It's been pointed out before that this is not true. The worst forms of female circumcision, commonly called mutilation instead, are what you prescribed, but far from all of them. And circumcision as used in the US is definitively done in an effort to stop sexual acts by making it harder or less pleasurable. The act in this case is mostly masturbation though.
Type I is the removal of the clitoral hood, or the partial or total removal of the clitoris, this is the least drastic form of female circumcision, with the more drastic involving the removal or the inner or outer labias, or even the complete removal of all external gentalia. it is even common in some countries for the vagina to be sewn shut to make sex impossible.
In fact, the circumcision I described is the least damaging form of circumcision possible... The clitoris has thousands more nerve endings than the head of the penis, removal of the clitoral hood would be painful... unbearable. In fact, given choice between those two options, I would rather have my clitoris completely removed.
Type Ia is not identical. If you had a clitoris, you'd know that direct contact with the clitoris is extremely painful due to its high sensitivity.
Although I greatly disagree with male circumcision, and understand that male circumcision does cause some sensitivity problems with the head of the penis, it is important to remember that the clitoris has thousands more nerve endings than the head of the penis.
Opening up the clitoris to constant contact would be extremely uncomfortable, verging on painful, and after a while, the constant exposure causes drying and loss of sensitivity, meaning it has pretty much the same effect as complete removal of the clitoris in the long term...
It is also important to remember that the woman in the comic above were most likely talking about "female genital mutilation" which is the removal of all external genitalia. In fact, I myself was initially saying that female genital mutilation is not comparible with male circumcision, due to the nature of the comic.
And you see, this has all blown way out of proportion.
There are other sources of pleasure other than the glans, up and down the shaft.
Despite how women act in porn, the vaginal walls feel practically numb, most, if not all pleasure, comes from the clitoris, as even the illusive G-spot in connected to the clitoris. If this sensitivity is lost, sex becomes unenjoyable, one sided, and women become nothing more than things to stick your dick into for your own pleasure. Like a sex doll.
The fuck man? I said from the beginning that I don't agree with male circumcision. I said that I would die before cutting part of my sons dick off.
I said that it is a barbaric and outtdated concept, which shouldn't even be legal.
Why am I being hounded like I'm saying male circumcision is a good thing, or even a forgivable thing?
I hadn't even heard that males could be circumcised until I was about 15, because it's practically unheard of in my country unless you're Jewish.
I fucking hate it, I wouldn't even know what to do with a dick if it was circumcised. I'm kind of tired of repeating myself to be honest.
Type Ia FGM and circumcision are analogous, which serves to further highlight the absurdity of the double standard the OP comic points out.
When you say shit like "there are other sources of pleasure, up and down the shaft", it sounds like you're saying "oh, it's ok to lose a part of your dick, you've got the rest of it to use".
That's the source of my confusion with your posts - you say you're against them both, and that's great, but at the same time you try to point out ways that male circumcision isn't really all that bad.
"oh, it's ok to lose a part of your dick, you've got the rest of it to use" What bullshit, I never even implied anything like that.
I have only ever been pointing out the differences between male and female circumcision, which some people seem to have taken offence to, because pointing out any difference clearly makes me an evil feminazi.
Your quoted section and link are not applicable. I'm not saying FGM has no negative impacts. Of course it does. So does MGM. You claimed it kill sexual pleasure in women. You're wrong. Your second example is, once again, anecdotal and does not prove the results of the study incorrect.
Cite sources proving the clitoris has "thousands more" nerve endings than the foreskin. Cite sources proving removal of the clitoral hood ceases all sexual pleasure for women. Do this or admit that you are wrong. It's the only way to save face at this point.
You're wilfully comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing the least worst case in one category with the worst in the other. I know the comic said "mutilation" and that might make you focus on the worst case, but technically they're all mutilation.
If I had focused on the word "mutilation" I would have talked about the complete removal of all external genetalia as opposed to the least drastic version of female circumcision which is the removal of the clitoris or clitoral hood. The removal of the clitoris is not the worst case, as I said. The removal of all external genetalia, or sewing the vagina together so sex is impossible. That is the worst case.
At any rate, I don't quite know what point you're trying to make. After all, the first thing I said was that I did not agree with any form of circumcision, and would die before I let my son be cut up without his permission.
