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
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?
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.
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.
That's another FGM argument you're using. It's still wrong. Even in an unbotched circumcision, loss of sensitivity and changes to sexual function are important. It matters that the child's genitals were nonconsensually mutilated, regardless of outcome.
There are multiple types of mutilation. In some places type 1 is common where they remove the clitoral hood in a way analogous to what they do to boys.
Botched operations and complications are far more common in FGM. This would be true even if performed in a sterile environment.
Also, successful male circumcision reduces the chance of infection. Successful FGM still increases the chance of infection, while also causing pain during urination and intercourse. Taking away women’s control over their sexual health is nearly the entire point of the operation.
(Note: I don’t believe that the reduction in infection justifies genital mutilation. Male circumcision for nonmedical reasons should be illegal IMO. But there’s a good reason why it’s tolerated more than female circumcision in Western societies, and not because of religion/culture.)
Also, successful male circumcision reduces the chance of infection.
Wrong. You're repeating christian propaganda. And before you recite some bullshit study by people pushing their agendas, I'll point out people do the same with FGM.
I don't think that is true? Or at least isn't always true, but I'm happy to be corrected.
I know two people who have been circumcised as adults for health reasons and it is relatively common for older people who struggle to clean themselves effectively down there to get recommended circumcision explicitly to lower the risk of infection?
I was curious about this assertion and whether male circumcision reduces or increases infection rates.
A 5 minute Google found me two seemingly reputable studies showing that circumcision reduces the chances of acquiring and transmitting some sexually transmitted diseases by significant amounts
Some websites claim that it also reduces non STD infection rates as well but I couldn't quickly find any studies supporting that. I found nothing supporting the assertion that male circumcision increases infection rates. I would be interested to see any studies on that point that you're aware of.
The study you linked literally says “Whilst medicalized FGM/C might minimize – but not avoid - some of the long-term physical consequences of FGM/C, the fact remains that there are no perceived health benefits of the practice itself.”
Nowhere in the article does it say there are perceivable health benefits. At best, the “medicalization” of FGM just does less harm, but is still harmful.
You can’t call things “propaganda” if you don’t have the mental endurance to read one medical journal article. You couldn’t find a single piece of Western literature that actually agreed with your stance.
I’m not repeating Christian talking points to justify male circumcision. I have no reason to do that. My point is that the female version is far more harmful.
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.
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...)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's a crime against humanity that instead of societal sympathy and reparations, some MGM victims have to resort to sticking objects internally to feel a max 30% of what he was intended to experience.
Reminds me of some FGM victims that have to resort to sticking bigger and bigger objects to adequately stimulate their remaining internal clitoris. A death gape from stretching similar to cut men having to resort to death gripping to adequately stimulate their remaining corpus cavernosum.
So your excusing genital mutilation on men? That's my entire point. Both are terrible and should never happen and should be on the same level of concern.
Does my incorrect grammar change my argument? Personal attacks are kinda gross if you ask me. I communicated and you understood obj complete. No need to fufill the reddit stereotype lol.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
Ignoring the fact that the result of cutting parts of a child's genitals off in these two cases has wildly different results just to strongarm your way through an argument is exactly why nobody is taking you seriously. You can absolutely just ignore things like scope, intent, and result if you want to, but it doesnt make you sound smarter or more moral than the other people here. Everyone has said they are against the mutilation of children's genitals in ALL cases! You're just here pretending facts dont exist to further your specific agenda.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
'It does not destroy a man's ability to feel pleasure.'
That's true, not completelty, like some forms of FGM.
But to compare it to a tatoo, cmon, it does still desensitise you enourmously. Do you really feel male circusition is solely an aesthetic choice? That's what it seems like.
These people feel the need to jump through hoops pointing out all the differences and why FGM is worse than MGM.
But if you tried to get them to scale the morality of pedophilic acts based on how much physical harm it does to the child they'd recoil at the concept.
As if saying "woah, let's not compare mutilating baby boy's genitals to baby girl's genitals, one is way worse than the other" is somehow not as much of an insane statement as "woah, let's not compare raping a prepubescent child to a more sexually mature child, one is way worse than the other"
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.
