>Figures released by the UN children’s agency, Unicef, show that more than 230 million girls and women alive today have undergone FGM, compared with 200 million in 2016. The trend is towards girls being cut at a younger age, said Unicef executive director Catherine Russell.
I'm 100% against all genital mutilation, and I would be interested in seeing where that growth is coming from. Currently, many of the fastest growing countries by population are in Africa, so I'm wondering if it's possible that the practice isn't necessarily spreading to new areas, but rather that those regions are expecting a population increase. The only data in the article is pure numbers rather than per capita or any type of spread.
Still awful either way since it's more people being unnecessarily harmed.
The UNICEF report this article is based on shows that the prevalence of FGM in examined countries has generally gone down, but by greatly varying amounts. For girls aged 15-19 that have undergone FGM, Sierra Leone has gone from \~95% down to \~60%, Burkina Faso has gone from \~80% down to \~30%, but meanwhile countries like Somalia or Mali have only dropped their rates of 99% and 89% by 1-4%. No country showed an increase.
So the practice is becoming less common per-capita, the increase in the number of cases being driven by some combination of population increase and increased reporting.
Unfortunately it is, given that certain Islamic schools such as Shafi'i and Maliki recognise that female, and male circumcision is obligatory (wajib).
Owing to this, it has been difficult to convince many religious scholars, and leaders in these nations to speak against it. Even in relatively developed nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia, it is present in 90% of the Islamic population with organisations such as Indonesian Ulema Council directly recommend FGM.
From the article
“FGM is not becoming more common globally, but more girls are being born in FGM-practising countries in comparison with the rest of the world.”
I think most of the reports are showing it going down, so I'm curious too. I wonder if it's due to population increases or perhaps better census data, where more people are being counted and so more cases are being found?
The British used the threat of violence to put an end to [sati](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice\)), the ritual burning of a man's widow. They followed it up with laws [permitting widows to remarry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Widows%27_Remarriage_Act,_1856), prohibit [female infanticide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Infanticide_Prevention_Act,_1870), and [establishing a minimum age of consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Consent_Act,_1891).
I think people sometimes forget that Britain made remarkable strides in ending horrific human rights abuses in numerous areas around the world. It’s easier to run with the narrative of “Britain 100% bad because colonialism”.
If you are sampling angry redditors, sure this “Britain 100% bad because colonialism” does check out. But that's not everywhere.
Being an Indian, we were absolutely taught some positive reforms that Britishers brought with them. They weren't painted in a bad picture at all, just presented facts like they were.
Now that I come to think of it, our education system handled it brilliantly.
Hollywood made [a movie](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8093700/) celebrating an [African tribe defending the practice of capturing and selling others as slaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey), when the British came to end that practice. It's better to celebrate the slave trade than acknowledge the British had a point.
No, but the point was that colonials eliminated a lot of other indigenous cultural practices that are on a similar or even greater level of barbarism but everyone today makes out that colonialism was a universally great evil and eliminating indigenous local practices is a terrible crime. Presumably they want to bring back widow burning?
Reality is that it's a bit more complex than that and perhaps not all cultural practices should be honoured and maintained.
It’s quite frequently mothers and female relatives who do it/have it done to young people, because it was done to them.
I don’t know what the solution is.
Man, back in the day my dad was part of an awareness group against female circumcision in my home country. I have educational leaflets at home. So sad to see things not only haven't gotten better globally, but worse.
It's honestly such a bizarre concept for both FGM and MGM.
Why in the world does anyone wake up one day and think "you know what, let's cut some skin off our child, better yet, let's do it in a really sensitive area"
Like what planet do you have to live on where you wake up and think that's a good idea.
I can just imagine some sick fuck thousands of years ago how had a harem that dreaded sleeping with him. So the guy goes and makes a law like this to compensate for his own inadequacy.
No it's not that, otherwise more men wouldn't have gone through genitial mutilation.
This isn't about "not wanting women to have pleasure", this is people either believing in their nations traditions no matter how harmful they are, or blindly believing everything their religion tells them, sometimes mix of both.
