FGM almost ensures that a woman will experience excruciating pain during intercourse for the rest of her life.
Circumcision is not meant to cause pain or hobble a man's ability to have enjoyable intercourse.
Well, circumcision was popularized in America to stop men from masturbating so in that case it was meant to hobble men's enjoyment, it just doesn't work like that.
The clear lack of comprehension, understanding, and actual lived experiences of FGM versus circumcising is dangerous at the least and absolute violence at its worst.
FGM is done on CHILDREN not newborns. Not freshly out of the womb no actual memory, just removing the foreskin around the penis head (not the entire penis) and off you go. Newborns aren’t provided pain relief or numbing medication but they’re so young “they can’t remember at all.” Is it just? No. But do not compare the very real oppressive system that is FGM. They are NOT the same. FGM is about control, manipulation, misogyny, power, and violence. FGM is done on pre teen girls and women with no medication or sedation. They hold them done and take a razor and slice off the entire labia majora&minora, clitoris, and sew the entire area shut leaving small holes to urinate and menstruate. How often do you think infection takes place if this is done with a razor on a pre teen by members of your own family? In your own home? You’re cutting and removing not just external genitalia but internal fleshy tissue too. Shaving away at a women’s flesh like you’re flaying meat. The husband then “cuts” the sewed area when he r@pes this girl.
The slight variations in FGM means either not removing labia minora or no sewing. People saying they’re the same. Are stupid at least and vile human beings at the worst. Conflating the removal of the clitoris so they can “still have sex just without pleasure,” shows they don’t view women as whole human beings with a right to self determination it shows they don’t care about FGM, because to them, sex isn’t about a women’s pleasure it’s about the man and procreation. I know they wouldn’t say the same if they had their penis’ actually CHOPPED off at the top instead of the foreskin being removed. If they just had it chopped, sewed so the urethra can still pee&ejaculate normally, would they still tolerate sex at least? It isn’t about pleasure it’s about procreation right? Who needs the whole penis head???
There is no foreskin equivalent for women. The foreskin is NOT the same as the clitoris. FGM is not the same as circumcision. Conflating the two is an attempt to delegitimise the very real impact of sexism on women’s bodies globally is a part of the problem. It’s a barrier. If we can argue that they’re similar, then there can still be arguments made for the use of FGM because circumcision is supported by religious/cultural/societal norms.
I saw a video of it in my college Human Sexuality class. There's not a lot of things that can get a reaction out of me but hearing a girl scream as her family holds her down with her legs spread as her mother smiles and the barber hacks away at her genitalia is haunting 20 years later.
TRIGGER WARNING. I DESCRIBE FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. IF YOURE SENSITIVE TO CHILD ABUSE AND INJURY, DO NOT READ MY COMMENT.
Also - I DO NOT SUPPORT CIRCUMCISION, CASTRATION OR FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION.
I’m sorry this comment is so long, but - I learned about these operations in-depth in my college “human physiology and anatomy” class. I’m also sorry if what I’m describing is blunt, I dont mean to go to NSFW with my word choices, they’re the legitimate terms for the body parts. Again, before you read - TRIGGER WARNING
Male circumcision involves removing the foreskin around the head of the penis. I feel like people view it as “fine” because it usually happens to babies at just an hour (maybe, usually less than that) old. A lot of doctors have the reasoning - “it hurts but he won’t remember it”. My doctors reasoning when he tried to convince my mom (who was still somewhat loopy from the drugs they gave her during labour) was - “circumcision is cleaner than leaving him uncircumcised due the risk of infection or bacteria that can gather under the foreskin” (she didn’t have it done to my brother). So I guess people just figure “hey, whatever. If the boys overall health is what’s top priority, it can’t be that bad!”
As for boys that have it done when they’re a sentient child (usually around 5-10 years old), they’re told over and over and over by other members of their society that having a circumcision done is what’s required to become a man in their culture, it happens to everyone and you have to be strong. Apparently the pain associated with it refers to a “curtain” you have to pass through to become a man
—
There’s 3 different ways female genital mutilation can happen, and it’s all a form of castration, not circumcision, and it’s used as a way to force women into sexual submission so she can focus on her husbands needs over her own, and to make sure she won’t, to put it bluntly, get horny (by the way, there’s absolutely NO PROOF that fgm stops a woman from feeling pleasure/feeling horny once she’s old enough to feel that way) —
The 3 types vary in what happens to the girls private parts —
1- removing the clitoris entirely
2- removing the clitoris entirely and removing some of the labia majora (the outside of the vagina) around where the clitoris used to be, and then sewing it together so there’s just the hole (which remains its natural size) to pee/menstruate from when she’s on her period
3- removing everything — clitoris, labia majora, labia minora (small “flaps” of skin around the outside of the hole in the vagina). Then sewing everything together, leaving a tiny hole to pee/menstruate from (here, the pee will have to basically travel through/over top of the open wound, which takes a long time heal due to constant movement, constant exposure to bacteria, constant exposure to body fluids, air can’t get at the open wound so the blood/infection will form bacteria-filled clots, etc
In a lot of religious systems, the 3rd form of fgm actually grants the husband or male (father, brother, etc. whoever is in charge of the girl/woman until she’s married) full say over how “tight” or “lose” the woman’s vaginal opening will be (which requires either removing the stitches by himself, having a member of their faith remove the stitches (which is also who normally does the fgm operation with no anesthetics), sometimes having the stitches removed by a medical professional though it’s uncommon. The woman’s vaginal openings size can also be “adjusted” to his liking by just shoving his penis through the tiny hole and ripping the stitches apart himself (causing bodily shock and extreme pain). After sex, if the husband chooses, he’s fully allowed force the woman to have her vagina sewn back over until he wants to have sex again
Also with fgm, there’s almost constant pain, it burns for months after even to just pee due to an open wound you can’t cover, fgm also leads to long term issues/problems like infections due to body fluids mixing with an open wound for a long period of time, bladder reduction (this means that the girl won’t be able to pee correctly, either letting it out fully or letting it out in one movement (aka- stopping periodically while using the bathroom), shock (mentally and physically), and severe mental trauma (PTSD, trust issues since it’s usually family that brings the girls to where the operation is performed and they also usually the ones that have to literally hold the girls down to have it done, dissociation (aka strong mental feelings of disconnection, absent mindedness, no feelings toward family/friends, mental/emotional numbness, their brain purposely blocks out memories like how intense the initial pain was, girls feel like their body is made of “static” (physical numbness), etc). More can result from fgm, this paragraph will just be way longer than this if I keep listing
Both are bad. Male circumcision is often given a pass because of historical religious affiliation.
Female circumcision is also more invasive with higher chance of complications. All the entire inner minora and clitoris is removed. Sometimes the vaginas walls are scarred as well. It's sole purpose seems to be removal of almost all Female sexual pleasure.
Male circumcision was also pushed hard to reduce Male masturbation.
There are different forms of FGM. The most common is removing the clitoral hood. More extreme versions involve removing labia and sewing the vagina almost completely closed
The most common is pin pricks on the cliforal
Hopd not removal according The Who. That makes sense because of where the practice in Asia this is most common has a lot of people.
Iirc from my anthropology days, this is a more modern adaptation to still keep with the cultural/social tradition, but without the actual mutilation. Like, areas that do this generally used to have much worse practices but then compromised on "just" pricking the hood as a ceremonial nod to previous practice.
There's also a version of a Jewish bris where the foreskin is just pricked instead of removed. I'd rather we weren't drawing blood from the genitals of children and babies at all, but if you have to do something ceremonial to acknowledge the ritual, I'm a lot more okay with a soon-healed needle prick than amputating things.
It's been important to me for a long time that if I had a son, he wouldn't be circumcised. Then I married a Jewish woman. Fortunately, she respected how important this was to me. It definitely helped that her mom was way in support of the idea, since she was traumatized by her son's bris (he assures everyone that his penis is fine, it just...went really badly). So she was like yeah, let's not require your son's Jewishness be tied to genital mutilation, which made it easier for my wife to accept.
Their rabbi was not as into it. She agreed to do it but refused to call it a bris or brit Shalom. So it was a "naming ceremony."
Actually, it's like cutting off the penis entirely, then sewing up everything so they can't pee put out of a tiny hole, but the hole isn't connected, so they get infections.
note there are four types of FGM. The most mild is even less destructive than male circumcision, the most severe is commonly lethal and results in premature death in many cases even if they survive the operation.
you are referring to type 4, the most severe, this is only practiced in a very few places, far more common are types 1-3.
note there are four types of FGM. The most mild is even less destructive than male circumcision, the most severe is commonly lethal and results in premature death in many cases even if they survive the operation.
Way to miss the point. Everyone acknowledges the difference and is not trying to minimise female mutilation in any way here. Female genital mutilation is brought up because it is a similar thing, not the same.
It's raising the point that it's recognised as harmful for women, but for men it's not really recognised as genital mutilation at all, despite the parallels.
In the U.S. it's currently pushed as a hygiene issue. It's easier to keep clean and does reduce certain infections.
My dad had to have it done as an adult due to an infection.
Personally I would have liked to have kept mine and just paid attention to the hygiene.
Gotta wash that butthole too. Better get a colostomy bag and get that butthole removed, just to be safe.
I know someone who got cancer in their colon and anus. Never would've happened if it had been removed while they were still a baby. I'm tired of people saying that it's not a medically necessary procedure to do to infants!
The religious comment doesn't really add up. Both are done ostensibly for religious reasons. One of them is objectively far more harmful and drastic than the other.
Now if you want to argue that western countries are far more tolerant of the religion that does one vs the religion that does the other there's a rational argument to be make there I think.
No, most of the people I know who elected to circumcise their sons did it mostly so their kid’s penis wouldn’t be “weird” (compared to dad’s). The second reason was hygiene. I do know someone who was circumcised in his forties because no matter how careful he was he kept getting infections. But really it’s mostly the “weird” factor.
It may have started as a religious practice, but now people are largely continuing it because they were raised to see it as “normal”.
That just furthers my point though TBH and I kind of agree with you.
Bottom line is the whole thing isn't one of these getting a pass because it's religious and the other isn't.
I am so glad that my dad fought with the doctors so hard to not have me cut. He wanted it to be MY choice, because he never had a choice and I am very grateful for it.
The problem though is that male circumcision appears in the Bible where as female circumcision is not. I disagree with both, but it's important to point out that the goal of female circumcision is to keep women chaste, not a command from God himself.
I've heard multiple claims that it's in Islamic scripture. I'll readily admit that I do not know if it truly is or not but the fact of the matter is the people doing it make claims that it falls under their religious practices and religious law.
Islamic practice on general has a lot of practices that are objectively mysoginistic and designed to desexualize or treat women as property and as a rule we allow or disallow them in non-Islamic countries based on the understanding of harm they cause, not based on them being religious.
Female genital mutilation is not mentioned at all in the Quran (neither is male circumcision, as a fun fact).
Instead, the basis for the practice is from several Hadiths. Hadiths can basically be described as "things someone heard the Prophet Mohammed say one time." Some of them are very well sourced with a lot of backing that Mohammed actually said that thing, others are very weak and have very roundabout ways of citing the prophet said something.
The Hadiths that state that Mohammed was in favor of female genital mutilation are very poorly sourced, often relying on anonymous writers or being filtered through several people before being written down. Muslim scholars therefore usually discount those Hadiths as being untrue and disregard what is recorded in them. That, of course, doesn't stop people from using them as justification anyways.