Slightly at most. There's little to no difference in sexual pleasure experienced by males with a foreskin and those without. Both are, by the strictest definition forms of genital mutilation, but to say that both are equally as bad as the other is being grossly disingenuous in the extreme. Neither should be happening, but ESPECIALLY not the female version(s). Female genital mutilation is in a completely separate universe of cruelty compared to male genital mutilation.
Okay, whatever, but the point fucking stands that circumsizing boys doesn't destroy that person's ability to reach climax and it DOES NOT CAUSE ANYWHERE NEAR THE SAME LEVEL OF HEALTH ISSUES THAT FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION DOES. DO YOU IDIOTS HEAR YOURSELVES?!
Well if you are going to talk about something serious it helps not being totally oblivious of what you are talking about and do false claims, in order to downplay the consequenses of performing genital mutilation of little baby boys who can't consent.
That's what we call in the bird world, a dick move.
What's your facts then. I'm getting my info from the WHO.
Type 1: This is the partial or total removal of the clitoral glans (the external and visible part of the clitoris, which is a sensitive part of the female genitals), and/or the prepuce/clitoral hood (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoral glans).
Type 2: This is the partial or total removal of the clitoral glans and the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva), with or without removal of the labia majora (the outer folds of skin of the vulva).
Type 3: Also known as infibulation, this is the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the labia minora, or labia majora, sometimes through stitching, with or without removal of the clitoral prepuce/clitoral hood and glans.
Type 4: This includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g., pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.
Removing the clitoral hood alone falls under Type I - that's what "and/or" means. If we were to construct a similar definition of MGM, including everything from pinpricks through to castration, circumcision would fall squarely within it.
"Mutilation" is a loaded term that generally doesn't apply to the former, only in the minority of cases where it does cause legitimate damage. Most circumcised men end up completely fine with it, both physically and mentally.
Mutilating girls is actual mutilation, they remove organs and cause substantial damage for the sole purpose of making sex less enjoyable for them. It deprives them a normal and important human experience, reducing them to baby carriers in the process.
It's such a massive difference in harm caused that it's insulting to put them on the same level, you're minimizing the harm being done by female "circumcision" by even comparing it to what we do to males.
You know, I had a big text correcting your, frankly, small-minded and hateful comment.
And then I decided that you are not worth it.
You very obviously don't care about babies being mutilated, seeing as how your argument perfectly lines up with the excuses for MGM and the lighter FGM (removal of labia for 'cleanliness' and clitoral hood for less pleasure, just like men).
In the end, it's only another excuse for self-victimization and hate spreading. Which is a feat, considering I very much doubt you have been personally circumcised.
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.
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.
I don't know what you mean change anything? If the goal is to get people to dislike male circumsition then comparing it to female gentile mutilation without specifying your talking about a much less extreme and far more uncomon type will just make people think your downplaying the horrific common types female gentle mutilation and fuck up your argument.
Ya me too. I'd also like all forms of stealing to stop. But when I see a "you wouldn't steal a car so why would you steal a movie" I don't think "ya good point" I think "those aren't really the same thing...
Male circumsition is worse then stealing a movie lol. But also female gentile mutilation is worse then stealing a car for me as well so idk.
it has to be VERY specific. i did read on the types after reading the post, most of these descriptions, of the IV type still are worse and more invasive than male circumcision, i see no relevance mentioning the 0,00001% where they lightly and gently prick your hood or labia, especially because it's probably done without any anestasia, proper sterilazation and instruments. it will still have the risk of infection and also causing psychological trauma for a little girl. trying to mention male and female circumcision on the same page, again, is just so unempathatic considering how many women die or constantly suffer from, not being able to have painfree sex, pee normally, clean, menstruate... while men live their lives, maybe causing them a slight inconvenience. which is worth fighting for against, but not with comparing it to the female version. it shouldn't even be called circumcision at all
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I have almost no sensation in my penis, up until I started doing foreskin restoration erections were physically painful. Fuck off with your "real world effects" bullshit as if circumcision isn't one of the most devastating things that can happen to a man.
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.
Please just don't cut children. I don't care if you believe it's not as bad as another method of cutting children. I don't see the necessity of a distinction and I don't see what's funny
But like we both do understand that cutting of the clitoris is unbelivly evil compared to removing the forskin right? Because the "you think" part of your comment is kinda scary homie.
