the wild have it.

So you could say that circumcision gives that male an evolutionary advantage over other females. And seeing as how the practice actually predates judaism, I suspect that's part of the reason it was done.

How does Circumcision give a Male an evolutionary advantage over females.
I guess you mean over uncircumcised males.
And that would be just an 'advantage' not an evolutionary advantage.

That does seem a good theory mind...
Howether Female Lubrication is there to lubricate. The Coronal ridge pulling it out defeats the mechanisms of Intercourse.
(I also think Female Lubricant actually helps the passage of Sperm)

Either way. If you read the link I gave you. You can see how the foreskin benefits sex.

At 2/20/09 06:45 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/20/09 06:11 PM, thedo12 wrote: socieital norms should not dictate law EVER

So... women should have the right to mutilate themselves in this manner?

if they want to do it to themsleves, why the fuck not?

At 2/21/09 08:44 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: And that would be just an 'advantage' not an evolutionary advantage.

Well, if I was able to ensure that my sperm took over another male's, would that not -- in a way -- be an evolutionary advantage?

There tends to be a lot of anti-relsgious sentiments expressed on these boards (and in this topic as well), so I was just curious to see people's reactions if they found out that perhaps this tradition didn't actually start with Judaism.

You can see how the foreskin benefits sex.

I did, or one of them at least... I stopped when I read the part about "the uncircumcised man has a more forceful stroke during sex because he is attempting to compensate for the lack of feeling at the end of his member."

I about fell out of my chair laughing when I read that.

At 2/23/09 10:01 PM, thedo12 wrote: if they want to do it to themsleves, why the fuck not?

My main question is; is there enough of a want for this supposed "right" to self mutilation out there to repeal such a standing law on it? From what I've seen, even the most extreme forms of body modification do not cater towards this act, and the only people pushing for it seem to be those calling "bullshit" on the whole male circumcision ideal... which I think isn't right, because those individuals are arguing for the "right" purely as an intellectual exercise, not as being individuals who feel genuinely disenfranchised for not being able to pursue said medical procedure.

And from what I've read, the videos mentioned earlier of guys chopping themselves up in such a manner is said to have been faked. So I wouldn't even bother with pursuing that as any means of justification at this point.

At 2/23/09 10:16 PM, Proteas wrote: My main question is; is there enough of a want for this supposed "right" to self mutilation out there to repeal such a standing law on it?

Does it matter? Only 10% of the population wants to enter into a gay marriage. If even one sane person wants to do this and is prevented by the law, is that not wrong?

And if you want to see genuine images and photos of what people do to their genitals in the name of body modification...BMEzine's Hard/Extreme gallery is full of REAL images, but it costs. Male gender nullification, female gender nullification, penile bifurcation, urethral rerouting, etc.

At 2/20/09 06:45 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/20/09 06:11 PM, thedo12 wrote: socieital norms should not dictate law EVER

So... women should have the right to mutilate themselves in this manner?

Again, I'd like to hear from the female persuasion on this one.

I didn't say I WANTED this procedure; I was going to offer myself up in a form of social protest.
How you could not get that this whole time is beyond me.

At 2/23/09 10:01 PM, thedo12 wrote:

My main question is; is there enough of a want for this supposed "right" to self mutilation out there to repeal such a standing law on it?

laws should not be dictated simply by what the majority wants, in my eyes the perfet society is one based on consent.

I should be allowed to cut my whole dick off, fry it and eat it if I so choose to do so.

And from what I've read, the videos mentioned earlier of guys chopping themselves up in such a manner is said to have been faked. So I wouldn't even bother with pursuing that as any means of justification at this point.

ive seen that vid , it did look amazingly fake

At 2/20/09 07:14 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: Seriously mate. Circumcision is outdated and wrong. I hope by the time you have kids. You'll realise that.

Extra punctuations are also outdated and wrong - they went out of style in elementary school.

On a more serious note, I still have yet to see proof that circumcision is "wrong" in the moral sense. Schools make kids get certain vaccinations to continue attending, but there's little seriously-taken outrage about that, even though the issue of consent is still there.

At 2/23/09 10:35 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Only 10% of the population wants to enter into a gay marriage.