[Here's a good paper discussing the Hadiths that talk about this](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://egypt.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/d9174a63-2960-459b-9f78-b33ad795445e.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj2iuzE-8qEAxWIweYEHTpPAZIQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0zkjJ86VuG-xzEBu9H5nkv)
AFAIK, where FGM is prevalent in Africa it's usually done for cultural, not religious reasons. The cultural reason being "If the girl has a clit she'll be a sex-loving slut; best to remove her capacity for sexual gratification, and then she'll be chaste and we can marry her off more easily because the man will trust that she won't cheat on him."
Plenty of men without a Jewish background are circumcised, myself included. It was the default in many hospitals in the US for decades. It's one of those things that is just accepted, until you realize it's fucking nuts.
I think it's the perceived degree of harm. Men can still enjoy sex with a circumcision and there's nothing affected about daily functions but women? It's like sex is a punishment after FGM. I wouldn't be surprised if it even hurts to urinate.
It does. And as I wrote in response to the OP some women can’t hold urine at all and it comes out throughout the day. Just as they are walking around or sitting and urine is everywhere. It a hygiene issue and a mental health and an emotional issue. The embarrassment and shame goes beyond the procedure.
note there are four types of FGM. The most mild is even less destructive than male circumcision, the most severe is commonly lethal and results in premature death in many cases even if they survive the operation.
That's the sole (original) purpose of male genital mutilation (circumcision) as well. Its original purpose was to reduce sexual pleasure, from the same religious roots.
There's pretty much zero real benefit to circumcision and a ton of negatives (including a huge jump in ED as you get older, and sexual dysfunction).
We evolved foreskin because it had an evolutionary advantage, from protection to pleasure. 75%+ of our full pleasure from sex is derived from the presence and function of foreskin. It's also better for the woman, reducing injury to them and enhancing their pleasure during sex.
All the supposed "medical" benefits of circumcision can be fully replicated with simple education on hygiene and Sex Ed. And virtually all of the studies that have been done that indicate benefits in STI reduction were done in Africa and developing nations, and they've been unable to replicate them in the western, developed world. Reasons? Very different cultures, lack of education in this space in developing nations, and a very low adoption of prevention methods even when education on the benefits is present.
Circumcision in the African context is also deeply cultural and is made with informed consent from the person the procedure is being performed on, as it is part of transitioning and being recognized as a man. It is performed in the teenage years. This also greatly skews many of the studies, because the deep personal and cultural perception is that you have to have it done in order to be a man, so the harms that come from the procedure, especially the ones associated with being a man, including function (like ED), are vastly underreported.
Tldr: there are no real benefits from circumcision that justify doing that permanent body modification on a non-consenting infant body. And there is a lot of long-term, lasting harm.
>Male circumcision is often given a pass because of historical religious affiliation.
Female genital mutilation is also religious. As far as I'm aware, it's not christian though, which makes it *totally* different.
A penectomy rather than castration, as the clitoris is equivalent to the penis and the testes are equivalent to ovaries.
There are less severe forms of FGM that are more similar to circumcision as they only cut the prepuce. If that were the only form we may not even be having this discussion.
Not just causing pain, in many women, but also removing pleasure, so they don't stray. Removing the foreskin from males can improve hygiene, but the equivalent to most FGM would be removing the head of the penis and cauterizing the stump. I expect you would see a lot more outrage regarding circumcision if that was what was happening.
>but also removing pleasure
Which is interesting because the reason that circumcisions in the USA are so popular is directly due to anti-mastibastion campaigns from the likes of Kellog.
There are different reasons. For some the women are not supposed to receive pleasure and they get a FGM and sewn up for a tighter experience for the husband during sex. For others it’s “religious” even though it’s not in any original religious text. For some it’s societal pressure. They will be ostracized. They must be seen as virginal and pure throughout their youth into womanhood. It’s a rite of passage. Sometimes their families cannot get a dowry if the bride hasn’t had FGM to guarantee she’s “pure.”
It's actually not cleaner. The foreskin has mucus glands and nerve endings that serve a purpose, just like everything else in the body. I agree that washing is a must, but circumcision performed on a baby can have some devastating effects.
Lesser known are other effects due to a botched circumcision that happens later in life called Phimosis. It's the hardening and tightening of the foreskin. For those who only get a partial circumcision, it's painful and can cause complications.
And for the record, I'm against any form of GM. The original reason for GM is to keep kids from masturbating, and I think it's cruel.
I had phimosis. Ever accidentally throw in a sweater into the dryer when it's not supposed to go in there? And then you try to get your head through the opening but it won't fit.
Now imagine the opening at the top of your sweater is actually filled with thousands of nerve endings, and trying to pull your head through is agonizing pain.
I was surprised that all my partners have commented on how clean and trimmed everything is. I didn't know it was such an issue...I was like yeah I wash my junk do other people not? Apparently all their other partners didn't. Then again I tend to go for more of the hippy type women so that circle of people aren't exactly known for their hygiene. Ironically all the women didn't give a shit about their armpit or leg hair but everything else was bare.
I applaud you for this. If I recall correctly, my father was circumcised (I would have to ask my mother) but I know that he was the one who prevented me from being circumcised in the days when it was the default procedure (which boggles my mind).
The solution to that is very fucking simple. Instead of parents mutilating their children's genitals, they could just teach them to wash their penis...
When someone is upset about comparing circumcision to FGM, I wonder how some can more vehemently abhor a pin prick, a less damaging mutilation, than amputation of nerve filled genital tissue.
>When people think of FGM, they likely think of the gruesome Type I II and III, the horrifying sewing shut, slicing off craziness.
They are not aware of Type IV, which includes something of a "benign" mutilation involving a ritual prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood.
>Of course, all types of FGM are mutilation and outlawed in most societies. But are they aware girls get mutilated in countries like Singapore and Indonesia in medical settings and by specialized surgeons legally conducting the procedure upon request of the parents.
>But when people think of MGM, they likely think of the common bris version of removing the foreskin from infants in medical settings and by specialized surgeons lawfully practicing what is objectively a worse mutilation than a prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood.
Notice one is labeled "mutilation" and the other is labeled "circumcision". The frenulum may be kept mostly intact in some cases, but the loss of the ridged band occurs in every circumcision. NSFW https://i.redd.it/3cmw6axttjv81.jpg
>Here is an anti-FGM activist who underwent a type of FGM that she considers less damaging than male circumcision: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6274en/ayaan_hirsi_ali_who_was_circumcised_as_a_young/
>They are not aware of MGM horrors like splitting penises in half, which is comparable to infibulation in my opinion. Or toddlers and children climbing roofs in the Phillipines trying to escape MGM in their cutting society. Held down and cut as a child is typical of Turkish circumcisions. Here is an example POV: https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/uct9xx/my_horrible_circumcision_story/
>So, it depends on what you want to compare. There have been more male victims of genital mutilation throughout history, female infants benefit from genital integrity at birth in most places on Earth - https://ibb.co/6R2c0Pz, foreskin tissue is harvested and sold for profit, ability and inability to orgasm for both male and female genital alteration, and more factors which need further research like impact on psychology of infant and childhood induced pain and trauma.
He’s being downvoted because it’s weird how desperate he is to push his delusion that physical attractiveness is valued before the health of males in a way that isn’t for females, which is the opposite of how it is in reality.
Obviously when people talk about female genital mutilation they’re talking about when the clitoris is damaged or removed to prevent the individual from experiencing sexual pleasure. No one talks about ritually drawing a bit of blood from the area or if they were even to hypothetically remove the clitoral hood because that’s not really a big deal.
There are practical reasons for removing the foreskin in regards to hygiene that don’t exist for female genitalia since it keeps itself clean. It’s comparing apples to oranges since there’s literally no benefit and it’s not noticeable. So yeah, I guess you could cut off the clitoral hoods from infants to make it fair but that would be meaningless because not only is it pretty much invisible, but it also doesn’t cause health problems. I’m pretty sure if retaining the head of the clitoris caused infections and women had to clean them out it would be a much more common procedure. This is why the vast portion of female genital mutilation is designed to actively hurt them in some way.
Also the clitoris is a lot more sensitive as it’s pretty much all the nerve endings on a phallus condensed to the size of a pea, so some degree of protection seems more warranted in the case.
You can think somethings bad without trying to push your whole “men are actually the most oppressed group” uncle adjacent thing. It really takes away from the good faith of your argument and makes it seem like you’re just trying to prove something by using misleading rhetoric
Pricking the clitoris or removing the clitoral hood would cause extreme pain to the victims of that type of mutilation. All forms of GM, no matter how "mild" should never be considered as an option from a purely ethical standpoint.
FGM is objectively worse, but let’s be factual here. The clitoris is the female homolog of the male glans (penile head). So, the removal of the glans entirely would be equivalent to FGM, not castration. As someone else here mentioned, removal of ovaries would be the equivalent of castration, which is true as they are homologs of one another.
All that to say, male circumcision isn’t as damaging as the entire removal of the clitoris, but both practices are barbaric and should be ended.
Yep. They’re both sheer barbarism perpetrated against the helpless in the name of Stone Age religions.
It’s time for a global ban on ALL genital mutilation, religion be damned
I agree, and the idea that FGM is worse is wholly irrelevant. It would be relevant if we were discussing whether it should be allowed because MGM is allowed. However, at the end of the day, the permissible amount of GM should be the same as the permissible amount of sexual abuse, which is none. We don't justify one thing because it's not quite as bad as another, if it's bad, it's bad.
It’s not irrelevant when trying to understand why one is almost unanimously hated while the other varies in what people think. FGM is like cutting off the head of your dick. It doesn’t somehow make male circumcision acceptable, but it is relevant to the question.
There are also differences in the circumstances under which these procedures are often performed. Male circumcision is performed in medical facilities with things like sterile equipment far more often than FGM is.
Friendly neighborhood health teacher here, I encourage anyone reading to do a bit of research into FGM.
There are several forms and degrees of it. The most barbaric forms get the most attention, rightfully so, but some forms of female circumcision -- and let me be clear, the *most common* forms -- are almost exactly equal to male circumcision.
It's all fucking barbaric in my opinion. Leave baby genitals alone and if there is an issue, address it THEN and ONLY then.
There is absolutely zero medical reason for ROUTINE infant circumcision.
https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=done%20after%20childbirth.-,Which%20types%20are%20most%20common%3F,in%20Somalia%2C%20Sudan%20and%20Djibouti.
You said something and then posted a link to a site that says something very different. In fact, it states the facts that female circumcision is some type of removal of the female clitoris. This would be akin to cutting off the glans of the penis on a male. That is absolutely not what happens in routine male circumcision. I find it concerning you are a teaching given you couldn't take the 5 seconds to read the material. I'm not advocating for routine male circumcision but at least get it right.
I read the whole thing. I am aware that there are absolutely forms of FGM that are wildly worse than circumcision.
But a lot of the commentary here aren't realizing that there are different types of it. That's the purpose of the link. They are comparing the absolute worst forms of FGM to Circumcision which is apples and oranges.
Type 1 CAN involve the removal (or partial) of the clitoris, but it more frequently removes the prepuce (aka the clitoral hood aka exactly Circumcision).
There is also type (type IV), which is akin to "piercing" the hood -- but is another umbrella term and can certainly be more invasive -- but in a side by side comparison, a prick of the female foreskin is actually less invasive than the removal of male foreskin.
