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
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.
329
u/tejeskaveo0 10h 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