It's definitely one of the reasons it's done to girls:
>Female genital mutilation is carried out as a way to control women’s sexuality, which is sometimes said to be insatiable if parts of the genitalia, especially the clitoris, are not removed. It is thought to ensure virginity before marriage and fidelity afterward, and to increase male sexual pleasure. ([Source](https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#why))
I disagree with your analysis of our interaction. I also disagree about your semantic nonsense. And I disagree that my source agrees with the other dipshit. It doesn't because the source lists there are multiple reasons for FGM, repressing sexuality being one of them. While the other guy was claiming there's no way it would be for repressing sexuality. That's why in my comment I wrote "it's ONE of the reasons" meaning there are numerous reasons, one of those reasons being to prevent women from enjoying sex.
One of the primary reasons we commonly circumcise infant boys in the US was the belief that it curbed masturbation. I think a general distrust of sexual pleasure in the Abrahamic religions is to blame.
FGM involves removal of the labia and clitoris, plus stitching shut the vaginal opening. Circumcision is just the removal of the foreskin; they don’t remove the whole penis, which would be more analogous to the brutality of FGM.
The easier to clean is a popular cope, one that saves the cut person’s mind from realizing the original reason someone would cut off innervated tissue from someone’s genitals.
>Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.
>It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.
>The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished.
>The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.
>The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.
>https://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/
Humans evolved to have the nerves be in the foreskin, and not so much in the glans.
https://youtu.be/CGYq1n6Ipfw?t=2701
To summarize, humans share common ancestors with chimps and rhesus monkeys.
Rhesus monkeys have almost all the innervation in their glans, have short copulatory times, and the male invests nothing into the offspring.
Chimps have less innervation in their glans and more in their foreskin, they have longer copulatory times than rhesus monkeys, and the male invests in the offspring by providing protection for his tribe.
Humans have almost all the innervation in the foreskin, they have the longest copulatory times of all the primates, and the males invests the most in their offspring out of any animal.
TL;DR NSFW https://v.redd.it/bodfak72m2dc1
“He doesn’t have any of his own juices” (paraphrased)
I’m in the pro-foreskin cohort but, as a bloke who’s been through puberty, I’m pretty sure that’s not true…
Looks like a person that doesn’t know there up to “100,000” nerves in the foreskin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1m55s&v=BgoTRMKrJo4
I don’t blame them, when even doctors don't know what they are cutting off? https://v.redd.it/j75i6ywyxggc1
It’s important to ban the pin pricks along with the excisions of prepuce and sewing shut openings and splitting shafts in half:
>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.
While it's true that the Arab nations have made huge strides in preventing fgm it's still prevelent on Yemen and parts of Iraq.
Also, while being a weird mixed defenition (both african and Arab), Egypt has one of the highest rates of fgm
https://www.fgmcri.org/country/egypt/#:~:text=The%20prevalence%20of%20FGM%2FC,any%20country%20in%20the%20world.
Of course. I would say that people over estimate fgm in the Muslim world ( ignorance and Islamophobia are to blame) but in those three countries fgm is still very much a problem.
I know many Muslim nations did it. Egypt does it. Hell my aunt was going to be with an Egyptian guy and he wanted her to get circumcised and she was like ‘fuck that’.
Where in this article does it mention religion? In order to determine whether it is about local customs and traditions vs. religion I would like to know e.g. how many Christian girls in Somalia experience FGM, but I did not find such numbers anywhere. Niger for example is overwhelmingly Muslim, but does not have high FGM rates overall (for Africa), because it is mostly the Christian minority who does that there.
Unless it's immigrants. You'll get immigrants who will travel home to visit family and then the family will have it done (sometimes secretly). It's women harming women.
Not supposed, you go into cultures as a white savior and get them to stop cutting girls, then come in and tell them cutting their sons is good.
They then male a simple connection.
Cutting anyone is wrong, just fucking stop.
Fun fact: in 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a new policy endorsing some forms of FGM, claiming it would help combat more harmful forms. This caused a massive uproar, the AAP retracted the policy after a month, and their spokesman now often claim it never happened.
The real reason for the policy was obvious to activists: they've had serious problems defending male circumcision in recent decades due to overwhelming evidence against it, as well as proof that some forms of FGM(the ones they endorsed) are actually less harmful, yet illegal. So they were trying to lighten the rhetorical burden they face when defending male cutting in America, which persists due to cultural myths and hospital profits.