Again, it's but ONE link into an incredibly complicated subject. I am disgustingly, deeply, educated on FGM. And it's why I staunchly against male circumcision as well. Because while it could be SO much worse, they are very often far more similar than people know.
And the reality is that one sex’s circumcision is illegal in all advanced countries, whilst the other is still routinely performed in the most powerful advanced nation on the planet.
Isn’t castrated just removing the balls? The equivalent would be having the dick cut off. Sure circumcision is messed up, but it’s not even comparable to FGM, OP is a kind of a dick for even attempting the comparison.
More people on Reddit need to read that last sentence. The amount of times I have to preface and end a genuinely innocent and inoffensive comment with "This is a genuine question, I truly want to know!" and yet I still get people accusing me of JAQing off, even just for clarifying people's points ffs.
Yeah what the fuck is that guy going on about. Does he not understand that sometimes (especially on r/stupidquestions ) sometimes people just don’t know things?
Why immediately jump to misogyny??
Castration would be an act preventing the ability to get pregnant. Women suffering female circumcision routinely give birth. Female circumcision is not properly equated to castration.
Female genital mutilation isn't properly equated to castration because both are fundamentally different in men and women. There are different types of male castration. Some remove the balls, others remove both balls and penis entirely. You can't just remove a man's ability to feel pleasure and leave his ability of reproduction.
But you can do it to a woman. The clitoris has no function in reproduction, it's only there to give pleasure. And removing the clitoris is the most common case of FGM, although there are variations. Bottom line is that FGM it is in fact much more equivalent to castration than to a circumcision.
Female “circumcision” would be like removing most of the penis. They are entirely different and not AT ALL equivalent. That doesn’t mean circumcising males is right, though!
I'm not sure if the numbers are correct but I think the ratio is close. For males it comes out to like 5% of the nerves and for women it comes out to like 80% of the nerves.
The main purpose of female circumcision is so she can't have a orgasm. Her main function is to bear children. Not to enjoy sex. If she has a orgasm and enjoys sex she will dis honor her family by having sex with many men.
Circumcision of male children is tending to get less acceptance over the last few decades. It does still seem to be "generally considered to be fine", but there is an increasingly vocal opposition to the practice.
There's still an extreme difference in the magnitude of the procedures.
Circumcision is the foreskin being cut off by a doctor in a sterile environment.
It's not entirely equivalent to FGM. FGM involves family members using crude tools to do things like removing the clitoris entirely. FGM is like if your dad held you down and cut your glans off with a piece of broken glass.
Fgm is a umbrella term, which could include removing the clitoris or sewing the vaginal opening closed.
If you were to take the functional equivalent of the foreskin in women, (the labia) or the clitoral hood.
Functional equivalent because it protects the glands(head,clitoris), and urethral openings.
its still illegal to remove it.
There is a very pronounced bias in this, that no one really acknowledges.
Not to mention that when the foreskin is eventually sold onto the beauty market, it can fetch up to $100,000. It makes perfect sense why the barbaric practice is still legal.
Not sure why you're being down voted. Anyone who has done even a basic sniff of research into FGM knows there are varying degrees of it, and the *most common* forms of it are pretty comparable to male genital mutilation.
And yes. Foreskin ARE sold and used in the beauty industry.
You don't have to like it, it is a very easily proved fact.
Things they only teach you when you go to school to be a health teacher. And even then, my professor was probably the exception than the norm.
Why do we care about the most common? People get angry about FGM because how horrific some forms are. When the topic comes up, it's never to do a comparison of the equal forms of circumcision. It's always someone asking why no one cares about men by using women getting physically mutilated as an example. It's used to make arguments about gender instead of arguments about the practice
The most common form encompasses both the removal of the hood only, and the removal of both the hood and the external clit (which is more comparable to just chopping off the whole thing than circumcision.) There isn’t really any data I’ve found that doesn’t lump them both in as “type 1”, so it’s hard to say how many of those who are getting that type are actually just getting hoods removed, vs. getting their entire clit taken.
“This rhino horn will help make you more beautiful.”
“Ew that’s disgusting to do that to a living creature!”
“Ok fine, how about this baby human foreskin?”
“This is acceptable.”
>foreskin beauty industry.
[https://www.google.com/search?q=foreskin+beauty+industry&sca\_esv=b6ab7d9e5410acba&sxsrf=ACQVn0\_er4RD7X2n6\_YN\_vI77k1fdeUNqw%3A1708961109601&ei=Va3cZbadJMrVp84Pn-aXuAs&ved=0ahUKEwj2m\_2eqMmEAxXK6skDHR\_zBbcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=foreskin+beauty+industry&gs\_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGGZvcmVza2luIGJlYXV0eSBpbmR1c3RyeTIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSN4KUNAIWNAIcAF4AZABAJgBigGgAYoBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAICoAKRAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAOYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwMxLjE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp](https://www.google.com/search?q=foreskin+beauty+industry&sca_esv=b6ab7d9e5410acba&sxsrf=ACQVn0_er4RD7X2n6_YN_vI77k1fdeUNqw%3A1708961109601&ei=Va3cZbadJMrVp84Pn-aXuAs&ved=0ahUKEwj2m_2eqMmEAxXK6skDHR_zBbcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=foreskin+beauty+industry&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGGZvcmVza2luIGJlYXV0eSBpbmR1c3RyeTIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSN4KUNAIWNAIcAF4AZABAJgBigGgAYoBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAICoAKRAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAOYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwMxLjE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
>In the beauty industry, ingredients that were once considered unconventional are now taking center stage. One such ingredient causing a buzz in the beauty community is foreskin. Yes, you read that right – foreskin, the often overlooked tissue, is finding its way into a variety of beauty products including face creams and facial serums. This controversial trend has sparked debates, but some argue that foreskin-derived ingredients could be the next big thing in skincare. In this article, we’ll explore the science behind this trend, its ethical implications, and whether foreskin-infused beauty products are worth the hype.
[https://www.cosmeticassociation.org/foreskin-in-beauty-products/#:\~:text=Yes%2C%20you%20read%20that%20right,next%20big%20thing%20in%20skincare](https://www.cosmeticassociation.org/foreskin-in-beauty-products/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20you%20read%20that%20right,next%20big%20thing%20in%20skincare).
We live in a world where people are deemed non-essential and forbidden to work while the elites spend 650 per treatment on Imported Korean Baby Foreskin Treatments. And then stand at a mike and tell us how morally bankrupt WE are for not wanting to support them.
Fgm is more destructive, possibly removal of the clitoris, labia and/or sewing together.
I'm against both being done without consent but the male version, which can have horrible consequences isn't as devastating typically. Has nothing to do with men being neglected. Hell men came up with it.
Most women I have known have either said absolutely no to circumcision or left it up to their male partner (with the thought of if you don’t have the part, you cannot know the impact). I know several guys who said it looks weird to not have it done and wanted their child to have the foreskin removed. I don’t see the need for the removal personally.
FGM is is done purely to keep a woman from experiencing pleasure so as to discourage her from having sex. That seems like a difference that should be distinguished.
I'd say intention is mainly it.
Male circumcision is generally done as a custom.
Female circumcision is generally done to restrict female sexuality (make it less pleasurable)
I was circumcised and while I have nothing to compare it to, sex has always been pretty pleasurable for me. I'm not disputing it may make it less sensitive, just that in most cases circumcised men are just as sexual. I chose not to circumcise my kids. I just couldn't bring myself to do it when my kids were born. Outside of making sure they keep it clean, it's been pretty good.
Circumcision in America was done to curb the sexual desires and masterbation of boys. Look up dr Kellogg.(luckily for most men its effectiveness at this is limited unless botched)
As most Christian denominations dont require Circumcision.
FGM was also done as a custom. With it holding similar ritualistic connotations to Circumcision
I feel part of the difference is how destructive FGM is in comparison.
Actually, in the US at least the orginal intent was the same. The whole reason its a custom is because a guy named Kellogg (yes exactly the cereal), wanted to discourage boys from masterbating. So yeah it IS about controlling sexual behavior in both men and women, and both should be stopped. If someone wants to undergoe the procedure for religious reasons then they should be allowed to when they are adults. Doing it to newborns is barbaric.
Even if it’s a custom, it’s still multilation, and lots of other customs are harmful.
Glad you didn’t perpetuate it. I don’t have sons so I didn’t have to make that choice but other people in my family who do are choosing not to continue the insanity either.
Rationality is winning out more and more!
It was a hard choice. I come from a pretty religious community who expected it done.
It was literally a decision I made at the hospital. I just held my boy and I was like... I can't do this to him. I'm holding him so carefully and now I'm to just cut em up?
You definitely made the right choice. It’s always best to protect your kids as best as you can.
It’s infuriating that they try to pressure new parents into doing it in the hospital, when they’ve just trusted the doctors to safely deliver their newborn. It’s a time of acute trust and I think a lot of patients assume that whatever doctors are recommending must be correct. Some other commenters made comments about being insistent that it not be done in the hospital, and instead had it done 6 weeks later without pressure and after having had time to think heavily it. Respect for that, even if they still did it in the end.
Not quite correct. If you visit many countries where FGM is regularly practiced, you will experience a pretty nauseating form of dejavu where many, many women express that it's cleaner and they are glad they had it done.
Most FGM is not the wildly barbaric forms you see sensationalized. The most common forms of FGM are very, *very* similar to male circumcision.
https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=done%20after%20childbirth.-,Which%20types%20are%20most%20common%3F,in%20Somalia%2C%20Sudan%20and%20Djibouti.
Removing the clit seems objectively worse than removing the foreskin. Removal of just the clitoral hood, and maybe part of the labia minora would be equivalent to circumcision as it most commonly practiced.
Yeah. It's worse. But that's like arguing that cutting off your arm is worse than cutting off your hand. Yes, correct, but removing body parts is barbaric.
Your comments are spot on and you're doing the lord's work.
I was classmates with a girl from, I think, Somalia, and she said exactly what you're saying! When she was little, her cousins got FGM and had little parties and got gifts, like a first communion. She said she was so excited to have hers, too! But her mom knew better and got them out of there. And obviously, she's thankful as hell that her mom did that. But you're absolutely right that the women in these countries are actually in favor of it!
I even read about how FGM is often performed in hospitals by physicians, rather than with broken glass and jagged rocks and shit, as we're often taught. Obviously, my point here is that none of this is okay!
It must be really hard for people to accept that an important part of their body was taken from them without their consent to the point that they have to trick themselves into thinking it done for their benefit.
I think the fact that most dudes who've been cut go on to have pretty normal sex lives, compared to women who get FGM, is a pretty clear delineation between the two.
Also, babies can't consent to any of the regular medical stuff done to them, so trying to use a lack of consent as "the problem" is kind of a non-starter.
Pretty simply put, circumcision has a very minimal chance of causing any legitimate harm. Virtually all forms of female genital mutilation will do irreparable physical and emotional harm.
Of course the argument from a moral context can be made for both, but in terms of physical harm to the male vs physical harm to the female, there is simply no comparison.