That's just the thing; that's 10% of a population of well over 330 Million people, not a couple of random people on an internet message board arguing for a "right" to self mutilation that they themselves would never exercise and probably would never allow their children to exercise.

At 2/23/09 11:16 PM, HibiscusKazeneko wrote: I didn't say I WANTED this procedure;

Uh huh.

I was going to offer myself up in a form of social protest.

Then do it.

Go on. I wanna see this on the 5 o'clock news by tomorrow. You've got about 24 hours by Central Standard Time.

At 2/24/09 12:16 AM, thedo12 wrote: laws should not be dictated simply by what the majority wants,

We're a republic based on a democratic voting system, that's the way it works. If we go by only what a small handful of individuals want, it's no longer a democracy, it's an oligarchy or monarchy.

in my eyes the perfet society is one based on consent.

I'm not even going into this one, because you can argue "perfect" to be whatever you want it to be regardless of what I say.

Which is why I'm going to neutralize your argument by saying the following; this is the real world, and "perfect" does not exist.

ive seen that vid , it did look amazingly fake

Both the BME page and the Pain Olympics page on wikipedia make the statement (and there's no discussion tags, unsourced tags, or anything to indicate otherwise) that the video in question was part of an April Fool's Day Hoax, and that the content thereof cannot be 100% verified as being real.

But now, let's look at this logically for a second. Assuming someone actually did this (and they probably did), those were not clean and even cuts that could be easily sutured and cared for IF they could be sutured or stitched, much less one of the guys involved is said to have been married at the time and hid the fact that he did genital self mutilation from his wife... you couldn't hide a thing like this from your spouse for very long.

Considering all the attention these videos have gotten, don't you think it's just a bit odd that we haven't heard any updates on the guys involved in making these videos?

At 2/24/09 12:16 AM, thedo12 wrote: laws should not be dictated simply by what the majority wants,

We're a republic based on a democratic voting system, that's the way it works. If we go by only what a small handful of individuals want, it's no longer a democracy, it's an oligarchy or monarchy.

I never said that it should handle by a small handfull of individuals either.

however it makes no sense hat 51 percent of the populaton should be able to dictate whatever laws they want on the other 49 perent.

people, should have the right to mutilate themsleves in whatever fasion they want no matter what majority thinks.

in my eyes the perfet society is one based on consent.

Which is why I'm going to neutralize your argument by saying the following; this is the real world, and "perfect" does not exist.

I agree I shouldnt have used the word perfect.,

what I should have said is that a society based on consent would be , the best system I could think of., no one passing laws on me saying that I cant smoke this or I cant drink that, simply becuase they think I shouldnt do so.(also no I dont say this becuase i a druggie or whatever I actualy live a completly drug-free life, unless you count affine as a drug)

Considering all the attention these videos have gotten, don't you think it's just a bit odd that we haven't heard any updates on the guys involved in making these videos?

I think its a bit wierd that a guy would video tape a vid of himself cutting his junk off in the first place, but like I said I do think it looks fake.

At 2/24/09 06:04 PM, Proteas wrote: That's just the thing; that's 10% of a population of well over 330 Million people, not a couple of random people on an internet message board arguing for a "right" to self mutilation that they themselves would never exercise and probably would never allow their children to exercise.

But there aren't a few random people. BME alone has thousands of members. Many of them have had procedures like that done despite them being illegal. They probably wouldn't let their children have the procedures done, precisely because they are children, but adult offspring of body mod people frequently mod as well. I would let my stepson do anything he wanted to his body once I felt he was old enough to fully understand the repercussions.

We're a republic based on a democratic voting system, that's the way it works. If we go by only what a small handful of individuals want, it's no longer a democracy, it's an oligarchy or monarchy.

That only applies if we're making body modification mandatory. Allowing the minority the right to do as they wish in no way harms the majority.

Alright, so that one video is a hoax. This is not. This is not. This is not. This is not. NSFW, obviously. These are all REAL genital modifications, mostly piercing, but I could find you amputation, scarification, inflation, and much more - for male and female genitals both.

People do this. It's not a moral issue like abortion, but they are similar in that by making it illegal to perform these procedures, you drive modders into the underground. Legal, aboveboard shops are clean and less likely to seriously fuck up what they're doing.