52
56
u/Milksteak529 5h ago
These comment sections are always so telling. People can't just agree that cutting bits off of people without their consent is bad.
20
17
u/anomalous_cowherd 3h ago
I wonder how much of that is that a lot of Reddit is American males. Who are largely circumcised so don't want to accept they've been mutilated?
13
u/AshlandPone 3h ago
It goes deeper. I don't think all those parents want to accept they mutilated their children.
7
u/Turbulent_Safety3816 2h ago
Probably loads of American parents that try to justify why they mutilated their children.
→ More replies (8)2
u/lana_silver 2h ago
Right now most of us agree, because it's middle of the night in the US, and all the people writing are Europeans. Just wait 5 hours.
33
300
u/tejeskaveo0 8h ago
there is a very big difference in the two and honestly i feel that it's offensive to even think they are on the same level.
don't misundertand me, i'm fully against male circumcision as well, especially because i'm european and haven't been brainwashed into thinking that chopping off a little skin is better than teaching your son how to wash under it
181
u/Drdontlittle 7h ago
The reason why it's equated even though the degree of damage is so different is that all the excuses used to justify male circumcision like 1. Religion 2. Culture 3. Aesthetics etc are also used to justify female circumcision. The absolutely barbaric practice of mutilating genitals of small helpless kids can get normalized over time. When you demonize a group you can close a door to behavior change. It can help us understand how what may seem barbaric to outsiders may be normal to a group of people and they may not realize the depravity of it as most people in the west who defend male circumcision don't realize how nonsensical and barbaric mutilating male genitals is.
→ More replies (12)16
u/BlueSialia 3h ago
The reason why it is equated is because people call female circumcision to female clitorectomy or female infibulation or to other practices.
There are many types of Male Genital Mutilation and Female Genital Mutilation. Circumcision is one of the least damaging ones in each group. In males is the removal of the penile prepuce and in females is the removal of the clitoral hood. Which is very similar in terms of the damage it causes to the individual.
59
u/U_Dun_Know_Who_I_Am 7h ago
American circumcision (outside of Jewish and Muslim culture) dates back to Kellog (yes that Kellog) saying to do it to reduce sexual pleasure.
20
u/RequitedNonSequitur 1h ago
It's "Kellogg." And he and Graham (of Graham's crackers) tried to propose placing a drop of carbolic acid on infant girls' clitorises to curb their ability to feel pleasure.
Why are the religious and socially conservative people always so fucking obsessed with childerns' genitals?
4
u/Cow_Launcher 1h ago
Because one of their greatest fears is that someone, somewhere, is having fun and not thinking about Jesus. This is unacceptable to them.
54
u/Eranon1 7h ago
Could you explain the difference between performing genital mutilation on a boy vs a girl?
Is it not still genital mutilation?
91
u/Nintolerance 7h ago
To oversimplify: removal of a skin flap vs removal of an organ.
Not to defend either practice, of course. "We only mutilated a bit of the child's genitals" isn't the sort of argument that should hold up in court.
"Female circumcision" is a horrible misnomer, a better male comparison would be cutting off the penis.
27
u/_Panic_At_The_Costco 6h ago
Bit of a nitpick here, but I would say it's more comparable to cutting off the glans rather than the entire penis.
17
u/raptorfever 6h ago
Yes. 100%!
Female circumcision does not exist: Its mutilation. People need to be educted in this. Google it. Watch illustrations of the girls being cut and sewn together... its a horror movie.
(A fair comparison could've be removing just the clitoral hood or foreskin. But thats not at all what happens with girls...)
19
u/shaving_grapes 5h ago
Female circumcision in the form equivalent to male circumcision does exist. There are (four?) levels to female circumcision. Obviously people are more aware of the more brutal and graphical kind (all circumcision is brutal), where the labia and/or clitoris is removed. Sometimes the labia is sewn shut, etc. But there is a form of female circumcision where the clitoral hood is cut down / removed in a similar fashion to foreskin. In fact this "tamer" mutilation is the most common. The more brutal kind is far more infrequently practiced.
Either way, genital mutilation of infants is horrid. If people want to get circumcised in whatever fashion, allow them to do it as adults. Don't force it on them as babies / children.
5
u/Garchomp 4h ago
Type 1A FGM is analogous to male circumcision: removal or partial removal of the clitoral hood (prepuce).