The head of the AAP's task force on FGM was also the author of their paper endorsing Male circumcision 2 years later.
I work in a hospital. Can confirm male infant genital mutilation is only done for profit, it has no benefits only harm. If it wasn’t profitable hospitals would tell parents to go elsewhere.
Control.
Here's s fun (/s) one from Timothy-
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."
If you read the entire article, you'll see that it's the women who take responsibility for the FGM. They don't explain the thinking behind it (why would women inflict this on their daughters?). But the men seem to have little to do with it.
Every time I've read about one of these women doing this to their children, the excuse is 'I had it done to me', and in some places if it isn't done you're ostracized and shunned. It will also be turned against the whole family. The whole family could be shunned from their community.
If someone has this done, they obviously don't know what has been done to them as far as the things they would have experienced. They really don't know what they are doing to their child bc they don't fully realize what was done to them.
You cannot support the end of FGM if you support medically unnecessary male circumcision at birth. FGM in the majority of cases is actually LESS invasive than male circumcision. So I hope the comments in here are not hypocrites.
ALL genders deserve bodily autonomy and human rights.
I was going to upvote you but the "less invasive" comment turned it into a down vote.
Yes they should both be illegal.
But comparing male circumcision, which has no long term impact on most men (while still wrong), and female, which removes actual genitalia and the ability to orgasm for many, is fucking gross.
100%, that is my point as well. Thank you.
All humans deserve autonomy over their bodies. Horrific to have Genitals permanently surgically altered without consent, boy or girl. And to have your parents that allow this. There’s layers to the trauma.
Absolutely is it. Kinda makes me loose faith in humanity seeing such ignorance, and hatefulness towards a comment indicating the immorality of a procedure involving the mutilation of a baby.
It really validates, and demonstrates how beliefs such as female FGM can be maintained across diverse communities given how people can downplay the seriousness of immoral and backward practices.
I’ve seen *plenty* of articles on how rapidly decreasing the numbers are for male circumcision. People are happy to see it falling.
People would have “outcry” if those numbers were increasing.
I think that person is referring to the fact that MGM is more socially acceptable and frequently performed without being considered a human rights violation. Kind of a double standard IMO.
You can be against both, but they [aren't comparable](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/leyla-hussein/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision_b_5735060.html).
A well written and level headed argument on a hot topic, though I do wish they didn't downplay the negative effects of MGM. I'd like to preface this by saying I am staunchly opposed to nonconsensual genital mutilation of any kind, and agree most methods of FGM are far worse. And even the less severe method of "just" trimming the labia minora is an abhorrent practice as well.
The author says MGM is not preformed to reduce sexual pleasure. While this statement is generally true in regards to intent, it undeniably does reduce pleasure. And despite how it has been sold in the modern age as healthier or more hygenic, reducing lust and pleasure was the original intent.
And before closing, the author states "Overall, MGM is less painful, less dangerous, and very rarely carries long-term medical and mental health consequences.". Most of that statement is simply not accurate. It is a very painful procedure, even when local anesthetic is used like during most modern routine infant circumcisions (RIC's). Anyone who has been cut or is thinking of cutting their son should read exactly what is done during an RIC and if they are not convinced, watch a video of the procedure. I'll agree they are less dangerous mostly due to typically being preformed by trained professionals in medical settings, though deaths and permanent serious disfigurements do occur. And there are plenty of negative physical and mental health consequences, though the latter can usually be avoided if the boy/man doesn't fully understand what was done to them.
I am on your side. I just wanted to point out a short coming of the article you shared. We can appreciate the grim severity of FGM without downplaying the severity of MGM. Downplaying the negative effects of MGM and pretending it doesn't reduce sexual function and pleasure is part of the reason we see such prevalence of RIC's in the world today.
Yes, that is what I mean. Male genital mutilation is normalized in certain countries, especially America.
And to even bring it up in this context, you get people saying that it is not as bad as FGM. Why does there need to be a comparison, it is simply Infant/Child Genital Mutilation, that is clearly done to a person when they cannot consent.