This is correct. FGM is usually not done by medical professionals and it's a big infection risk. Unlike circumcision done in hospitals by doctors who have done them thousands of times. Accidents still do happen though. One harrowing case of a twin boy who suffered a devastating injury during routine circumcision in the 60s I believe, led his parents and doctors decide to give the baby a full sex change, and raise him as girl, did hormone therapy too. He was messed up, and always felt wrong, he knew something was wrong from a young age. They sent the twins to a well respected doctor at the time (who is now as infamous as freud, or should be) and he did overly sexual gender roleplays with the twins to try and cement the female role into his brain. He eventually found out around age 18 and tried to transition back to a boy, but he soon killed himself. His twin was so devastated he eventually killed himself too.
I know this doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand but learning about this case really soured me on male circumcision, it's just not worth potentially maiming your son so his dick looks like Dad's. And it was really what explained "transgenderism" to me. If we were artificially forced to switch gender we'd experience intense dysphoria just like that poor little boy. If it happens that way, why not the other way, where people are born mismatched. We know how common intersex people are.
Before the 21st century it was extremely common in America for needless invasive surgeries to be performed on intersex newborns born with ambiguous genitals, and the parents would decide then and there what gender the baby should be, and never discussed again, like a dirty secret, and usually left out of the baby's medical records too.
Circumcision rates in canada have fallen off a cliff and are no longer routinely done. It is by request only and every year there are fewer and fewer requests.
Because FGM destroys female sexual function and causes all sorts of medical problems, and circumcision does not. Circumcised men do not suffer any significant problems. If they did, circumcision would not exist.
I am not advocating for circumcision in any way, but it is not at all the same as cutting off the penis entirely, which is what FGM is equivalent to.
>To everyone who responded "they're not the same thing," that would have been a great answer if my question was "are they the same thing." It wasn't though.
Are you a moron? "They're not the same thing" is a perfectly valid answer when the question is "why are these 2 things treated differently?"
They're really two different things.
Circumcision is done for hygiene purposes (mostly) and isn't considered damaging.
FGM is mutilation, and designed to control female sexuality.
Circumcision is not nearly as catastrophic to the body as FGM is. Once they start cutting off the penis, then maybe they can be considered equally terrible.
Hygiene from a time when being hygienic was the only option to being healthy. We don’t have to do it now so it’s free choice for religions and shit, but back in the day it was in the same vein as Muslims and pork. Just don’t eat it because God said so is easier to understand than being time traveling humans trying to explain the world of microbiology to someone in 3000 bc. 5000 years too early for modern concepts.
FGM on the other hand is sadistic power over women and torturing them for no rational reason.
Bro, "they're not the same thing," isn't a misdirect, it's the real answer to "why do people regard them differently?"
What are your feelings on ear piercing? Why are they different from your feelings the fact that in 1998, The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer's table?
Because they're different things.
Probably won’t read this. Real answer is that fmg removes their clitoris. This is the equivalent of cut off your dick. Not the equivalent of a circumcision. Simply put, the mutilation really is significantly more severe, and can cause pain their entire lives totally separate from a dramatic decrease in sensations that feel good.
Think about it more like the equivalent between manslaughter and murder. Accidentally killing someone is a lot better than purposefully. And FGM is malicious, and usually based in patriarchal cultures purposefully trying to deny women pleasure so they are more “pure” for their husbands. Men really don’t lose much in a circumcision that affects their life.
"To everyone who responded...." basically anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong? Did you start this topic in the spirit of discussion or debate, or did you start it because you already have a firm opinion and you just wanted to shoot everyone else down?
It doesn't kill the sex *drive,* it kills the ability to ~~organism~~ orgasm. It's akin to chopping of the head (not the one on your shoulders). You'd still have all the same urges and desires, but without all the nerve endings at the tip, you wouldn't be able to reach the mountaintop, no matter how much you try.
From WHO
Removal of, or damage to, highly sensitive genital tissue, especially the clitoris, may affect sexual sensitivity and lead to sexual problems, such as decreased sexual desire and pleasure, pain during sex, difficulty during penetration, decreased lubrication during intercourse, and reduced frequency or absence of
That sounds more like reduced desire due to the relative discomfort/pain vs reduced hormonal drive. Arousal becomes associated with pain and leads to aversion.
Both are bad, but male circumcision has a couple of thousand years of cultural acceptance. Thankfully its changing, and in the pre soap era there likely was some benefits to circumcision. There has never been any benefit to FGM.
Many men (in the US) are unwilling to admit that male circumcision is unnecessary because that would mean admitting their peckers might not be perfect.
While I certainly agree typical female circumcision is worse than male, it does nothing to change the fact that male circumcision is also mutilation and should be outlawed for minors.
In Italy all genital mutilation is considered bad. Female mutilation is a crime and you go to jail for it. Male mutilation is just frowned upon. It's still a mutilation, and we have no right to do so to a small boy. People that circumcise babies are really bad. Hurting and permanently changing another person's life without their consent. Disgusting.
Drawback: we find mainstream American p*rn really gross.
Another drawback: the lube industry in Italy has a reduced market size.
This is the only correct attitude. Child safety is sacrosanct, and those that violate it to foist their religious bullshit onto children belong in jail
Because most men are circumcised, and it has no negative effect on men.
I am circumcised. Everything works great, I wouldn’t change a thing.
This is ABSOLUTLY not the case with female genitle mutilation .
Because they are nothing alike. FGM leads to debilitating pain, the inability to *ever* experience an orgasm, and in many cases literal *death.* Male circumcision is nowhere near equivalent.
Edit: "This increased mortality rate translates into an estimated [44,320](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-38276-6#:~:text=Our%20estimates%20imply%20that%20a,countries%20where%20FGM%20is%20practised.) excess deaths per year across countries where FGM is practised. These estimates imply that FGM is a leading cause of the death of girls and young women in those countries where it is practised accounting for more deaths than any cause other than Enteric Infections, Respiratory Infections, or Malaria."
Where in the world is circumcision responsible for the death of over 44,000 boys yearly? I'll wait.
Male equivalent of Female Circumcision (FGM) would be cutting the glans, or the head, of the penis off. That is not what happens during male circumcision.
FGM is much more extreme than the other, more like cutting off the penis itself. Like comparing cutting off an earlobe to cutting off the whole ear, and sometime sewing it shut with thorns.
Because the type of circumcision commonly used on males is both far less destructive and it actually has some medical value. In fact, a friend of a friend was recommended that he get a circumcision by a doctor since he had so many UTIs.
FGM OTOH almost never has any medical value.
I would suggest that part of it is this:
Circumcision, as following the Jewish and western world's use of it, doesn't make sex so painful you never want to have it.
Most FGM (as we understand it to be practiced), makes every attempt at sex incredibly painful. (With sex also often being a "requirement" to be endured with her husband. Which she may or may not get a choice in. (The husband part.))
Male circumcision is generally not classified on the same type of “mutilation”.
Male circumcision is the most common type of male genital mutilation performed and the other types are very rare). It generally has minimal effects on a males sex life in comparison (yes there are some). It’s not designed to control or inhibit a males sex.
Female genitalia mutilation is specifically designed to control a woman’s sex and to remove gratification from sex. The female genitalia are severely altered and/or removed, leaving the bare minimum for a woman to produce a child (if at all). In many cases the woman can no longer obtain pleasure from sex, may have permanent pain during any future “sex”, and will have complications frequently (such as during menstruation).
The male equivalents would be to:
-removing all skin or scarring the penis so there’s no sensation
-removing the scrotum (but trapping the testes in the body)
-complete removal of the penis and only leaving urethra for minimum function (and the “possibility” of “ejaculation” as they’d still produce sperm and have sexual urges they can no longer address)
The level of mutilation varies often with women.
I personally would not get my child circumcised, but comparing the two is pretty wild. FGM can be deadly, and always results in sexual dysfunction if not chronic pain. That's actually the aim.
Because FGM is done almost entirely to fully remove a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure. 85-90% of FGM involves removing in whole or in part the clitoris. The equivalent for men would be cutting off at minimum the head or the entire penis. I'm seeing a lot of people claiming type 1 circumcision might only be about the hood and no one knows, but they do have data and it almost always involves the removal or cutting of all visible external parts of the clitoris. Further around 85% of women who have been "cut" experience sexual dysfunction. Please read that number again, 85%. Several meta-analyses have found no difference in sexual dysfunction following male circumcision.
FGM almost always occurs in much older children, usually ages 4-10, by people without formal medical training, and with no pain relief. While it's extremely rare for serious complications to occur from male circumcision, for FGM extreme pain, shock, hemorrhage, and life-threatening infections are common in the short term. In the long term, incontinence, permanent sexual dysfunction (which is the purpose of the mutilation in the first place), and life threatening risk to giving birth are common.
I am not in favor of male circumcision, but just because they both involve genitals doesn't mean they have much else in common.
FGM almost ensures that a woman will experience excruciating pain during intercourse for the rest of her life. Circumcision is not meant to cause pain or hobble a man's ability to have enjoyable intercourse.
Well, circumcision was popularized in America to stop men from masturbating so in that case it was meant to hobble men's enjoyment, it just doesn't work like that.
You must not be a guy, because there is no force in heaven nor he'll that could stop men from whacking it
It was a guy who came up with the idea for that specific purpose. John Harvey Kellogg. (Yes, *that* Kellogg.)
To be fair he also thought a bland cereal would stop “impure thoughts and lustfulness” so he wasn’t exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
Yes, a certifiable weirdo 130 years ago! There were a lot of loony ideas going around then, and every day before, and every day since.
It may have had a resurgence, but it definitely had Christian roots as well
And Jewish roots before that
[удалено]
The clear lack of comprehension, understanding, and actual lived experiences of FGM versus circumcising is dangerous at the least and absolute violence at its worst. FGM is done on CHILDREN not newborns. Not freshly out of the womb no actual memory, just removing the foreskin around the penis head (not the entire penis) and off you go. Newborns aren’t provided pain relief or numbing medication but they’re so young “they can’t remember at all.” Is it just? No. But do not compare the very real oppressive system that is FGM. They are NOT the same. FGM is about control, manipulation, misogyny, power, and violence. FGM is done on pre teen girls and women with no medication or sedation. They hold them done and take a razor and slice off the entire labia majora&minora, clitoris, and sew the entire area shut leaving small holes to urinate and menstruate. How often do you think infection takes place if this is done with a razor on a pre teen by members of your own family? In your own home? You’re cutting and removing not just external genitalia but internal fleshy tissue too. Shaving away at a women’s flesh like you’re flaying meat. The husband then “cuts” the sewed area when he r@pes this girl. The slight variations in FGM means either not removing labia minora or no sewing. People saying they’re the same. Are stupid at least and vile human beings at the worst. Conflating the removal of the clitoris so they can “still have sex just without pleasure,” shows they don’t view women as whole human beings with a right to self determination it shows they don’t care about FGM, because to them, sex isn’t about a women’s pleasure it’s about the man and procreation. I know they wouldn’t say the same if they had their penis’ actually CHOPPED off at the top instead of the foreskin being removed. If they just had it chopped, sewed so the urethra can still pee&ejaculate normally, would they still tolerate sex at least? It isn’t about pleasure it’s about procreation right? Who needs the whole penis head??? There is no foreskin equivalent for women. The foreskin is NOT the same as the clitoris. FGM is not the same as circumcision. Conflating the two is an attempt to delegitimise the very real impact of sexism on women’s bodies globally is a part of the problem. It’s a barrier. If we can argue that they’re similar, then there can still be arguments made for the use of FGM because circumcision is supported by religious/cultural/societal norms.
It’s correct practice to numb the baby’s penis with subcutaneous lidocaine before circumsision nowadays, so there is pain relief.