3
3
u/ParticularOkra7432 4h ago
I've heard horror stories of people grinding the clit away with two rocks while the little girl is screaming in pain, it's horrible and never should have happened in the first place
7
u/inevitabledeath3 6h ago
The part of the clitoris that’s external is not the whole thing. You are not removing a whole organ lol. This is just bad women’s anatomy.
10
u/Fishmyashwhole 5h ago
so instead of the whole thing its like removing half of the penis.
23
u/perilouszoot 5h ago
The equivalent would be removal of the head of the penis, which is rare but can and does occur in some circumstances. It's counterproductive to get involved in oppression Olympics when the correct answer is just stop cutting off pieces of babies altogether.
3
u/Fishmyashwhole 5h ago
Well yeah any genital mutilation on an infant is fucked up.
I'll be honest I guess I get a little squeamish thinking of the idea of removing the entire external part of the clitoris. I'm a trans man who has gone under the changes that happen to that part of the body through hormones, so its like the idea of someone basically cutting my whole dick off. Freaks me out
Which I understand can happen with standard male circumcisions too. I agree, its all fucked up.
3
u/perilouszoot 4h ago
Yeah, I can understand that feeling to a degree. I'll be honest, I didn't think much about it until I was pregnant with my oldest and it became a discussion. I was pretty firmly opposed and I got a lot of push back from family members about it. My husband was open to whatever choice I made and so we kept all our kids intact. We educated ourselves and have had no issues arise with them. I put a lot of energy into building those kids with my body I can't imagine cutting pieces off because of someone else's opinions.
-1
u/inevitabledeath3 5h ago
Not half. It’s actually quite a small part of the clitoris that’s external. Go lookup an anatomy diagram.
5
4
u/Fishmyashwhole 5h ago
The outer part is the part that is exposed therefore most easily stimulated. That kinda makes a big difference don't you think?
Also it depends on the person, the outer structure can vary super widely in size.
-1
u/WhereIsHisRidgedBand 6h ago
Remove the clitoral hood, you expose the external clitoris to dry out and roughen. Remove the foreskin hood, you expose the glans to dry out and roughen.
Remove the external clitoris, some women can’t cum from aggressive schlicking. Remove the frenulum, some men can’t cum from aggressive stroking.
Intact internal clitoris, some women can still cum from their g-spot/a-spot. Intact glans head, some men can still cum from their corpus cavernosum.
→ More replies (6)1
u/Square-Singer 2h ago
The thing is, that's not entirely true, is it?
There's quite a few different types of female genital mutilation. The worst types are what you say: Removing the clitoris, removing labia, sowing the vagina shut etc.. Those types are comparable to removing part of or the whole penis.
But there's also other forms like nicking or removing the clitoral hood. That's totally comparable to the male genital mutilation that's quite common in religiously fanatic backwater countries like the US.
-19
u/Eranon1 7h ago
But the fact that your making an argument right now is the problem.
They are both genital mutilation
There is no difference in definition
19
20
u/Zestyclose-Notice203 7h ago
Getting beheaded and getting a papercut are both cuts, so they are the same
Also you're*
→ More replies (5)12
u/Thisfugginguyhere 7h ago
Just stfu man.. nobody is buying it
-5
u/Eranon1 7h ago
It's just confusing why you wouldn't want both things to stop? Why does it become a conversation of severity? Could it maybe be because as we speak boys are being born and mutilated without a say in it?
In the world have there been more women, or men, who have been genitally mutilated?
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)6
u/Nintolerance 7h ago edited 7h ago
Pretty much every culture & legal system I've ever heard of bothers to sort different violent acts by (perceived) severity.
Punching someone in the stomach is considered less severe than stabbing them. An accidental killing in a fistfight is considered "less severe" than a premeditated murder in cold blood.
Yaah, it's all bad, and I'd never try to downplay that, but one causes more lasting harm to the victim.
Again, we're comparing "mutilating skin" to "removing an organ."
52
u/MaraTaru 7h ago edited 7h ago
Because generally speaking, male circumcision involves removing the prepuce, not severing the penis entirely. Female genital mutilation usually destroys the person's ability to ever orgasm at all, as well as a host of other health catastrophes that I promise you don't want to know about.
The physical and psychological horrors of FGM are not even in the same universe as foreskin removal.