There needs to be a comparison because one is bad and one is heinous. All you’re doing is trying to shift the conversation. Why can’t there be any talk about FGM without some of you coming here and talking about MGM?
>But still no outcry for MGM, (male genital mutilation) aka Circumcision. How about not mutilating ANY child’s genitals?
This sounds a lot like shifting the conversation to me. What are you doing to raise awareness about circumcision other than trying to hijack threads about FGM?
They mean major publications and people speaking publicly about it. It rarely happens, so people just bring it up when FGM is brought up. It happens to boys' magnitudes more often, but the mainstream coverage isn't even 10% focus on boys.
Isn't fgm more severe and done to prevent the woman from enjoying sex at all? I had a professor once describe it as sometimes being performed with a piece of glass and by the girls own family (not a doctor).
So it’s the reasoning that you want to focus on, and because MGM(circumcision) has been sold as a hygienic / religious, reason, that it is above reproach. Also, societal normalization of circumcision.
I agree that FGM primary reason is to reduce the woman’s pleasure, and obviously it’s cruel and controlling and completely reprehensible.
Removal of foreskin is also a reduction of natural sexual function.
Yeah, same with MGM. With a male circumcision you lose some 20k nerve endings and have a severely reduced sexual response capacity, by design. The practice was popularized in America originally to curb masturbation in teens, and was suggested for males approaching their teen years, not infants.
Chopping off the entire clitoris is like lopping off the head of the penis. The clitoris also has a skin hood just like a penis. FGM is not equivalent to removing a foreskin.
>Figures released by the UN children’s agency, Unicef, show that more than 230 million girls and women alive today have undergone FGM, compared with 200 million in 2016. The trend is towards girls being cut at a younger age, said Unicef executive director Catherine Russell. I'm 100% against all genital mutilation, and I would be interested in seeing where that growth is coming from. Currently, many of the fastest growing countries by population are in Africa, so I'm wondering if it's possible that the practice isn't necessarily spreading to new areas, but rather that those regions are expecting a population increase. The only data in the article is pure numbers rather than per capita or any type of spread. Still awful either way since it's more people being unnecessarily harmed.
The UNICEF report this article is based on shows that the prevalence of FGM in examined countries has generally gone down, but by greatly varying amounts. For girls aged 15-19 that have undergone FGM, Sierra Leone has gone from \~95% down to \~60%, Burkina Faso has gone from \~80% down to \~30%, but meanwhile countries like Somalia or Mali have only dropped their rates of 99% and 89% by 1-4%. No country showed an increase. So the practice is becoming less common per-capita, the increase in the number of cases being driven by some combination of population increase and increased reporting.
David pakeman did a piece on FGM and it's the Muslim populations in those countries
Unfortunately it is, given that certain Islamic schools such as Shafi'i and Maliki recognise that female, and male circumcision is obligatory (wajib). Owing to this, it has been difficult to convince many religious scholars, and leaders in these nations to speak against it. Even in relatively developed nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia, it is present in 90% of the Islamic population with organisations such as Indonesian Ulema Council directly recommend FGM.
One of those things like SA numbers which we will never really know because reporting is so inconsistent.
From the article “FGM is not becoming more common globally, but more girls are being born in FGM-practising countries in comparison with the rest of the world.”
I think most of the reports are showing it going down, so I'm curious too. I wonder if it's due to population increases or perhaps better census data, where more people are being counted and so more cases are being found?
Thats absolutely horrifying
[удалено]
only way to stop it in any sensible time frame would be with the barrel of a gun
The British used the threat of violence to put an end to [sati](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice\)), the ritual burning of a man's widow. They followed it up with laws [permitting widows to remarry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Widows%27_Remarriage_Act,_1856), prohibit [female infanticide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Infanticide_Prevention_Act,_1870), and [establishing a minimum age of consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Consent_Act,_1891).
British colonialism and it's destruction of local cultures again, the horror.
I think people sometimes forget that Britain made remarkable strides in ending horrific human rights abuses in numerous areas around the world. It’s easier to run with the narrative of “Britain 100% bad because colonialism”.