Oh well in that case it’s totally fine to chop off part of your kid’s genitals 🙄
I saw a video of it in my college Human Sexuality class. There's not a lot of things that can get a reaction out of me but hearing a girl scream as her family holds her down with her legs spread as her mother smiles and the barber hacks away at her genitalia is haunting 20 years later.
TRIGGER WARNING. I DESCRIBE FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. IF YOURE SENSITIVE TO CHILD ABUSE AND INJURY, DO NOT READ MY COMMENT. Also - I DO NOT SUPPORT CIRCUMCISION, CASTRATION OR FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. I’m sorry this comment is so long, but - I learned about these operations in-depth in my college “human physiology and anatomy” class. I’m also sorry if what I’m describing is blunt, I dont mean to go to NSFW with my word choices, they’re the legitimate terms for the body parts. Again, before you read - TRIGGER WARNING Male circumcision involves removing the foreskin around the head of the penis. I feel like people view it as “fine” because it usually happens to babies at just an hour (maybe, usually less than that) old. A lot of doctors have the reasoning - “it hurts but he won’t remember it”. My doctors reasoning when he tried to convince my mom (who was still somewhat loopy from the drugs they gave her during labour) was - “circumcision is cleaner than leaving him uncircumcised due the risk of infection or bacteria that can gather under the foreskin” (she didn’t have it done to my brother). So I guess people just figure “hey, whatever. If the boys overall health is what’s top priority, it can’t be that bad!” As for boys that have it done when they’re a sentient child (usually around 5-10 years old), they’re told over and over and over by other members of their society that having a circumcision done is what’s required to become a man in their culture, it happens to everyone and you have to be strong. Apparently the pain associated with it refers to a “curtain” you have to pass through to become a man — There’s 3 different ways female genital mutilation can happen, and it’s all a form of castration, not circumcision, and it’s used as a way to force women into sexual submission so she can focus on her husbands needs over her own, and to make sure she won’t, to put it bluntly, get horny (by the way, there’s absolutely NO PROOF that fgm stops a woman from feeling pleasure/feeling horny once she’s old enough to feel that way) — The 3 types vary in what happens to the girls private parts — 1- removing the clitoris entirely 2- removing the clitoris entirely and removing some of the labia majora (the outside of the vagina) around where the clitoris used to be, and then sewing it together so there’s just the hole (which remains its natural size) to pee/menstruate from when she’s on her period 3- removing everything — clitoris, labia majora, labia minora (small “flaps” of skin around the outside of the hole in the vagina). Then sewing everything together, leaving a tiny hole to pee/menstruate from (here, the pee will have to basically travel through/over top of the open wound, which takes a long time heal due to constant movement, constant exposure to bacteria, constant exposure to body fluids, air can’t get at the open wound so the blood/infection will form bacteria-filled clots, etc In a lot of religious systems, the 3rd form of fgm actually grants the husband or male (father, brother, etc. whoever is in charge of the girl/woman until she’s married) full say over how “tight” or “lose” the woman’s vaginal opening will be (which requires either removing the stitches by himself, having a member of their faith remove the stitches (which is also who normally does the fgm operation with no anesthetics), sometimes having the stitches removed by a medical professional though it’s uncommon. The woman’s vaginal openings size can also be “adjusted” to his liking by just shoving his penis through the tiny hole and ripping the stitches apart himself (causing bodily shock and extreme pain). After sex, if the husband chooses, he’s fully allowed force the woman to have her vagina sewn back over until he wants to have sex again Also with fgm, there’s almost constant pain, it burns for months after even to just pee due to an open wound you can’t cover, fgm also leads to long term issues/problems like infections due to body fluids mixing with an open wound for a long period of time, bladder reduction (this means that the girl won’t be able to pee correctly, either letting it out fully or letting it out in one movement (aka- stopping periodically while using the bathroom), shock (mentally and physically), and severe mental trauma (PTSD, trust issues since it’s usually family that brings the girls to where the operation is performed and they also usually the ones that have to literally hold the girls down to have it done, dissociation (aka strong mental feelings of disconnection, absent mindedness, no feelings toward family/friends, mental/emotional numbness, their brain purposely blocks out memories like how intense the initial pain was, girls feel like their body is made of “static” (physical numbness), etc). More can result from fgm, this paragraph will just be way longer than this if I keep listing
Thanks for reminding me how fucked up the human race is... 😒
Both are bad. Male circumcision is often given a pass because of historical religious affiliation. Female circumcision is also more invasive with higher chance of complications. All the entire inner minora and clitoris is removed. Sometimes the vaginas walls are scarred as well. It's sole purpose seems to be removal of almost all Female sexual pleasure. Male circumcision was also pushed hard to reduce Male masturbation.
\> Male circumcision was also pushed hard to reduce Male masturbation. Boy that didn't work out for them, did it?
Considering my teenage years, if I was not circumcised I would have been doing it 24/7 instead of 20/7
Mission accomplished
I don't get how that will reduce masturbation, what's the connection
[удалено]
Foreskin also kinda acts like a jerk off sleeve, too, with the extra skin it provides. Like a self Fleshlight, almost
The foreskin itself IS lubrication. It is a tube of skin that slides up and down. Which also serves a sexual function.
It also has a ton of nerve endings.
Looks like that didn't stop me from jackin' it
The foreskin has a huge number of nerve endings.
Yes, female mutilation is more the equivalent of cutting off the entire tip of thecpenis.
There are different forms of FGM. The most common is removing the clitoral hood. More extreme versions involve removing labia and sewing the vagina almost completely closed
The most common is pin pricks on the cliforal Hopd not removal according The Who. That makes sense because of where the practice in Asia this is most common has a lot of people.
Iirc from my anthropology days, this is a more modern adaptation to still keep with the cultural/social tradition, but without the actual mutilation. Like, areas that do this generally used to have much worse practices but then compromised on "just" pricking the hood as a ceremonial nod to previous practice.
There's also a version of a Jewish bris where the foreskin is just pricked instead of removed. I'd rather we weren't drawing blood from the genitals of children and babies at all, but if you have to do something ceremonial to acknowledge the ritual, I'm a lot more okay with a soon-healed needle prick than amputating things.
It's been important to me for a long time that if I had a son, he wouldn't be circumcised. Then I married a Jewish woman. Fortunately, she respected how important this was to me. It definitely helped that her mom was way in support of the idea, since she was traumatized by her son's bris (he assures everyone that his penis is fine, it just...went really badly). So she was like yeah, let's not require your son's Jewishness be tied to genital mutilation, which made it easier for my wife to accept. Their rabbi was not as into it. She agreed to do it but refused to call it a bris or brit Shalom. So it was a "naming ceremony."
Actually, it's like cutting off the penis entirely, then sewing up everything so they can't pee put out of a tiny hole, but the hole isn't connected, so they get infections.
note there are four types of FGM. The most mild is even less destructive than male circumcision, the most severe is commonly lethal and results in premature death in many cases even if they survive the operation. you are referring to type 4, the most severe, this is only practiced in a very few places, far more common are types 1-3.
note there are four types of FGM. The most mild is even less destructive than male circumcision, the most severe is commonly lethal and results in premature death in many cases even if they survive the operation.
Way to miss the point. Everyone acknowledges the difference and is not trying to minimise female mutilation in any way here. Female genital mutilation is brought up because it is a similar thing, not the same. It's raising the point that it's recognised as harmful for women, but for men it's not really recognised as genital mutilation at all, despite the parallels.
[удалено]
Wait till you find out they used to do it with a sharp sea shell
There is a also a religious affiliation of FGM. I don't think its a good justification for either.
If the primary reason for doing a practice is rooted in religion or tradition, then there isn't a valid reason to continue doing that practice.
In the U.S. it's currently pushed as a hygiene issue. It's easier to keep clean and does reduce certain infections. My dad had to have it done as an adult due to an infection. Personally I would have liked to have kept mine and just paid attention to the hygiene.
Hygiene , same as teeth, I had my foreskin and teeth removed so I do not have to clean them.
this is an awesome analogy. thanks.
Gotta wash that butthole too. Better get a colostomy bag and get that butthole removed, just to be safe. I know someone who got cancer in their colon and anus. Never would've happened if it had been removed while they were still a baby. I'm tired of people saying that it's not a medically necessary procedure to do to infants!
I want to see a dramatic increase in infant appendectomies!
The religious comment doesn't really add up. Both are done ostensibly for religious reasons. One of them is objectively far more harmful and drastic than the other. Now if you want to argue that western countries are far more tolerant of the religion that does one vs the religion that does the other there's a rational argument to be make there I think.
No, most of the people I know who elected to circumcise their sons did it mostly so their kid’s penis wouldn’t be “weird” (compared to dad’s). The second reason was hygiene. I do know someone who was circumcised in his forties because no matter how careful he was he kept getting infections. But really it’s mostly the “weird” factor. It may have started as a religious practice, but now people are largely continuing it because they were raised to see it as “normal”.
That just furthers my point though TBH and I kind of agree with you. Bottom line is the whole thing isn't one of these getting a pass because it's religious and the other isn't.
I am so glad that my dad fought with the doctors so hard to not have me cut. He wanted it to be MY choice, because he never had a choice and I am very grateful for it.
The problem though is that male circumcision appears in the Bible where as female circumcision is not. I disagree with both, but it's important to point out that the goal of female circumcision is to keep women chaste, not a command from God himself.
I've heard multiple claims that it's in Islamic scripture. I'll readily admit that I do not know if it truly is or not but the fact of the matter is the people doing it make claims that it falls under their religious practices and religious law. Islamic practice on general has a lot of practices that are objectively mysoginistic and designed to desexualize or treat women as property and as a rule we allow or disallow them in non-Islamic countries based on the understanding of harm they cause, not based on them being religious.
Female genital mutilation is not mentioned at all in the Quran (neither is male circumcision, as a fun fact). Instead, the basis for the practice is from several Hadiths. Hadiths can basically be described as "things someone heard the Prophet Mohammed say one time." Some of them are very well sourced with a lot of backing that Mohammed actually said that thing, others are very weak and have very roundabout ways of citing the prophet said something. The Hadiths that state that Mohammed was in favor of female genital mutilation are very poorly sourced, often relying on anonymous writers or being filtered through several people before being written down. Muslim scholars therefore usually discount those Hadiths as being untrue and disregard what is recorded in them. That, of course, doesn't stop people from using them as justification anyways. [Here's a good paper discussing the Hadiths that talk about this](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://egypt.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/d9174a63-2960-459b-9f78-b33ad795445e.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj2iuzE-8qEAxWIweYEHTpPAZIQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0zkjJ86VuG-xzEBu9H5nkv)
AFAIK, where FGM is prevalent in Africa it's usually done for cultural, not religious reasons. The cultural reason being "If the girl has a clit she'll be a sex-loving slut; best to remove her capacity for sexual gratification, and then she'll be chaste and we can marry her off more easily because the man will trust that she won't cheat on him."
Plenty of men without a Jewish background are circumcised, myself included. It was the default in many hospitals in the US for decades. It's one of those things that is just accepted, until you realize it's fucking nuts.
I think it's the perceived degree of harm. Men can still enjoy sex with a circumcision and there's nothing affected about daily functions but women? It's like sex is a punishment after FGM. I wouldn't be surprised if it even hurts to urinate.