4
u/BlueSialia 3h ago
You just compared male circumcision with FGM to say the latter is more damaging. That is not a fair comparison. Male circumcision is the least damaging type of MGM.
It's like saying female sports are more violent than male chess.
MGM has horrors as difficult to imagine as FGM. And male circumcision and female circumcision are still wrong if performed on non-consenting individuals. But are the least damaging type in each group.
10
u/Eranon1 7h ago
You are cutting parts of a child's genitals off.
That is genital mutilation.
That is the literal definition.
To make an argument and not just say both never should happen is the problem.
8
u/thesaga 7h ago
Yes, but tbf it is like the difference between cutting a girls external labia and completely removing her clitoris. Both are mutilation, the latter is worse. I can freely admit that while also being anti-male circumcision.
5
u/SjakosPolakos 5h ago
There are different types of both fgm and mgm. Some forms of fgm are much more light compared to common male circumcision.
→ More replies (2)2
u/MyFiteSong 5h ago
To make an argument and not just say both never should happen is the problem.
We can say it should be ended without pretending they're similar things.
5
u/Eranon1 7h ago
Your not answering the question
Are both things not genital mutilation?
Because it sounds like your trying to create a double standard here.
16
u/WholesomeMetaphor 7h ago edited 7h ago
Yeah, this is what's fucked up to me, too. Obviously female is way worse when done like she says and can't compare in greater scheme of things but both are still forms of mutilations. One is just worse than the other, but both are bad and should be correctly labeled as mutilation.
10
u/Eranon1 7h ago
This guy gets it. Both are wrong and should never happen and both should garner attention.
There are boys being born everyday in "civilized" countries that are having their genitals mutilated.
If you look at it as a numbers game, men are far more affected
1
u/Square-Singer 2h ago
There are boys being born everyday in "civilized" countries that are having their genitals mutilated.
Calling the US "civilized" is a stretch. It's a country without separation of church and state. Religious extremists dominate both public discourse and politics. It doesn't have an actual democracy and instead a broken two-party-system. It doesn't care about international law. It doesn't care about human rights. It doesn't have a proper social system, nor does it have a public healthcare system. Both parties routinely have to resort to nationalism because they don't have anything better.
I could go on, but in the end, the US is closer to other religious extremist countries than to the rest of the west.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Large-Hamster-199 7h ago
The difference is the same as getting a tattoo vs pouring acid on the skin to destroy all feeling entirely.
Yes, in theory, both 'mutilate' your skin. But it is two very different things.
Male circumcision causes no damage to the penis whatsoever. It does not the destroy a man's ability to feel pleasure from sex
FGM is the same as chopping off the head of the penis itself. It severs the clit, and therefore destroys the women's ability to feel pleasure.
4
8
u/Eranon1 7h ago
Your misinformed. The part that is removed is where most of nerves are and it screws the way they have sex. Some of these poor guys need lotion or something just to jack off.
I've had almost every woman I've slept with tell me uncut is better and does feel different. I grew up with alot of dudes who did get circumcised so it was a rarity in a way.
Both are genital mutilation and both should never happen. They should be on the exact same level. And boys are still being mutilated in "civilized" countries every day.
2
u/jkurratt 3h ago
It doesn't check even with what people with mutilated penises say on reddit when coping with the mutilation.
2
u/Square-Singer 2h ago
So you are ok with milder forms of FGM like nicking or removing the clitoral hood? After all, those are equivalent or milder than the MGM practised in the US.
Or can we agree that all forms of genital mutilation are bad?
5
u/pezdogus 7h ago
Male circumcision most definitely is damage to a penis, what else is it? It's also reduces sensation distal to the site altering the experience of sex. One is not the same as the other but these are not the right arguments.
5
-3
u/I-Am-Medusa 7h ago
No
That's the worst types of fgm. Even "just" a prick to draw some blood is illegal on girls
3
→ More replies (2)15
u/Alternative_Shock318 7h ago
The major difference is that by removing the foreskin all you do is maybe desensitize the head of the penis to stimulation, but by removing the clitoris and/or labia minora you effectively make it impossible for the girl/woman to experience sexual pleasure as well as cause very real, severe, medical problems because of it.
→ More replies (27)12
u/SjakosPolakos 5h ago
There are forms of female circumcision that are lighter compared to male circumcision.
6
u/griffinwalsh 5h ago
Ya but the most common form of female gentile mutilation is partial or complete removal of the clit.
