Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Aug. 16th, 2006

So "the Malcontent" had this to say for my reaction to Sullivan's use of MGM:

And bravo to his reader for admonishing him for trying to rhetorically piggyback “male genital mutilation” onto “female genital mutilation.” Having seen many victims of the latter and firsthand and what it does to them (oftentimes outright ostracization), such a comparison is beneath contempt. But Andy’s been a pretty contemptible guy these days.

He says he “agrees” with almost everything his reader said. So will he quit using the term “male genital mutilation”? There’s about as much chance of him giving up “Christianist.” He just loves the sound of his own voice.

Oh, and now that I'm not so tired, I just looked at Sullivan's response to my email and he's NOT getting the point. He's STILL using the term MGM. Anyway, here it is:
I agree with everything this reader says, but one. FGM is exponentially morally, medically and psychologically worse than MGM. It's an evil practice. But it is untrue that MGM "may diminish male pleasure." It drastically decreases male sexual sensitivity. In the era of AIDS, some parents may believe that diminishing their child's future sexual pleasure is worth the benefit of extra protection from HIV. But the trade-off exists.

I wonder how this "trackback" thing works?

Latest Month

August 2013
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow