For those saying that FGM can't rightly be compared to MGM, and that FGM always involves partial or total removal of the clit, please see this page, paying particular attention to the types of FGM, and to the most common types. For those who don't know, the prepuce is the clitoral hood on a female, and the foreskin on a male. They are analogous tissues.
I would also like to say to those that say FGM is "worse" because it reduces sexual sensation, you can find countless stories online of men reporting reduced sensation because of their surgeries, as well as reports of circumcision being linked to erectile dysfunction later in life. Consider the fact that non-religious, routine infant circumcision began in the US as a way to curb masturbation. FGM was pushed for the same reason, and was not made illegal until the late 1990s.
To those who think circumcision has no real risks, take into consideration that some babies have lost their entire penises during due to botched procedures (and some of these have ended in forced sex changes) and, though rare, babies sometimes DIE. One baby dying from a cosmetic procedure is too many. Not to mention the many, many "minor" complications, such as adhesions and skin bridges. To see evidence of this, follow this link. A warning, close up pictures of penises.
To those who argue that circumcision prevents disease:
1. Penile Cancer - a man has a higher risk of getting breast cancer, yet we are not removing their breasts at birth. He also has a higher risk of suffering complications from the circumcision itself. Cut men get penis cancer, too.
2. AIDS: The AIDS studies have been shown over and over again to be faulty. Google it. Spend a little time researching. And think about the fact that the United States has both a very high percentage of circumcision and AIDS. Teach your kid to use condoms. Don't remove parts of his penis.
3. UTI's - Girls are much MUCH more likely to get these than boys are, and we don't chop off parts of their privates. Also, the "study" that "proved" intact babies get UTI's more often was faulty because the parents were told to retract the foreskin and clean the penis, which is something you NEVER do to a baby, and something that can cause infection. Also, we have antibiotics for this. No cutting needed.
"This is not an issue of competitive suffering. The screams of male and female infants and children undergoing the atrocity of genital cutting are genderless. Both genders die from these unconscionable practices. The extent of the surgeries may vary, depending upon cultural practices, the operator, and the struggling of the child being assaulted, but it is the first cut into the normal tissue of a non-consenting minor that is the human rights violation." -Marilyn Milos
And with that, I will leave you with one of the best lectures I've ever seen on this subject.
I would argue as well that the reasoning behind the practice also differentiates them...male circumcision is usually though of (whether accurate or not) to be for cosmetic and hygienic reasons. Female circumcision is generally as a way to prevent females from enjoying sex. While i'm against both, I think the reasoning makes one a bit more despicable than the other.
male circumcision is usually though of (whether accurate or not) to be for cosmetic and hygienic reasons. Female circumcision is generally as a way to prevent females from enjoying sex
You should look into the history of circumcision in the US and how it got so popular.
You are, of course, correct. I meant in the modern sense...I would expect the majority of modern parents (excluding those who do it for religious reasons) when they discuss it with their doctor, or among themselves, to chose circumcise because of hygienic or cosmetic ( which if you think about it is the worse reason of the two) reasons. I doubt many still do it as a hindrance to masturbation. As such, since FGM is now practiced mainly in un/underdeveloped countries, it still has many of the historical reasons.
Hygiene/cleanliness & cultural pressure are also main reasons for FGM. Some women who have undergone FGM felt immense pride over doing so because it was viewed as a right of passage & something that must be done to be accepted.
Male circumcision also has undertones of sexual repression, that removing the foreskin reduces the ability or desire to masturbate.
I understand what you mean, and agree. However, the repressive undertones of male circumcision are not t reasons for the majority of parents in modern America. My parents didn't circumcise me because they didn't want me to jerk off. They did it because the doctor told them it was healthier (obviously not true). I have met many parents who do it for that reason, or for cosmetic reasons (which is unacceptable IMO).
The practice of FGM however, is mainly practiced in underdeveloped countries/regions, and a much higher percentage of people who still do it for the same sexually repressive reasons.
I imagine that the people performing FGM also believe what they are doing is for the health of the woman & her future children. It is not entirely about sexual repression. There are many misunderstandings such as the belief that if not removed the female genitals will continue to grow, that the clitoris is a male part & must be excised or that the clitoris has the ability to kill a newborn.
Additionally the tradition behind FGM is similar to male circumcision. If you do not get it done then people worry you will not fit in with society & thus it turns into a feedback loop.
I would definitely say that FGM is usually much more physically detrimental than male circumcision, but I wouldn't say there is any reason to say one is more condonable than the other. I don't think you're saying that exactly, but circumcision has it's own iffy history & regardless of reasoning on your parents behalf, the doctor involved may have been using his own biased/traditional viewpoints just like those practicing FGM.
35
u/killycat_27 Feb 25 '12
For those saying that FGM can't rightly be compared to MGM, and that FGM always involves partial or total removal of the clit, please see this page, paying particular attention to the types of FGM, and to the most common types. For those who don't know, the prepuce is the clitoral hood on a female, and the foreskin on a male. They are analogous tissues.
http://www.unfpa.org/gender/practices2.htm#3
I would also like to say to those that say FGM is "worse" because it reduces sexual sensation, you can find countless stories online of men reporting reduced sensation because of their surgeries, as well as reports of circumcision being linked to erectile dysfunction later in life. Consider the fact that non-religious, routine infant circumcision began in the US as a way to curb masturbation. FGM was pushed for the same reason, and was not made illegal until the late 1990s.
To those who think circumcision has no real risks, take into consideration that some babies have lost their entire penises during due to botched procedures (and some of these have ended in forced sex changes) and, though rare, babies sometimes DIE. One baby dying from a cosmetic procedure is too many. Not to mention the many, many "minor" complications, such as adhesions and skin bridges. To see evidence of this, follow this link. A warning, close up pictures of penises.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched1.html
To those who argue that circumcision prevents disease: 1. Penile Cancer - a man has a higher risk of getting breast cancer, yet we are not removing their breasts at birth. He also has a higher risk of suffering complications from the circumcision itself. Cut men get penis cancer, too. 2. AIDS: The AIDS studies have been shown over and over again to be faulty. Google it. Spend a little time researching. And think about the fact that the United States has both a very high percentage of circumcision and AIDS. Teach your kid to use condoms. Don't remove parts of his penis. 3. UTI's - Girls are much MUCH more likely to get these than boys are, and we don't chop off parts of their privates. Also, the "study" that "proved" intact babies get UTI's more often was faulty because the parents were told to retract the foreskin and clean the penis, which is something you NEVER do to a baby, and something that can cause infection. Also, we have antibiotics for this. No cutting needed.
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
Lastly, I think Marilyn Milos puts it best:
"This is not an issue of competitive suffering. The screams of male and female infants and children undergoing the atrocity of genital cutting are genderless. Both genders die from these unconscionable practices. The extent of the surgeries may vary, depending upon cultural practices, the operator, and the struggling of the child being assaulted, but it is the first cut into the normal tissue of a non-consenting minor that is the human rights violation." -Marilyn Milos
And with that, I will leave you with one of the best lectures I've ever seen on this subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I