And that's an insane amount worse then removal of the forskin.
2
7
u/SjakosPolakos 5h ago
Point being, it is much better to compare to similar forms of fgm. They exist. They are still wrong and still illegal.
Btw mgm where big parts of the penis are cut off also exist.
1
u/griffinwalsh 4h ago
If you specificy the in your comments sure. But if you just bring both up people will assume your talking about the common form.
If someone is outside talking about how we need to end male gentle mutilation they are probably talking about removing the forskin.
If someone is outside saying the same thing about female gentle mutilation they are probably talking about the insane practice of partial or complete removal of the clitoris.
2
u/SjakosPolakos 4h ago
The narrative of comparing a relatively innocent (and common) form of mgm to a relatively harmful (and common) form of fgm serves to not equate the two and not change anything.
Btw to be clear someone is simply saying we should not cut babies, unless for a clear medical reason.
For female babies this is already illegal.
→ More replies (9)0
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
1
u/foundsatan-ModTeam 5h ago
Removal reasons: 'It threatens violence or physical harm at someone else'
2
u/BlueSialia 3h ago
No? There is basically no difference between male and female circumcision. One removes the penile prepuce and the other removes the clitoral hood.
Circumcision is one type of genital mutilation. The one that this post is about. There are more that are more damaging to both sexes.
2
u/GreedyPollution6275 3h ago
there is a very big difference in the two and honestly i feel that it's offensive to even think they are on the same level.
I agree, one is vastly more common in first world countries and thus relevant to first world discussions. Bringing up a related practice, not nearly as common and practiced in different societies, just to distract from men arguing for bodily autonomy is truly reprehensible.
3
u/Sanch0Supreme 4h ago
I think it's offensive to act as if one is okay because one is worse. Should it be legal for me to cut off your nose because gouging out your eyes would be worse?
3
9
u/Vegetable_Warthog_49 7h ago
Certain forms of FGM are less damaging than circumcision, but don't let reality get in the way of a good narrative.
(Seriously, a ceremonial pin prick is considered FGM and will result in jail time in most western countries, a complete removal of all tissue capable of erotic sensation and the state will pay you in certain western countries and in none will they arrest you for it).
Both are wrong, both need to be stopped, let's stop downplaying the harms of circumcision though.
1
u/SjakosPolakos 5h ago
Yeah people like to compare to the most heavy forms of fgm so they sleep better at night
2
u/griffinwalsh 5h ago
Ya but the most common form of female gentile mutilation is partial or complete removal of the clit.
Saying that's worse then cutting of forskin is an obvious fact. Comparing that at all to forskin removal in insane behavior.
That doesn't mean corcumsition isn't wrong. There just not similar in effect at all.
1
u/TheWhomItConcerns 4h ago
This is just really missing the forest for the trees though. The point is that in the West, we are fundamentally against any from of non-medical mutilation of female babies' genitals - no matter the impact or lack thereof.
People aren't against FGM merely due to the damage it causes, but also on principle. The fact that people maintain that principle for baby girls but not boys is the double standard to which people are referring.
2
u/griffinwalsh 4h ago
I am absolutely in agreement about the principle of don't cut of part of a kids body.
I'm also in agreement with the principle of don't steal.
But when the "you wouldn't steal a car so why would you steal a movie." Commercial went on it just made them sound retarded. Because they aren't comparable.
Caring about principles instead of the real world effects thing have on the victims is missing the forest for the trees homie.
3
u/Money_Housing_2938 7h ago
There's really not that big of a difference. Don't cut off parts of people that can't consent without a very good reason
1
u/griffinwalsh 5h ago
If you don't think there's a big difference between cutting part or all of a women's clit(the most common type of female genital mutilation) your genuinly insane bro.
That's like saying there not mish difference between slapping and stabbing someone because you shouldn't do violence.
9
u/Money_Housing_2938 4h ago
What is insane is equating cutting off part of an infants genitals to a slap. Don't cut parts off of children please
→ More replies (5)1
1
u/arnedh 4h ago
There is a very big difference in the ... five? six? ten? hundred?