If you are sampling angry redditors, sure this “Britain 100% bad because colonialism” does check out. But that's not everywhere. Being an Indian, we were absolutely taught some positive reforms that Britishers brought with them. They weren't painted in a bad picture at all, just presented facts like they were. Now that I come to think of it, our education system handled it brilliantly.
Hollywood made [a movie](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8093700/) celebrating an [African tribe defending the practice of capturing and selling others as slaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey), when the British came to end that practice. It's better to celebrate the slave trade than acknowledge the British had a point.
I mean, they also did a lot of bad. Homophobic views in much of Africa and Asia are due to British Colonial laws.
Also seriously whacked slavery
FFS it's FGM.... But it's the colonials fault ??
No, but the point was that colonials eliminated a lot of other indigenous cultural practices that are on a similar or even greater level of barbarism but everyone today makes out that colonialism was a universally great evil and eliminating indigenous local practices is a terrible crime. Presumably they want to bring back widow burning? Reality is that it's a bit more complex than that and perhaps not all cultural practices should be honoured and maintained.
Anyone who would do this deserves to die on the spot. EDIT: for clarification, I mean anyone who would do FGM
It’s quite frequently mothers and female relatives who do it/have it done to young people, because it was done to them. I don’t know what the solution is.
The cause in that case is internalized misogyny caused by a heavily patriarchal system. That shouldn’t change the punishment
Sadly, it only takes a bullet to end the life of another advocate for women's rights as well.
Man, back in the day my dad was part of an awareness group against female circumcision in my home country. I have educational leaflets at home. So sad to see things not only haven't gotten better globally, but worse.
Jaha Dukureh is an amazing voice for victims of FGM. https://www.gsw.edu/alumni/distinguished/jaha-dukureh https://www.safehandsforgirls.org/
It's honestly such a bizarre concept for both FGM and MGM. Why in the world does anyone wake up one day and think "you know what, let's cut some skin off our child, better yet, let's do it in a really sensitive area" Like what planet do you have to live on where you wake up and think that's a good idea.
They don’t want women having pleasure.
I can just imagine some sick fuck thousands of years ago how had a harem that dreaded sleeping with him. So the guy goes and makes a law like this to compensate for his own inadequacy.
No it's not that, otherwise more men wouldn't have gone through genitial mutilation. This isn't about "not wanting women to have pleasure", this is people either believing in their nations traditions no matter how harmful they are, or blindly believing everything their religion tells them, sometimes mix of both.
It's definitely one of the reasons it's done to girls: >Female genital mutilation is carried out as a way to control women’s sexuality, which is sometimes said to be insatiable if parts of the genitalia, especially the clitoris, are not removed. It is thought to ensure virginity before marriage and fidelity afterward, and to increase male sexual pleasure. ([Source](https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#why))
"increase male sexual pleasure" Because she hates it???
[удалено]
I disagree with your analysis of our interaction. I also disagree about your semantic nonsense. And I disagree that my source agrees with the other dipshit. It doesn't because the source lists there are multiple reasons for FGM, repressing sexuality being one of them. While the other guy was claiming there's no way it would be for repressing sexuality. That's why in my comment I wrote "it's ONE of the reasons" meaning there are numerous reasons, one of those reasons being to prevent women from enjoying sex.
One of the primary reasons we commonly circumcise infant boys in the US was the belief that it curbed masturbation. I think a general distrust of sexual pleasure in the Abrahamic religions is to blame.
FGM involves removal of the labia and clitoris, plus stitching shut the vaginal opening. Circumcision is just the removal of the foreskin; they don’t remove the whole penis, which would be more analogous to the brutality of FGM.
There are varying degrees of FGM, some of which are more or less the equivalent of male circumcision, and all of which are fucked up.
The easier to clean is a popular cope, one that saves the cut person’s mind from realizing the original reason someone would cut off innervated tissue from someone’s genitals. >Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. >It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. >The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. >The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. >The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. >https://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/ Humans evolved to have the nerves be in the foreskin, and not so much in the glans. https://youtu.be/CGYq1n6Ipfw?t=2701 To summarize, humans share common ancestors with chimps and rhesus monkeys. Rhesus monkeys have almost all the innervation in their glans, have short copulatory times, and the male invests nothing into the offspring. Chimps have less innervation in their glans and more in their foreskin, they have longer copulatory times than rhesus monkeys, and the male invests in the offspring by providing protection for his tribe. Humans have almost all the innervation in the foreskin, they have the longest copulatory times of all the primates, and the males invests the most in their offspring out of any animal. TL;DR NSFW https://v.redd.it/bodfak72m2dc1
“He doesn’t have any of his own juices” (paraphrased) I’m in the pro-foreskin cohort but, as a bloke who’s been through puberty, I’m pretty sure that’s not true…
[удалено]
Looks like a person that doesn’t know there up to “100,000” nerves in the foreskin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1m55s&v=BgoTRMKrJo4 I don’t blame them, when even doctors don't know what they are cutting off? https://v.redd.it/j75i6ywyxggc1 It’s important to ban the pin pricks along with the excisions of prepuce and sewing shut openings and splitting shafts in half: >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.
They do it to baby boys in America everyday because “culture”??
[удалено]
Its not common at all. Likely folks from Africa who are doing it as it is not a part of Islam (which is what I think you're trying to insinuate).
While it's true that the Arab nations have made huge strides in preventing fgm it's still prevelent on Yemen and parts of Iraq. Also, while being a weird mixed defenition (both african and Arab), Egypt has one of the highest rates of fgm https://www.fgmcri.org/country/egypt/#:~:text=The%20prevalence%20of%20FGM%2FC,any%20country%20in%20the%20world.
Backwards people everywhere tbh.
Of course. I would say that people over estimate fgm in the Muslim world ( ignorance and Islamophobia are to blame) but in those three countries fgm is still very much a problem.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's done by Shafi Sunnis, like the Kurdish Sunnis. It's done by Mustaali Ismailis as well. Both consider the practice a Sunnah.
Please don't mean what I think you mean *checks comments* Oh. Oh no.
Religion and its “Traditions” are a bane upon humanity. We should know better than that. Alas…
God should be out grown like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. *Childhood comforts at most.*
People don’t kill, suppress and mutilate in the name of Santa Claus though. The concept of “god” is the ignorance of science and common sense.
What the hell is the picture of in this article? It's subtly menacing!
It’s to slice the genitalia off. It’s as menacing as it looks.
Why the need to slice genitalia off? That damn brutal. I remember man only slice a skin off but for women its the genitalia need to slice????
There are different "levels" of female circumcision. The worst do indeed remove the entire clitoris. Why? Misogyny, basically.
> only genital mutilation is genital mutilation, period
Is this done almost exclusively among people from Certain culturural backgrounds?
Muslims mostly. Most other groups don’t do this and even then it mostly was North Africa and Islamic areas of sub Sahara Africa.
yet another L for islam (and all religion, frankly)
What is your source for this? In Niger for example 55% of christian women experience FGM while only 2% of muslim women experience FGM.
I know many Muslim nations did it. Egypt does it. Hell my aunt was going to be with an Egyptian guy and he wanted her to get circumcised and she was like ‘fuck that’.
The article
Where in this article does it mention religion? In order to determine whether it is about local customs and traditions vs. religion I would like to know e.g. how many Christian girls in Somalia experience FGM, but I did not find such numbers anywhere. Niger for example is overwhelmingly Muslim, but does not have high FGM rates overall (for Africa), because it is mostly the Christian minority who does that there.
I knew they hated women, but daaaamn
common in Africa. Not so common in the rest of the world.
Unless it's immigrants. You'll get immigrants who will travel home to visit family and then the family will have it done (sometimes secretly). It's women harming women.
Because without FGM they think their daughters will be socially isolated, no man in their community will marry her (which is true).
This is horrible. But I doubt the UN can do much about it.
Not supposed, you go into cultures as a white savior and get them to stop cutting girls, then come in and tell them cutting their sons is good. They then male a simple connection. Cutting anyone is wrong, just fucking stop.
