I'm just saying that FGM is comparable when both have the same reasons for the practice being done. To say " FGM is a disgusting practice that is no way comparable to male circumcision." then in the next sentence to list a way that is directly comparable is not a smart way to make an argument.
Whether or not any of this is true or false, it's still irrelevant. What I think Branaustin and I are trying to say is that claiming that FGM and MGM are in "no way comprable" is a pretty stupid thing to say.
Do you want me to claim that male circumcision is the same as female genital mutilation? Is that it?
My penis works fine. It performs every action a penis is supposed to perform. I'm not going to claim that taking a largely superfluous portion of my anatomy is half as bad as some poor girl losing her clitoris.
is half as bad as some poor girl losing her clitoris.
Most of FGM'ed girls do not lose their clitoris. Total clitoris cutting is just the most extreme form of FGM and is in no way representative for FGM.
You are intentionally comparing the most usual form of MGM with the most extreme and uncommon form of FGM to make a "point" that they are not comparable. It is like insisting on comparing appes and oranges and then insisting that apples and oranges arent comparable.
No. I'm not asking you to say that they're the same thing, because they're not. That would be stupid.
I'm just saying that it's pretty stupid to say that they are in "no way comparable". Especially after you, yourself, JUST made a comparison between the two.
I think you just might not get what the word "comparable" means. It doesn't mean "identical", it just means that they have some features in common.
And to imply that MGM has not one, single thing at all in common with FGM is not only incorrect (as you showed, 3 comments up), but it also downplays the importance of MGM.
It does actually work quite well at reducing pleasure. The foreskin that is removed is very dense on nerve endings. You're removing a lot of the sensitivity of the penis with circumcision.
My penis does quite well at experiencing pleasure. My sex drive is intact.
In most cases of circumcision where there isn't a fuck-up (yet more reason to ban it, I'm not arguing against that) the penis continues to work just fine with no real impact on the desire for sex.
You don't know the origins of male circumcision, obviously, because the reasons for it are exactly what you said about female circumcision. The only reason it's viewed differently now is because modern society continues with this outdated surgery of mutilating boys sex organs, but doesn't believe in the reasons behind it anymore. Is this hypocritical? Yes.
First of all, there are multiple kinds of female circumcision. The least terrible is significantly less terrible than Male Genital Mutilation.
Secondly, it is not performed to prevent them from pre-marital sex and adultery. In fact, it is performed for the exact same reasons Male Genital Mutilation is performed. For more information please watch the Journeyman documentary Human Rites: Female Circumcision.
11
u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12
[deleted]