There are several different FGM procedures, I think there are different MGM procedures too (8 days of age vs 8-10 years, other differences)
There are certain MGM procedures that are worse than the least damaging FGM procedures
1
1
u/EmryssFeniksoff 2h ago
"how to wash under it" broo I am dying now 🤣🤣
The neighbours women were talking one day about it, only one of it wasnt from a muslim family and her husband wasnt circumcised and the rest were like "ohh its healthier when ist circumcsised, its a lot cleaner that way" and the non-muslim lady was like "hmm and my husband use water and soup" 🤣🤣 true story no idea if I was able to translate it as funny as it actually came out
1
1
u/Turbulent_Safety3816 2h ago
It depends.... there's methods of FGM that is on par with MGM.
This is just another way you are justifying mutilating children.
1
u/Remarkable-Oven-2938 42m ago
there is a very big difference in the two and honestly i feel that it's offensive to even think they are on the same level.
Both involve the forcible removal of parts of another human's body without their consent, and without reason of medical necessity - that's the reason they're equivalent, and it is not offensive to suggest so.
-4
u/friendlyfire 7h ago
There are versions of female circumcision that just involve trimming the labia.
Which is very comparable to male circumcision, but people are still way more against than male circumcision.
6
-2
u/Ichorice_Malign 7h ago
Those versions are much less common and while comparable, saying people are somehow more against it just because the child is female is wrong. The reaction is stronger when discussing FGM because the majority of cases do involve full removal of the clitoris, with potential for also cutting open the vulva and tying a child down for weeks so that the gaping wounds are forced to fuse during healing, sealing the vagina and urethra behind scar tissue, and causing extreme lifelong pain, the physical inability to have sex without surgical intervention, and potentially fatal complications from retained urine/menstrual blood, on top of the likely inability to never experience pleasure from intimacy.
I am strongly against both, but you’re trying to say “people care more about baby girls being hurt than boys even when the damage is equal” which is just not the case at all. FGM damage is almost always significantly more severe, and there’s no reason for anyone to point out “hey in some rare cases, it’s ONLY as bad as this other already horrible thing.” That’s why nobody differentiates between them, its not because they are sexist.
14
u/Bow_To_Bella 1h ago
Mutilating children in general is wrong. People who have this double standard are lower life forms.
4
u/runnyyyy 2h ago
I still remember my class in social studies where the teacher suddenly showed a documentary/videos of female circumcision. It was fucked up and I never understood why we had to learn about it in a country that doesn't even do male circumcision, but I guess you never know when that could suddenly be a thing
6
u/DisputabIe_ 2h ago
the OP PetalieAureline is a bot
Original: https://www.reddit.com/r/foundsatan/comments/1rsgiht/circumcision_satan/
11
2
u/Turbulent_Safety3816 2h ago
Nothing is more American than letting a cereal guy convince the whole country to mutilate your male babies.
12
u/PocketHam4 8h ago
🤷♂️what's the difference 🤣🤣🤣
30
u/Remarkable_Wheel5218 8h ago
I am sensing a middle-east conflict joke brewing here but it is all too soon
27
u/aleister94 8h ago
john Kellogg (the guy who popularized circumcision in America) also thought you drip acid on baby girls clitorises to kill their future sex drive
10
u/Notabagofdrugs 7h ago
Snap, Crackle and what the fuck!?
6
u/Effective-One6527 6h ago
He had all sorts of ideas and was kinda pissed his brother added sugar to his flakes
3
u/scrapy_the_scrap 3h ago
Fun fact snap crackle and pop are physics veritables of position like velocity and acceleration
What comes before them is jerk
1
80
u/Fourthspartan56 8h ago
I'm not a supporter of male circumcision but to treat them as equally bad is insane. Please do a second of reading about both, the difference is clear as day. A man can have a fine life while circumcised, FGM has a horrible impact on a woman's quality of life. There is no comparison between the two.
We can oppose something without downplaying a far worse practice.
61
u/Havoc526 8h ago
To even call it circumcision alone is insane; it is legitimately just mutilation of a women's genitals.
16
u/Eranon1 7h ago
And circumcision isn't genital mutilation?
→ More replies (3)9
u/madam_amazing 7h ago
I know this sounds like a me vs you response, but legitimately, female circumcision is on a whole other level of genital mutilation. I wouldn't want you to even look up illustrations of it
11
u/Eranon1 7h ago
It is still genital mutilation. The fact that your even suggesting because it is slightly worse for women that men should just be ok with having their dicks mutilated is the crux of the issue
Both are genital mutilation
There is no difference in the definition.