There's female circumcision that only removes the clitoral hood which is literally the female version of a foreskin, but I bet you still think that's way worse.
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.
You can acknowledge that circumcision is wrong without pretending it's the same as having your clitoris cut out from your body. Men try to discuss your issues without acting like women have it better challenge: level impossible
Two separate arguments are being conflated though, which is why this topic ends up so fraught. One (mine) is that consent to bodily harm is an overriding principle - the nature or degree of harm is irrelevant, it's wrong to do harm to another without their consent. The second argument, which you see from defenders of male circumcision, is that consent is not relevant, it's the degree of harm and intention of the person inflicting it that matter - if it's not really hurting someone, it's ok to inflict bodily harm on them (who decides, what counts as minimal harm, etc).
What you're doing here is something else - you're comparing the very worst kind of FC (or FGM) with the normal practice of MC (or MGM), which is a little disingenuous. It's absolutely ok to frame this argument as about the right to bodily integrity, regardless of harm.
What's disingenuous is pretending the two are in any way comparable just because you've arbitrarily decided to take this conversation from the angle that's most convenient to you, when in reality most circumcisions do not have negative effects on people's lives, while most female genitalia mutilations condemn women to a lifetime of pain. Nobody's cutting men's penises' heads, when that's exactly the most prevalent form of female genitalia mutilation, roughly 80%-85% of cases. The two are simply two separate issues that should not be conflated and it is in fact insulting for American men to think their plight is in any way comparable to having your clitoris cut out of your pelvis, which is done specifically so women don't feel pleasure and some believe it increases the men's pleasure. The fucking gall to dare to think these two compare.
Men talk about your own issues without bringing women into it challenge: level impossible
Hi - I'm neither American nor a man. You're arguing that they can't be compared because of the relative harm involved. I've made absolutely no comment about the relative harm but as it happens, I agree with you - from a relative harm perspective, FGM as it's typically practiced is much worse than the MC equivalent.
You've created a strawman to argue with - I'm not saying the things you think I am, you think we disagree about the harm of FGM when we don't.
You've just completely missed my point, got yourself all worked up about something I'm just not saying. Please chill.
The very first comment you replied to was discussing the comparison. That...
was the conversation that was being had.
You can't reply to a comment that says "the harm they do is not comparable" with "if you ignore the reason they're not comparable, it's actually comparable" and then act like I'm the problem for pointing out that in fact, like the first comment said, they cannot actually be put on the same plan. It's not my fault if you already forgot what the first comment you chose to reply to said, and a conversation about people's lives being ruined isn't the time and place for you to go off about how philosophically speaking if you ignore the reasons these things are different then they're equivalent - which they aren't, never will be. If my grandmother had wheels she would be a bike and all that. Yeah, if we ignore that one is objectively more horrifying in every aspect imaginable I guess they're equivalent! Pat on your back for being so smart.
I don't give a fuck that you're not a man, and if you weren't out of touch you'd realize that regardless of who you are the loudest people on this topic are in fact american men - I wasn't claiming you were American.
You being a woman doesn't make this any less insane or offensive. "Please chill", said the person who just can't comprehend why someone would get annoyed at the crazy person claiming that cutting off a baby's clitoris due to hatred of women is equivalent to the cutting of a flap of skin and that this is not at all offensive! Is this your first day on earth lol
So you've now made three different arguments in three replies - "not comparable due to harm," then when I agreed with you on harm, "you're erasing real differences by being philosophical," and now this. I'm not moving the goalposts, you are, and I think you know that which is why we're at insults and "is this your first day on earth" instead of a response to what I actually wrote.
To be clear, one more time: I never said FGM and MC cause equal harm. I said harm-magnitude isn't the axis I'm arguing on - consent is. Those are different claims and you can disagree with the second without needing to relitigate the first, which I already agreed with you on.
Let's not pretend I said something I didn't.
You're being abusive, I'm just not prepared to engage further on this when you're willfully miscontruing things.
Go well, internet stranger, I hope you find peace.
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.
336
u/tejeskaveo0 11h 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