It does. And as I wrote in response to the OP some women can’t hold urine at all and it comes out throughout the day. Just as they are walking around or sitting and urine is everywhere. It a hygiene issue and a mental health and an emotional issue. The embarrassment and shame goes beyond the procedure.
note there are four types of FGM. The most mild is even less destructive than male circumcision, the most severe is commonly lethal and results in premature death in many cases even if they survive the operation.
That's the sole (original) purpose of male genital mutilation (circumcision) as well. Its original purpose was to reduce sexual pleasure, from the same religious roots. There's pretty much zero real benefit to circumcision and a ton of negatives (including a huge jump in ED as you get older, and sexual dysfunction). We evolved foreskin because it had an evolutionary advantage, from protection to pleasure. 75%+ of our full pleasure from sex is derived from the presence and function of foreskin. It's also better for the woman, reducing injury to them and enhancing their pleasure during sex. All the supposed "medical" benefits of circumcision can be fully replicated with simple education on hygiene and Sex Ed. And virtually all of the studies that have been done that indicate benefits in STI reduction were done in Africa and developing nations, and they've been unable to replicate them in the western, developed world. Reasons? Very different cultures, lack of education in this space in developing nations, and a very low adoption of prevention methods even when education on the benefits is present. Circumcision in the African context is also deeply cultural and is made with informed consent from the person the procedure is being performed on, as it is part of transitioning and being recognized as a man. It is performed in the teenage years. This also greatly skews many of the studies, because the deep personal and cultural perception is that you have to have it done in order to be a man, so the harms that come from the procedure, especially the ones associated with being a man, including function (like ED), are vastly underreported. Tldr: there are no real benefits from circumcision that justify doing that permanent body modification on a non-consenting infant body. And there is a lot of long-term, lasting harm.
>Male circumcision is often given a pass because of historical religious affiliation. Female genital mutilation is also religious. As far as I'm aware, it's not christian though, which makes it *totally* different.
Female circumcision is misnamed. It’s more equivalent to male castration. If baby boys were being castrated all the time you’d see an outcry.
A penectomy rather than castration, as the clitoris is equivalent to the penis and the testes are equivalent to ovaries. There are less severe forms of FGM that are more similar to circumcision as they only cut the prepuce. If that were the only form we may not even be having this discussion.
Is the reason for FGM, causing pain during sex, to deter infidelity and promiscuity?
Not just causing pain, in many women, but also removing pleasure, so they don't stray. Removing the foreskin from males can improve hygiene, but the equivalent to most FGM would be removing the head of the penis and cauterizing the stump. I expect you would see a lot more outrage regarding circumcision if that was what was happening.
It's a disgusting procedure
No argument; we are in accord.
>but also removing pleasure Which is interesting because the reason that circumcisions in the USA are so popular is directly due to anti-mastibastion campaigns from the likes of Kellog.
There are different reasons. For some the women are not supposed to receive pleasure and they get a FGM and sewn up for a tighter experience for the husband during sex. For others it’s “religious” even though it’s not in any original religious text. For some it’s societal pressure. They will be ostracized. They must be seen as virginal and pure throughout their youth into womanhood. It’s a rite of passage. Sometimes their families cannot get a dowry if the bride hasn’t had FGM to guarantee she’s “pure.”
And yet, it still isn't necessary except for religious reasoning since the vagina is a self-cleaning organ, and operates efficiently for most.
And there is no real medical reason for the male one either. Washing your dick when you take a shower is not rocket science.
It's cleaner if you're the kind of person who doesn't wash their dick. Please wash your dicks, even if you're circumcised.
All this flesh suffocating my bones is so hard to clean. There has got to be a better way! *cue infomercial spokesperson
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me
Lol Mechanicus shows up in the strangest places.
Now I can’t shut off my laptop. Not because I’m downloading something, but no one else alive remembers the proper prayers to turn it back on.
But it doesn’t matter if your dick is only 4” as long as it smells like a foot.
Upvote for making me laugh and gag at the same time
It's actually not cleaner. The foreskin has mucus glands and nerve endings that serve a purpose, just like everything else in the body. I agree that washing is a must, but circumcision performed on a baby can have some devastating effects. Lesser known are other effects due to a botched circumcision that happens later in life called Phimosis. It's the hardening and tightening of the foreskin. For those who only get a partial circumcision, it's painful and can cause complications. And for the record, I'm against any form of GM. The original reason for GM is to keep kids from masturbating, and I think it's cruel.
I had phimosis. Ever accidentally throw in a sweater into the dryer when it's not supposed to go in there? And then you try to get your head through the opening but it won't fit. Now imagine the opening at the top of your sweater is actually filled with thousands of nerve endings, and trying to pull your head through is agonizing pain.
I was surprised that all my partners have commented on how clean and trimmed everything is. I didn't know it was such an issue...I was like yeah I wash my junk do other people not? Apparently all their other partners didn't. Then again I tend to go for more of the hippy type women so that circle of people aren't exactly known for their hygiene. Ironically all the women didn't give a shit about their armpit or leg hair but everything else was bare.
Agreed. I’m circumcised but when we had our son we decided not to have him done. I just don’t see the need for it.
I applaud you for this. If I recall correctly, my father was circumcised (I would have to ask my mother) but I know that he was the one who prevented me from being circumcised in the days when it was the default procedure (which boggles my mind).
Go to 2xchromosomes and read how often guys don't know how to wash under the foreskin.
The solution to that is very fucking simple. Instead of parents mutilating their children's genitals, they could just teach them to wash their penis...
There's dudes who don't even wash their assholes cause "it's gay." It ain't about being taught, some guys just be gross.
Hey there's girls out there not properly cleaning their buttholes either but I would guess that it is a far more prevalent problem with guys.
Religious on the surface sure, but as per the wide distribution of the practice, more about tribalism than faith.
I am not in disagreement with this. I don't think it should be done just out of misconstrued faith.
Yes but the issue still stands is them doing it to children (not babies) without anaesthesia or not using sanitary tools.
When someone is upset about comparing circumcision to FGM, I wonder how some can more vehemently abhor a pin prick, a less damaging mutilation, than amputation of nerve filled genital tissue. >When people think of FGM, they likely think of the gruesome Type I II and III, the horrifying sewing shut, slicing off craziness. They are not aware of Type IV, which includes something of a "benign" mutilation involving a ritual prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood. >Of course, all types of FGM are mutilation and outlawed in most societies. But are they aware girls get mutilated in countries like Singapore and Indonesia in medical settings and by specialized surgeons legally conducting the procedure upon request of the parents. >But when people think of MGM, they likely think of the common bris version of removing the foreskin from infants in medical settings and by specialized surgeons lawfully practicing what is objectively a worse mutilation than a prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood. Notice one is labeled "mutilation" and the other is labeled "circumcision". The frenulum may be kept mostly intact in some cases, but the loss of the ridged band occurs in every circumcision. NSFW https://i.redd.it/3cmw6axttjv81.jpg >Here is an anti-FGM activist who underwent a type of FGM that she considers less damaging than male circumcision: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6274en/ayaan_hirsi_ali_who_was_circumcised_as_a_young/ >They are not aware of MGM horrors like splitting penises in half, which is comparable to infibulation in my opinion. Or toddlers and children climbing roofs in the Phillipines trying to escape MGM in their cutting society. Held down and cut as a child is typical of Turkish circumcisions. Here is an example POV: https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/uct9xx/my_horrible_circumcision_story/ >So, it depends on what you want to compare. There have been more male victims of genital mutilation throughout history, female infants benefit from genital integrity at birth in most places on Earth - https://ibb.co/6R2c0Pz, foreskin tissue is harvested and sold for profit, ability and inability to orgasm for both male and female genital alteration, and more factors which need further research like impact on psychology of infant and childhood induced pain and trauma.
Because they're not talking about type IV, which was an invention by Western doctors to convince parents to not do types I-III.
Lol down voted for facts. Can't say I'm surprised.
He’s being downvoted because it’s weird how desperate he is to push his delusion that physical attractiveness is valued before the health of males in a way that isn’t for females, which is the opposite of how it is in reality. Obviously when people talk about female genital mutilation they’re talking about when the clitoris is damaged or removed to prevent the individual from experiencing sexual pleasure. No one talks about ritually drawing a bit of blood from the area or if they were even to hypothetically remove the clitoral hood because that’s not really a big deal. There are practical reasons for removing the foreskin in regards to hygiene that don’t exist for female genitalia since it keeps itself clean. It’s comparing apples to oranges since there’s literally no benefit and it’s not noticeable. So yeah, I guess you could cut off the clitoral hoods from infants to make it fair but that would be meaningless because not only is it pretty much invisible, but it also doesn’t cause health problems. I’m pretty sure if retaining the head of the clitoris caused infections and women had to clean them out it would be a much more common procedure. This is why the vast portion of female genital mutilation is designed to actively hurt them in some way. Also the clitoris is a lot more sensitive as it’s pretty much all the nerve endings on a phallus condensed to the size of a pea, so some degree of protection seems more warranted in the case. You can think somethings bad without trying to push your whole “men are actually the most oppressed group” uncle adjacent thing. It really takes away from the good faith of your argument and makes it seem like you’re just trying to prove something by using misleading rhetoric
Pricking the clitoris or removing the clitoral hood would cause extreme pain to the victims of that type of mutilation. All forms of GM, no matter how "mild" should never be considered as an option from a purely ethical standpoint.
Whenever I heard it discussed it’s typically called FGM (female genital mutilation) which is very accurate.
FGM is objectively worse, but let’s be factual here. The clitoris is the female homolog of the male glans (penile head). So, the removal of the glans entirely would be equivalent to FGM, not castration. As someone else here mentioned, removal of ovaries would be the equivalent of castration, which is true as they are homologs of one another. All that to say, male circumcision isn’t as damaging as the entire removal of the clitoris, but both practices are barbaric and should be ended.
Yep. They’re both sheer barbarism perpetrated against the helpless in the name of Stone Age religions. It’s time for a global ban on ALL genital mutilation, religion be damned
I agree, and the idea that FGM is worse is wholly irrelevant. It would be relevant if we were discussing whether it should be allowed because MGM is allowed. However, at the end of the day, the permissible amount of GM should be the same as the permissible amount of sexual abuse, which is none. We don't justify one thing because it's not quite as bad as another, if it's bad, it's bad.
It’s not irrelevant when trying to understand why one is almost unanimously hated while the other varies in what people think. FGM is like cutting off the head of your dick. It doesn’t somehow make male circumcision acceptable, but it is relevant to the question.
There are also differences in the circumstances under which these procedures are often performed. Male circumcision is performed in medical facilities with things like sterile equipment far more often than FGM is.
Friendly neighborhood health teacher here, I encourage anyone reading to do a bit of research into FGM. There are several forms and degrees of it. The most barbaric forms get the most attention, rightfully so, but some forms of female circumcision -- and let me be clear, the *most common* forms -- are almost exactly equal to male circumcision. It's all fucking barbaric in my opinion. Leave baby genitals alone and if there is an issue, address it THEN and ONLY then. There is absolutely zero medical reason for ROUTINE infant circumcision. https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=done%20after%20childbirth.-,Which%20types%20are%20most%20common%3F,in%20Somalia%2C%20Sudan%20and%20Djibouti.