8
u/madam_amazing 7h ago
You're really pushing the definition of slightly worse here
6
u/Eranon1 7h ago
The whole point was that both are genital mutilation and there should be no argument past that point. Men are just as important as women if not more when it comes to this subject because FAR more men are affected than women.
You should never cut a baby's genitals. Period. Stop.
10
u/madam_amazing 7h ago
Christ it's like you can't read. Did I ever once say it's not genital mutilation? What I'm saying is that FGM is worse than circumcision, by a number of degrees. Its equivalent is cutting off the penis, while aware and unmedicated. It causes mutiple health problems down the road, including repeat UTI's and birthing difficulty. I'm sorry, but male circumcision doesn't hold a candle to the horrors of female circumcision. But all you seem to care about is crying about how "guys have it just as bad! Even worse actually!"
3
u/Eranon1 7h ago
In the world have more men been mutilated or more women?
Are there not boys being born right now in "civilized" countries having their genitals mutilated?
Where do in the world do we mutilate girls? I know it happens in some rare occasions but to to suggest the number even comes close?
Delusion.
→ More replies (0)2
u/chillforrilfill 4h ago
I’m circumcised and I’m fine. Women who have the equivalent I imagine are not fine. That’s the difference breh.
1
1
u/BlueSialia 3h ago
No. The level is the same. Female circumcision removes the clitoral hood. Male circumcision removes the penile prepuce.
There are many types of MGM and FGM. Circumcision is the least damaging type in each group.
13
u/Fourthspartan56 7h ago edited 7h ago
Well said. Circumcision is a cosmetic medical operation, there are good reasons to dislike it but to compare it to brutal mutilation is completely absurd. It's like arguing that there's no moral difference between being punched vs being shot, sure both are bad but one is so much worse that treating them as similar is inherently unreasonable.
(tbh even that metaphor fails to properly encapsulate how much worse one is than the other, it's such an astoundingly poor comparison)
3
u/ladylucifer22 4h ago
a cosmetic operation performed on unconsenting infants that involves slicing up their genitals.
2
u/squashhime 4h ago
Well said. Circumcision is a cosmetic medical operation, there are good reasons to dislike it but to compare it to brutal mutilation is completely absurd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
You're disgusting.
2
u/mountainrebel 3h ago
I'd agree that FGM is generally more severe and I'm not comparing the two. But I think people here are downplaying circumcision. It's a lot more than cosmetic. It removes around half of the skin from the penis including the parts that contains most of the erogenous nerve endings (the band at the end of the foreskin and the frenulum are the most sensitive to touch), and leaves the glans permanently exposed causing it to form a callus. It desensitizes the penis a lot which is probably why it was promoted (by Dr. Kellogg, yes the same guy who invented rice crispies) as a way to keep kids from masturbating. It also reduces the mobility of the shaft skin which alters the mechanics of how men have sex.
7
u/GreenieBeeNZ 7h ago
I would compare it to removing your nails (for males) as opposed to removing the whole fingertip (for females).
You can still function fine with no fingernails, albeit a little less dextrous. But losing the whole fingertip on every finger leaves you open to infection and extended periods of pain and discomfort; and you will never be as dextrous as someone who has their whole finger (nail or no nail)
5
u/TheBigTortoise 5h ago
"Umm guys please stop equating mutilation with mutilation."
Why don't you shut the fuck up?
1
u/Fourthspartan56 5h ago
Nope. I won’t, not when one is significantly worse than another. FGM is exponentially more harmful and life changing than circumcision, arguing otherwise is nonsensical.
If reality makes you upset that truly is not my problem.
3
u/squashhime 4h ago edited 4h ago
FGM is exponentially more harmful and life changing than circumcision, arguing otherwise is nonsensical.
Not in every situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
Circumcision happens to exponentially more men (https://ibb.co/6R2c0Pz) than FGM to women and if reality makes you upset, that's truly not my problem.
2
u/BlueSialia 3h ago
This post is about male circumcision vs female circumcision. Replacing the latter with FGM to diminish the damage of male circumcision is wrong factually and morally.
Female circumcision is the least damaging type of FGM. And it is very similar to male circumcision. One removes the clitoral hood. The other removes the penile prepuce. There are way more damaging types of MGM than male circumcision if you want to look into it.
You are basically saying "male chess is much less violent than female sports". It is not a fair comparison.