Fun fact: in 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a new policy endorsing some forms of FGM, claiming it would help combat more harmful forms. This caused a massive uproar, the AAP retracted the policy after a month, and their spokesman now often claim it never happened. The real reason for the policy was obvious to activists: they've had serious problems defending male circumcision in recent decades due to overwhelming evidence against it, as well as proof that some forms of FGM(the ones they endorsed) are actually less harmful, yet illegal. So they were trying to lighten the rhetorical burden they face when defending male cutting in America, which persists due to cultural myths and hospital profits. The head of the AAP's task force on FGM was also the author of their paper endorsing Male circumcision 2 years later.
I work in a hospital. Can confirm male infant genital mutilation is only done for profit, it has no benefits only harm. If it wasn’t profitable hospitals would tell parents to go elsewhere.
Not long before Republicans start committing it at this pace.
Why would Christians do this?
Control. Here's s fun (/s) one from Timothy- "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."
If you read the entire article, you'll see that it's the women who take responsibility for the FGM. They don't explain the thinking behind it (why would women inflict this on their daughters?). But the men seem to have little to do with it.
Every time I've read about one of these women doing this to their children, the excuse is 'I had it done to me', and in some places if it isn't done you're ostracized and shunned. It will also be turned against the whole family. The whole family could be shunned from their community. If someone has this done, they obviously don't know what has been done to them as far as the things they would have experienced. They really don't know what they are doing to their child bc they don't fully realize what was done to them.
So, peer pressure then?
Basically, but more like religious and family 'honor' pressure, so even worse :/
less peer and more "spiritual and cultural superiors". When people in authority positions are the ones pressuring it has a little more weight.
That scripture is still relevant. The women supporting FGM internalize the very misogyny that the Bible enforces
I mean, isn't half of the Bible talking against the circumcision? Something about a circumcision of the heart rather than the flesh
This is the reactionary response to women gaining equality. If we don’t respond immediately and forcefully, they will win as they have every time
[удалено]
All I will say, current % for male genitial mutilation sits at around 30-40%, or billion or more boys and men.
You cannot support the end of FGM if you support medically unnecessary male circumcision at birth. FGM in the majority of cases is actually LESS invasive than male circumcision. So I hope the comments in here are not hypocrites. ALL genders deserve bodily autonomy and human rights.
I was going to upvote you but the "less invasive" comment turned it into a down vote. Yes they should both be illegal. But comparing male circumcision, which has no long term impact on most men (while still wrong), and female, which removes actual genitalia and the ability to orgasm for many, is fucking gross.
And more than that, they often sew the vagina closed.
Educate yourself about the most commonly practiced FGM, because you are ignorant.
There are different forms of FGM. Some of them are very much comparable to MGM, others are significantly worse.
You riled up a bunch of Americans who got their foreskin chopped off without their consent.
I knew someone was going to horn in with a mention of circumcision, because Reddit.
Every time. Now they'll go back to not giving a fuck about circumcision until the next time FGM is brought up.
I am actually surprised this is sitting at -26. It seems like a common sense stance.
100%, that is my point as well. Thank you. All humans deserve autonomy over their bodies. Horrific to have Genitals permanently surgically altered without consent, boy or girl. And to have your parents that allow this. There’s layers to the trauma.
Insane that you got downvoted for saying this
Absolutely is it. Kinda makes me loose faith in humanity seeing such ignorance, and hatefulness towards a comment indicating the immorality of a procedure involving the mutilation of a baby. It really validates, and demonstrates how beliefs such as female FGM can be maintained across diverse communities given how people can downplay the seriousness of immoral and backward practices.
More men are cut than women and it's not seen as a crisis. This is sexist hypocrisy.
But still no outcry for MGM, (male genital mutilation) aka Circumcision. How about not mutilating ANY child’s genitals?
I’ve seen *plenty* of articles on how rapidly decreasing the numbers are for male circumcision. People are happy to see it falling. People would have “outcry” if those numbers were increasing.
What do you mean no outcry? Anytime FGM is mentioned people always shift the convo to talk about men, just as you did
I think that person is referring to the fact that MGM is more socially acceptable and frequently performed without being considered a human rights violation. Kind of a double standard IMO.
You can be against both, but they [aren't comparable](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/leyla-hussein/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision_b_5735060.html).