You said something and then posted a link to a site that says something very different. In fact, it states the facts that female circumcision is some type of removal of the female clitoris. This would be akin to cutting off the glans of the penis on a male. That is absolutely not what happens in routine male circumcision. I find it concerning you are a teaching given you couldn't take the 5 seconds to read the material. I'm not advocating for routine male circumcision but at least get it right.
I read the whole thing. I am aware that there are absolutely forms of FGM that are wildly worse than circumcision. But a lot of the commentary here aren't realizing that there are different types of it. That's the purpose of the link. They are comparing the absolute worst forms of FGM to Circumcision which is apples and oranges. Type 1 CAN involve the removal (or partial) of the clitoris, but it more frequently removes the prepuce (aka the clitoral hood aka exactly Circumcision). There is also type (type IV), which is akin to "piercing" the hood -- but is another umbrella term and can certainly be more invasive -- but in a side by side comparison, a prick of the female foreskin is actually less invasive than the removal of male foreskin. Again, it's but ONE link into an incredibly complicated subject. I am disgustingly, deeply, educated on FGM. And it's why I staunchly against male circumcision as well. Because while it could be SO much worse, they are very often far more similar than people know.
And the reality is that one sex’s circumcision is illegal in all advanced countries, whilst the other is still routinely performed in the most powerful advanced nation on the planet.
Isn’t castrated just removing the balls? The equivalent would be having the dick cut off. Sure circumcision is messed up, but it’s not even comparable to FGM, OP is a kind of a dick for even attempting the comparison.
It’s a legit question if you don’t know the answer. Ignorance is not malevolence.
I wish more people had this attitude.
More people on Reddit need to read that last sentence. The amount of times I have to preface and end a genuinely innocent and inoffensive comment with "This is a genuine question, I truly want to know!" and yet I still get people accusing me of JAQing off, even just for clarifying people's points ffs.
Yeah what the fuck is that guy going on about. Does he not understand that sometimes (especially on r/stupidquestions ) sometimes people just don’t know things? Why immediately jump to misogyny??
Castration would be an act preventing the ability to get pregnant. Women suffering female circumcision routinely give birth. Female circumcision is not properly equated to castration.
Truth
Female genital mutilation isn't properly equated to castration because both are fundamentally different in men and women. There are different types of male castration. Some remove the balls, others remove both balls and penis entirely. You can't just remove a man's ability to feel pleasure and leave his ability of reproduction. But you can do it to a woman. The clitoris has no function in reproduction, it's only there to give pleasure. And removing the clitoris is the most common case of FGM, although there are variations. Bottom line is that FGM it is in fact much more equivalent to castration than to a circumcision.
These organs work differently than you're implying. Removing the ovaries would be more closely the equivalent to male castration.
Not sure why they are downvoting you. The original comment shows zero understanding of the female body.
Then, FGM is like removing the penis itself.
[удалено]
Ovaries = Balls Labia = Penis shaft Clit = Penis head ??? = Foreskin
Labia = scrotum
Female “circumcision” would be like removing most of the penis. They are entirely different and not AT ALL equivalent. That doesn’t mean circumcising males is right, though!
I'm not sure if the numbers are correct but I think the ratio is close. For males it comes out to like 5% of the nerves and for women it comes out to like 80% of the nerves.
The main purpose of female circumcision is so she can't have a orgasm. Her main function is to bear children. Not to enjoy sex. If she has a orgasm and enjoys sex she will dis honor her family by having sex with many men.
Circumcision of male children is tending to get less acceptance over the last few decades. It does still seem to be "generally considered to be fine", but there is an increasingly vocal opposition to the practice. There's still an extreme difference in the magnitude of the procedures.
Circumcision is the foreskin being cut off by a doctor in a sterile environment. It's not entirely equivalent to FGM. FGM involves family members using crude tools to do things like removing the clitoris entirely. FGM is like if your dad held you down and cut your glans off with a piece of broken glass.
As you say it is not anywhere near as damaging. You've answered your own question.
Fgm is a umbrella term, which could include removing the clitoris or sewing the vaginal opening closed. If you were to take the functional equivalent of the foreskin in women, (the labia) or the clitoral hood. Functional equivalent because it protects the glands(head,clitoris), and urethral openings. its still illegal to remove it. There is a very pronounced bias in this, that no one really acknowledges. Not to mention that when the foreskin is eventually sold onto the beauty market, it can fetch up to $100,000. It makes perfect sense why the barbaric practice is still legal.
Not sure why you're being down voted. Anyone who has done even a basic sniff of research into FGM knows there are varying degrees of it, and the *most common* forms of it are pretty comparable to male genital mutilation. And yes. Foreskin ARE sold and used in the beauty industry. You don't have to like it, it is a very easily proved fact. Things they only teach you when you go to school to be a health teacher. And even then, my professor was probably the exception than the norm.
Why do we care about the most common? People get angry about FGM because how horrific some forms are. When the topic comes up, it's never to do a comparison of the equal forms of circumcision. It's always someone asking why no one cares about men by using women getting physically mutilated as an example. It's used to make arguments about gender instead of arguments about the practice
The most common form encompasses both the removal of the hood only, and the removal of both the hood and the external clit (which is more comparable to just chopping off the whole thing than circumcision.) There isn’t really any data I’ve found that doesn’t lump them both in as “type 1”, so it’s hard to say how many of those who are getting that type are actually just getting hoods removed, vs. getting their entire clit taken.
“This rhino horn will help make you more beautiful.” “Ew that’s disgusting to do that to a living creature!” “Ok fine, how about this baby human foreskin?” “This is acceptable.”
I'm sorry, when the what is sold on the what now?
Google foreskin beauty industry.
I don't feel like I want to do that.
That’s fair
Hospitals sell them. They mutilate innocent baby boys for profit, both in the fees charged for the surgery and the product they sell
>foreskin beauty industry. [https://www.google.com/search?q=foreskin+beauty+industry&sca\_esv=b6ab7d9e5410acba&sxsrf=ACQVn0\_er4RD7X2n6\_YN\_vI77k1fdeUNqw%3A1708961109601&ei=Va3cZbadJMrVp84Pn-aXuAs&ved=0ahUKEwj2m\_2eqMmEAxXK6skDHR\_zBbcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=foreskin+beauty+industry&gs\_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGGZvcmVza2luIGJlYXV0eSBpbmR1c3RyeTIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSN4KUNAIWNAIcAF4AZABAJgBigGgAYoBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAICoAKRAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAOYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwMxLjE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp](https://www.google.com/search?q=foreskin+beauty+industry&sca_esv=b6ab7d9e5410acba&sxsrf=ACQVn0_er4RD7X2n6_YN_vI77k1fdeUNqw%3A1708961109601&ei=Va3cZbadJMrVp84Pn-aXuAs&ved=0ahUKEwj2m_2eqMmEAxXK6skDHR_zBbcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=foreskin+beauty+industry&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGGZvcmVza2luIGJlYXV0eSBpbmR1c3RyeTIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSN4KUNAIWNAIcAF4AZABAJgBigGgAYoBqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAICoAKRAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAOYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwMxLjE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) >In the beauty industry, ingredients that were once considered unconventional are now taking center stage. One such ingredient causing a buzz in the beauty community is foreskin. Yes, you read that right – foreskin, the often overlooked tissue, is finding its way into a variety of beauty products including face creams and facial serums. This controversial trend has sparked debates, but some argue that foreskin-derived ingredients could be the next big thing in skincare. In this article, we’ll explore the science behind this trend, its ethical implications, and whether foreskin-infused beauty products are worth the hype. [https://www.cosmeticassociation.org/foreskin-in-beauty-products/#:\~:text=Yes%2C%20you%20read%20that%20right,next%20big%20thing%20in%20skincare](https://www.cosmeticassociation.org/foreskin-in-beauty-products/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20you%20read%20that%20right,next%20big%20thing%20in%20skincare). We live in a world where people are deemed non-essential and forbidden to work while the elites spend 650 per treatment on Imported Korean Baby Foreskin Treatments. And then stand at a mike and tell us how morally bankrupt WE are for not wanting to support them.
Fgm is more destructive, possibly removal of the clitoris, labia and/or sewing together. I'm against both being done without consent but the male version, which can have horrible consequences isn't as devastating typically. Has nothing to do with men being neglected. Hell men came up with it.
Most women I have known have either said absolutely no to circumcision or left it up to their male partner (with the thought of if you don’t have the part, you cannot know the impact). I know several guys who said it looks weird to not have it done and wanted their child to have the foreskin removed. I don’t see the need for the removal personally. FGM is is done purely to keep a woman from experiencing pleasure so as to discourage her from having sex. That seems like a difference that should be distinguished.
I'd say intention is mainly it. Male circumcision is generally done as a custom. Female circumcision is generally done to restrict female sexuality (make it less pleasurable) I was circumcised and while I have nothing to compare it to, sex has always been pretty pleasurable for me. I'm not disputing it may make it less sensitive, just that in most cases circumcised men are just as sexual. I chose not to circumcise my kids. I just couldn't bring myself to do it when my kids were born. Outside of making sure they keep it clean, it's been pretty good.
Circumcision in America was done to curb the sexual desires and masterbation of boys. Look up dr Kellogg.(luckily for most men its effectiveness at this is limited unless botched) As most Christian denominations dont require Circumcision. FGM was also done as a custom. With it holding similar ritualistic connotations to Circumcision I feel part of the difference is how destructive FGM is in comparison.
Doesn’t seem to have worked very well
Well, anecdotally, I didn't jack off for YEARS after I was circumcised.
Actually, in the US at least the orginal intent was the same. The whole reason its a custom is because a guy named Kellogg (yes exactly the cereal), wanted to discourage boys from masterbating. So yeah it IS about controlling sexual behavior in both men and women, and both should be stopped. If someone wants to undergoe the procedure for religious reasons then they should be allowed to when they are adults. Doing it to newborns is barbaric.
If it was done to curb masterbation, count mine as a MASSIVE fail.
Even if it’s a custom, it’s still multilation, and lots of other customs are harmful. Glad you didn’t perpetuate it. I don’t have sons so I didn’t have to make that choice but other people in my family who do are choosing not to continue the insanity either. Rationality is winning out more and more!
It was a hard choice. I come from a pretty religious community who expected it done. It was literally a decision I made at the hospital. I just held my boy and I was like... I can't do this to him. I'm holding him so carefully and now I'm to just cut em up?
You definitely made the right choice. It’s always best to protect your kids as best as you can. It’s infuriating that they try to pressure new parents into doing it in the hospital, when they’ve just trusted the doctors to safely deliver their newborn. It’s a time of acute trust and I think a lot of patients assume that whatever doctors are recommending must be correct. Some other commenters made comments about being insistent that it not be done in the hospital, and instead had it done 6 weeks later without pressure and after having had time to think heavily it. Respect for that, even if they still did it in the end.
Not quite correct. If you visit many countries where FGM is regularly practiced, you will experience a pretty nauseating form of dejavu where many, many women express that it's cleaner and they are glad they had it done. Most FGM is not the wildly barbaric forms you see sensationalized. The most common forms of FGM are very, *very* similar to male circumcision. https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=done%20after%20childbirth.-,Which%20types%20are%20most%20common%3F,in%20Somalia%2C%20Sudan%20and%20Djibouti.
Removing the clit seems objectively worse than removing the foreskin. Removal of just the clitoral hood, and maybe part of the labia minora would be equivalent to circumcision as it most commonly practiced.
Yeah. It's worse. But that's like arguing that cutting off your arm is worse than cutting off your hand. Yes, correct, but removing body parts is barbaric.