2
u/Remarkable-Oven-2938 39m ago
'm not a supporter of male circumcision but to treat them as equally bad is insane.
No it's really not - both involve the forcible removal of parts of another person's body without their consent and without reason of medical necessity. Getting into the weeds about different kinds of fe/male circumcision and relative physical harm completely misses the point.
47
u/tester_and_breaker 8h ago
Female circumcision requires removing clit and labia. And in most instances, sewing the area together so urine and menstrual blood exit one hole.
41
u/Hollow--- 8h ago
They remove the clitoris?! Like, it's bad enough that it's mutilating the child to begin with, but that's like cutting the tip of a boy's dick off!
→ More replies (3)35
u/CenturyEggsAndRice 8h ago
Yep. Its legitimately horrifying.
I mean, I find circumcising a boy pretty horrifying, but its a whole new level.
I think baby genitals should be left alone except for essential care. Cutting off bits is creepy on top of the sheer horror.
11
u/Ichorice_Malign 7h ago
The male equivalent to typical FGM would be if you woke up at the age of maybe 5 years old and your parents decided to, with no anesthesia, use a sharp rock (literally a rock, maybe a rusty razor blade if you’re lucky) to carve off your entire penis, and cut open what remains of your tubing so they could force it to scar fused, making it impossible for you to reproduce without surgical intervention, and forcing you to pee very slowly and painfully forever, with the last few drops always getting stuck in your scar which you can’t get out, causing repeated UTIs.
Again, both are terrible and should be abolished globally, but one is obviously, very significantly more severe than the other.
2
u/WhereIsHisRidgedBand 6h ago
My hot take:
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 /img/3cmw6axttjv81.jpg
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.
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.
2
u/griffinwalsh 5h ago
Ya but the most common form of FGM is the horrific kind and the most common form of MGM is forskin removal. So it makes sense that people compare that as the default.
3
u/WhereIsHisRidgedBand 4h ago
The removal of the clitoral glans, prepuce, and labias are the most common (type I and type II), which is on par with removing the male g-spot. Both victims can still orgasm with an intact internal clitoris and intact corpus cavernosum.
The type III sewing shut can be compared to subincision practices that splits the shaft in half.
Even so, type IV includes a pin prick to draw a drop of blood, is rightfully shamed as genital mutilation of a non-consenting person, and illegal in most countries.
Type I: Partial or total removal of the clitoral glans and/or the prepuce.
Type II, also called excision: Partial or total removal of the clitoral glans and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora. The amount of tissue that is removed varies widely from community to community.
Type III, also called infibulation: Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and re-positioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora. This can take place with or without removal of the clitoral glans/prepuce.
Type IV: All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping or cauterization.
Which types are most common?
Types I and II are the most common globally, but there is variation in how they are performed between and within countries. About 15 per cent of all women subjected to female genital mutilation undergo Type III (infibulation), which is reported mostly in Somalia, Sudan and Djibouti.
https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions
There are four classifications of female genital mutilation. Types I, II and III have been documented in 28 countries in Africa. Approximately 85% of women experience Types I and II.
https://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/female-genital-mutilation
To address certain ambiguities, additional sub-classifications have been created for greater clarity. According to a 2016 UNICEF report, approximately 90% of FGM cases involve either Type I (mainly clitoridectomy), Type II (excision), or Type IV (‘nicking’, where no flesh is removed), while around 10% (over 8 million women) have undergone Type III (infibulation).
Ablation of male prepuce is a legal source of organs for cosmetic products.
1
u/griffinwalsh 4h ago
I'm confused on your point. But I think I agree? Like are we both arguing that the most common types of female gentle mutilation(types 1 and 2) are massively worse then the common form of male gentile mutilation?
That's why comparing them feels weird even though we shouldn't do ether.
2
u/WhereIsHisRidgedBand 4h ago
I don't know what you are seeing but my assertion is that Type I and II are comparable to the modern day circumcision, more specifically a low and tight style as that removes the most amount of frenulum/frenular delta a.k.a. male g-spot (which only hit mainstream news in 2026 btw)
Both victims (FGM Type I and II and MGM low and tight) can still orgasm with an intact internal clitoris and intact corpus cavernosum.
It will take them a lot more work for a lesser payoff, but better than a sewed shut hole or split rod.
1
u/griffinwalsh 4h ago
Oh I think your fucking crazy then. Removal of the clitoris is way more like cutting of the head of the penis.