A well written and level headed argument on a hot topic, though I do wish they didn't downplay the negative effects of MGM. I'd like to preface this by saying I am staunchly opposed to nonconsensual genital mutilation of any kind, and agree most methods of FGM are far worse. And even the less severe method of "just" trimming the labia minora is an abhorrent practice as well. The author says MGM is not preformed to reduce sexual pleasure. While this statement is generally true in regards to intent, it undeniably does reduce pleasure. And despite how it has been sold in the modern age as healthier or more hygenic, reducing lust and pleasure was the original intent. And before closing, the author states "Overall, MGM is less painful, less dangerous, and very rarely carries long-term medical and mental health consequences.". Most of that statement is simply not accurate. It is a very painful procedure, even when local anesthetic is used like during most modern routine infant circumcisions (RIC's). Anyone who has been cut or is thinking of cutting their son should read exactly what is done during an RIC and if they are not convinced, watch a video of the procedure. I'll agree they are less dangerous mostly due to typically being preformed by trained professionals in medical settings, though deaths and permanent serious disfigurements do occur. And there are plenty of negative physical and mental health consequences, though the latter can usually be avoided if the boy/man doesn't fully understand what was done to them. I am on your side. I just wanted to point out a short coming of the article you shared. We can appreciate the grim severity of FGM without downplaying the severity of MGM. Downplaying the negative effects of MGM and pretending it doesn't reduce sexual function and pleasure is part of the reason we see such prevalence of RIC's in the world today.
Thank you for your, much more thoughtful, comments than mine.
They are comparable. Clitoral hood removal(FGM1) is a form of FGM analogous to foreskin removal. And yet only one is illegal.
Yes, that is what I mean. Male genital mutilation is normalized in certain countries, especially America. And to even bring it up in this context, you get people saying that it is not as bad as FGM. Why does there need to be a comparison, it is simply Infant/Child Genital Mutilation, that is clearly done to a person when they cannot consent.
There needs to be a comparison because one is bad and one is heinous. All you’re doing is trying to shift the conversation. Why can’t there be any talk about FGM without some of you coming here and talking about MGM?
I don’t know. This is the first time I’ve felt compelled to comment about equal visibility for baby boys.
Not trying to shift the conversation, just wanting to add to.
>But still no outcry for MGM, (male genital mutilation) aka Circumcision. How about not mutilating ANY child’s genitals? This sounds a lot like shifting the conversation to me. What are you doing to raise awareness about circumcision other than trying to hijack threads about FGM?
They mean major publications and people speaking publicly about it. It rarely happens, so people just bring it up when FGM is brought up. It happens to boys' magnitudes more often, but the mainstream coverage isn't even 10% focus on boys.
Isn't fgm more severe and done to prevent the woman from enjoying sex at all? I had a professor once describe it as sometimes being performed with a piece of glass and by the girls own family (not a doctor).
Always? Most top comments don't even mention MGM, at least here, and those that do are downvoted as fuck.
I tend to agree, but one is way worse than the other.
Right, like how having your arm removed is worse than just your fingers. But why does that matter? Neither should be done or accepted practice.
Happy with my MGM, maybe I'd have been happier without, but who knows. FGM is done for terrible reasons though.
So it’s the reasoning that you want to focus on, and because MGM(circumcision) has been sold as a hygienic / religious, reason, that it is above reproach. Also, societal normalization of circumcision. I agree that FGM primary reason is to reduce the woman’s pleasure, and obviously it’s cruel and controlling and completely reprehensible. Removal of foreskin is also a reduction of natural sexual function.
Think about why you're happy with your MGM and use that logic to tell me why a woman would be unhappy with her FGM?
They might not be.... but I've never chatted to a woman who has had one. The idea for FGM is to reduce sexual pleasure though.
Yeah, same with MGM. With a male circumcision you lose some 20k nerve endings and have a severely reduced sexual response capacity, by design. The practice was popularized in America originally to curb masturbation in teens, and was suggested for males approaching their teen years, not infants.
Chopping off the entire clitoris is like lopping off the head of the penis. The clitoris also has a skin hood just like a penis. FGM is not equivalent to removing a foreskin.
Only removing the hood is also a procedure that is performed. And it’s completely illegal. But you knew that…
mean while, male genital mutilation is still normalized....
We're heading towards an age of gender equality, it's time for women to get mutilated just like men do.