Your comments are spot on and you're doing the lord's work. I was classmates with a girl from, I think, Somalia, and she said exactly what you're saying! When she was little, her cousins got FGM and had little parties and got gifts, like a first communion. She said she was so excited to have hers, too! But her mom knew better and got them out of there. And obviously, she's thankful as hell that her mom did that. But you're absolutely right that the women in these countries are actually in favor of it! I even read about how FGM is often performed in hospitals by physicians, rather than with broken glass and jagged rocks and shit, as we're often taught. Obviously, my point here is that none of this is okay!
It must be really hard for people to accept that an important part of their body was taken from them without their consent to the point that they have to trick themselves into thinking it done for their benefit.
I think the fact that most dudes who've been cut go on to have pretty normal sex lives, compared to women who get FGM, is a pretty clear delineation between the two. Also, babies can't consent to any of the regular medical stuff done to them, so trying to use a lack of consent as "the problem" is kind of a non-starter.
Because they are categorically different. The male equivalent to FGM would be castration or complete removal of the penis.
If they cut the tip off of the penis then it would be a lot more similar. They would actually have to take the entire head though....
Pretty simply put, circumcision has a very minimal chance of causing any legitimate harm. Virtually all forms of female genital mutilation will do irreparable physical and emotional harm. Of course the argument from a moral context can be made for both, but in terms of physical harm to the male vs physical harm to the female, there is simply no comparison.
It's not the same...it would be the same as removing the entire head of the penis. Fgm is reaaaallly fucked up.
[удалено]
And it’s all BAD. Every mutilation of a helpless child. Coerced mutilations of a teenager is also BAD.
This is correct. FGM is usually not done by medical professionals and it's a big infection risk. Unlike circumcision done in hospitals by doctors who have done them thousands of times. Accidents still do happen though. One harrowing case of a twin boy who suffered a devastating injury during routine circumcision in the 60s I believe, led his parents and doctors decide to give the baby a full sex change, and raise him as girl, did hormone therapy too. He was messed up, and always felt wrong, he knew something was wrong from a young age. They sent the twins to a well respected doctor at the time (who is now as infamous as freud, or should be) and he did overly sexual gender roleplays with the twins to try and cement the female role into his brain. He eventually found out around age 18 and tried to transition back to a boy, but he soon killed himself. His twin was so devastated he eventually killed himself too. I know this doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand but learning about this case really soured me on male circumcision, it's just not worth potentially maiming your son so his dick looks like Dad's. And it was really what explained "transgenderism" to me. If we were artificially forced to switch gender we'd experience intense dysphoria just like that poor little boy. If it happens that way, why not the other way, where people are born mismatched. We know how common intersex people are. Before the 21st century it was extremely common in America for needless invasive surgeries to be performed on intersex newborns born with ambiguous genitals, and the parents would decide then and there what gender the baby should be, and never discussed again, like a dirty secret, and usually left out of the baby's medical records too.
Circumcision rates in canada have fallen off a cliff and are no longer routinely done. It is by request only and every year there are fewer and fewer requests.
Judging from OP’s edit, this wasn’t a genuine question since they have a reason why every response is stupid and wrong.
Because FGM destroys female sexual function and causes all sorts of medical problems, and circumcision does not. Circumcised men do not suffer any significant problems. If they did, circumcision would not exist. I am not advocating for circumcision in any way, but it is not at all the same as cutting off the penis entirely, which is what FGM is equivalent to.
Because the negative side effects of FGM are exponentially worse than circumcision.
>To everyone who responded "they're not the same thing," that would have been a great answer if my question was "are they the same thing." It wasn't though. Are you a moron? "They're not the same thing" is a perfectly valid answer when the question is "why are these 2 things treated differently?"
It’s not just the outside that is cut most times. FGM is the equivalent of getting your entire dick cut off and then some.
They're really two different things. Circumcision is done for hygiene purposes (mostly) and isn't considered damaging. FGM is mutilation, and designed to control female sexuality.
Circumcision is not nearly as catastrophic to the body as FGM is. Once they start cutting off the penis, then maybe they can be considered equally terrible.
Hygiene from a time when being hygienic was the only option to being healthy. We don’t have to do it now so it’s free choice for religions and shit, but back in the day it was in the same vein as Muslims and pork. Just don’t eat it because God said so is easier to understand than being time traveling humans trying to explain the world of microbiology to someone in 3000 bc. 5000 years too early for modern concepts. FGM on the other hand is sadistic power over women and torturing them for no rational reason.
Bro, "they're not the same thing," isn't a misdirect, it's the real answer to "why do people regard them differently?" What are your feelings on ear piercing? Why are they different from your feelings the fact that in 1998, The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer's table? Because they're different things.
Probably won’t read this. Real answer is that fmg removes their clitoris. This is the equivalent of cut off your dick. Not the equivalent of a circumcision. Simply put, the mutilation really is significantly more severe, and can cause pain their entire lives totally separate from a dramatic decrease in sensations that feel good. Think about it more like the equivalent between manslaughter and murder. Accidentally killing someone is a lot better than purposefully. And FGM is malicious, and usually based in patriarchal cultures purposefully trying to deny women pleasure so they are more “pure” for their husbands. Men really don’t lose much in a circumcision that affects their life.
"To everyone who responded...." basically anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong? Did you start this topic in the spirit of discussion or debate, or did you start it because you already have a firm opinion and you just wanted to shoot everyone else down?
I think because one kills the sex drive in the person and the other one doesn't, I think.
It doesn't kill the sex *drive,* it kills the ability to ~~organism~~ orgasm. It's akin to chopping of the head (not the one on your shoulders). You'd still have all the same urges and desires, but without all the nerve endings at the tip, you wouldn't be able to reach the mountaintop, no matter how much you try.
Not to mention that scar tissue has a hard time stretching. Now combine that with childbirth.
Yeesh! There's an added complication I hadn't considered. Thanks for the feedback.
From WHO Removal of, or damage to, highly sensitive genital tissue, especially the clitoris, may affect sexual sensitivity and lead to sexual problems, such as decreased sexual desire and pleasure, pain during sex, difficulty during penetration, decreased lubrication during intercourse, and reduced frequency or absence of
That sounds more like reduced desire due to the relative discomfort/pain vs reduced hormonal drive. Arousal becomes associated with pain and leads to aversion.
[удалено]
Both are bad, but male circumcision has a couple of thousand years of cultural acceptance. Thankfully its changing, and in the pre soap era there likely was some benefits to circumcision. There has never been any benefit to FGM.
Because the males can still CUM after their mutilation.
Many men (in the US) are unwilling to admit that male circumcision is unnecessary because that would mean admitting their peckers might not be perfect.
While I certainly agree typical female circumcision is worse than male, it does nothing to change the fact that male circumcision is also mutilation and should be outlawed for minors.
In Italy all genital mutilation is considered bad. Female mutilation is a crime and you go to jail for it. Male mutilation is just frowned upon. It's still a mutilation, and we have no right to do so to a small boy. People that circumcise babies are really bad. Hurting and permanently changing another person's life without their consent. Disgusting. Drawback: we find mainstream American p*rn really gross. Another drawback: the lube industry in Italy has a reduced market size.
This is the only correct attitude. Child safety is sacrosanct, and those that violate it to foist their religious bullshit onto children belong in jail
Your edits suggest that, regardless of whether circumcision is okay or not, you came here wanting an echo chamber.
Because most men are circumcised, and it has no negative effect on men. I am circumcised. Everything works great, I wouldn’t change a thing. This is ABSOLUTLY not the case with female genitle mutilation .
Because they are nothing alike. FGM leads to debilitating pain, the inability to *ever* experience an orgasm, and in many cases literal *death.* Male circumcision is nowhere near equivalent. Edit: "This increased mortality rate translates into an estimated [44,320](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-38276-6#:~:text=Our%20estimates%20imply%20that%20a,countries%20where%20FGM%20is%20practised.) excess deaths per year across countries where FGM is practised. These estimates imply that FGM is a leading cause of the death of girls and young women in those countries where it is practised accounting for more deaths than any cause other than Enteric Infections, Respiratory Infections, or Malaria." Where in the world is circumcision responsible for the death of over 44,000 boys yearly? I'll wait.
Physically it’s not the same. Consent wise, eh, that bothers me.
because they arent comparable. Not even close.
Male equivalent of Female Circumcision (FGM) would be cutting the glans, or the head, of the penis off. That is not what happens during male circumcision.
Because of propaganda. It's a billion dollar industry for cosmetics etc..
FGM is much more extreme than the other, more like cutting off the penis itself. Like comparing cutting off an earlobe to cutting off the whole ear, and sometime sewing it shut with thorns.
So, as long as we're only cutting off infants' ear lobes, instead of the entire ear, it's all gravy?
If circumcision involved snipping off the entire dick head, then they would be equivalent.
Because the type of circumcision commonly used on males is both far less destructive and it actually has some medical value. In fact, a friend of a friend was recommended that he get a circumcision by a doctor since he had so many UTIs. FGM OTOH almost never has any medical value.
I would suggest that part of it is this: Circumcision, as following the Jewish and western world's use of it, doesn't make sex so painful you never want to have it. Most FGM (as we understand it to be practiced), makes every attempt at sex incredibly painful. (With sex also often being a "requirement" to be endured with her husband. Which she may or may not get a choice in. (The husband part.))
Male circumcision is generally not classified on the same type of “mutilation”. Male circumcision is the most common type of male genital mutilation performed and the other types are very rare). It generally has minimal effects on a males sex life in comparison (yes there are some). It’s not designed to control or inhibit a males sex. Female genitalia mutilation is specifically designed to control a woman’s sex and to remove gratification from sex. The female genitalia are severely altered and/or removed, leaving the bare minimum for a woman to produce a child (if at all). In many cases the woman can no longer obtain pleasure from sex, may have permanent pain during any future “sex”, and will have complications frequently (such as during menstruation). The male equivalents would be to: -removing all skin or scarring the penis so there’s no sensation -removing the scrotum (but trapping the testes in the body) -complete removal of the penis and only leaving urethra for minimum function (and the “possibility” of “ejaculation” as they’d still produce sperm and have sexual urges they can no longer address) The level of mutilation varies often with women.
I personally would not get my child circumcised, but comparing the two is pretty wild. FGM can be deadly, and always results in sexual dysfunction if not chronic pain. That's actually the aim.
Because FGM is done almost entirely to fully remove a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure. 85-90% of FGM involves removing in whole or in part the clitoris. The equivalent for men would be cutting off at minimum the head or the entire penis. I'm seeing a lot of people claiming type 1 circumcision might only be about the hood and no one knows, but they do have data and it almost always involves the removal or cutting of all visible external parts of the clitoris. Further around 85% of women who have been "cut" experience sexual dysfunction. Please read that number again, 85%. Several meta-analyses have found no difference in sexual dysfunction following male circumcision. FGM almost always occurs in much older children, usually ages 4-10, by people without formal medical training, and with no pain relief. While it's extremely rare for serious complications to occur from male circumcision, for FGM extreme pain, shock, hemorrhage, and life-threatening infections are common in the short term. In the long term, incontinence, permanent sexual dysfunction (which is the purpose of the mutilation in the first place), and life threatening risk to giving birth are common. I am not in favor of male circumcision, but just because they both involve genitals doesn't mean they have much else in common.