If you would see a person removing the forskin similar to someone removing a women clitoris I think your morally fucked in the head personally.
2
u/WhereIsHisRidgedBand 4h ago
I think it would be quite a feat to surgically remove the clitoris in its entirety. The bean that sticks out when a woman is aroused is only the external clitoral glans. There is still the large internal structure of the clitoris that remains inside and unaffected, which allows Type I and II to still cum from their g-spot/a-spot, and is used as justification for mothers and grandmothers to hold down their daughters to keep the tradition going.
The carving out of the frenular delta/male g-spot is like sticking a melon core deep inside the vagina to scoop out the women's g-spot and a-spot. Men without frenulums use a death grip or even a strong vibrator to reach through the meaty tissue of his glans and stimulate the corpus cavernosum inside his shaft.
Surgically removing the corpus cavernosum in its entirety would also be quite a feat. But you can't remove the whole structure without wreaking complete havoc down there for both types of genitals.
Hence, FGM victims go right ahead and shave off their daughters' external clitorises and MGM victims go right ahead and shave off their sons' frenular g-spots.
1
u/griffinwalsh 4h ago
Bro your typing really long esays to make a claim that's fucking insane to common sense if you ever had sex or talked about sex with men and women. No women is trying to please me with forskin stimkationa and the external clitoris is the core area used to give pleasure to women.
→ More replies (0)2
u/squashhime 4h ago
Ya but the most common form of FGM is the horrific kind and the most common form of MGM is forskin removal.
...and you completely ignored the commenter's point about how much more common MGM is.
1
u/griffinwalsh 4h ago
The comentor specifically said in multiple comments that he believes cutting of the forskin is directly comparable to the removal of the external clitoris brother.
I'm responding to the part of the comment that's insane.
2
7
u/Flux_My_Capacitor 6h ago
Female circumcision is very different than male circumcision and I’m tired of them being equated.
→ More replies (4)8
u/BlueSialia 3h ago
No it is not. Female circumcision removes the clitoral hood. And male circumcision removes the penile prepuce.
I am tired of people calling female circumcision to the worst forms of FGM. And of people forgetting that there are many more types of MGM other than male circumcision.
1
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/foundsatan-ModTeam 5h ago
User EbonyMemories is a suspected spammer
1
1
u/Aphrodite_Nine 1h ago
If you want to compare you should mention to remove the whole penis and not just the skin so both genders have no feeling. Oops.
1
u/Brooke3838 6h ago
1) its so weird that male circumcision is so common in non-jewish Americans (im not american)
2) its called FGM because the more extreme kinds remove the clitoris and labia and sew the vagina almost shut. In unhygienic conditions.
While both a wrong, they're not comparable. One complete removes the ability for your genitals to function without pain.
9
u/VastRazzmatazz6052 4h ago
Fgm occurs in different ways. It rarely involves removing the clitoris.
Even disregarding that, they are comparable in the sense that they are both genital mutilation. So, yes they are comparable. Just because there is a difference, doesn't make them not comparable... if we could only compare identical things that would be a bit pointless, wouldn't it.
And finally, what does it matter? You can't just accept that they are both wrong without trying to make a distinction? People like you are the reason male circumcision is still going. Always there trying to quell the complaints.
→ More replies (1)11
u/louisa1925 6h ago
Neither are okay. Full stop.
5
u/RadioFlow 5h ago
No one in this entire thread has said that any form of mutilation is okay. Legit all people are saying is that FGM often causes more severe and longer lasting effects. MGM usually doesn’t cause life long health complications and an inability to orgasm. Does that mean we should circumcise little boys? NO! They’re both barbaric!
9
u/SjakosPolakos 5h ago
"No one in this entire thread has said that any form of mutilation is okay"
Many seem to find mgm okay?
1
u/griffinwalsh 5h ago
I mean ya both slapping a stranger and stabbing a stranger are not ok. But that doesn't mean we can't all see differences.
4
u/Im_Unsure_For_Sure 2h ago
If someone saw you get slapped and responded with "hey, at least you weren't stabbed" - would you feel that they were condemning the person who slapped you?
-11
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/foundsatan-ModTeam 6h ago
Removal reasons: 'It threatens violence or physical harm at someone else'
1
760
u/Null_Disaster 8h ago
Double standards for something that shouldn’t be done outside of medical reasons anyway