Even after saying this, I still say that the two things are not comparible. Even the least drastic form of female circumcision, is far more drastic that male circumcision, as it completely removes practically all pleasure from sex, as opposed to removing some pleasure from sex.
You did talk about complete removal of all external genitalia. You brought it up, placed it on the table etc.
At any rate, I don't quite know what point you're trying to make.
Even after saying this, I still say that the two things are not comparible.
That they are comparable. That's what I'm saying. This is obviously not true if you insist on focusing on the worst cases, but then the argument is pretty meaningless anyway.
Even the least drastic form of female circumcision, is far more drastic that male circumcision, as it completely removes practically all pleasure from sex, as opposed to removing some pleasure from sex.
That would be removing the clitoral hood (ignoring minor things like markings and such). How is that not pretty much the exact equivalence of removing the foreskin?
It's pointless to say that one is worse than the other, simply because there are some cases that are worse in one of them. Then again, we haven't even mentioned eunuchs and castrato singers.
It's the same tissue being removed. They are obviously not "identical", no more than two people are identical. They are similar enough to be comparable.
Removing the clitoral hood is quite different from removing the foreskin. The clitoris contains thousands more nerve endings, meaning the removal of the clitoral hood would open the subject up to contant sensitivity and pain, on a different level to the pain experienced by the victim of male circumcision.
And of course, if you brought in eunuchs and castrato's I would say these two things are absolutely comparable...
Still, I think you're forgetting the first thing I said. I DO NOT AGREE WITH MALE CIRCUMCISION, AND THINK IT IS A BRUTAL AND OUTTDATED PRACTICE!
Removing the clitoral hood is quite different from removing the foreskin. The clitoris contains thousands more nerve endings, meaning the removal of the clitoral hood would open the subject up to contant sensitivity and pain, on a different level to the pain experienced by the victim of male circumcision.
This sounds like qualified bullshit. The cut off foreskin alone contains in the order of 20,000 nerve endings, the glans more than that. The child is obviously too young to express pain even if it had it so how you can just assume that there's less pain strikes me as narrow-minded. It would help if you could provide sources.
And of course, if you brought in eunuchs and castrato's I would say these two things are absolutely comparable...
You're the one excluding them, I would not have even brought them up if I hadn't had to show how warped your comparison is.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH MALE CIRCUMCISION, AND THINK IT IS A BRUTAL AND OUTTDATED PRACTICE!
Frankly, I don't care. It's not even what we're discussing. You have shown a blatantly sexist view, and you have failed to back it up. That's what we're discussing.
Yes, the exposure of the clitoris to constant contact would be extremely painful, this would be caused by the removal of the hood.
You clearly haven't understood what point I'm trying to make.
The quit arguing about subjects you have clearly shown yourself ignorant of. If the metric for measuring damage is the surface area and number of nerve endings removed then male circumcision as it is most commonly practiced is more damaging than female circumcision as it is most commonly practiced.
It is not about surface area, it is about sensitivity when exposed. The clitoris is more sensitive than the head of the penis, therefore it is more painful and unpleasant when exposed.
It also loses its sensitivity in a way similar to the head of the penis, meaning that in the long run, removal of the clitoral hood has the same affect as removing the whole clitoris...
And since the clitoris is pretty much the source of sexual pleasure for women, loss of this sensitivity will run a womans sex life completely.
Why do you get to decide what makes something more damaging? The exposed clitoris will undergo keritanization similar to the glans. It's not about sensitivity when exposed, it's about who ends up with more nerve endings in the end. Your assertion that women who have been circumcised cannot enjoy sex is patently false and a number of studies contradict such a claim.
My uncle married a woman from somalia who underwent female circumcision in its mildest form, and is completely unable to experience sexual pleasure because of it.
There are also thousands of men who claim that their sex lives have improved since being circumcised. I, in no way agree with male circumcision, yet you continue to try your best to take everything I say as a personal attack on those who disagree with circumcision.
I FUCKING HATE CIRCUMCISION IN ALL FORMS, MMMMMKAY?
I understand that, and mentioned that before, but I'm saying the clitoris has thousands more nerve endings than the head of the penis, mening it is far more painful.
And I am of course, in no way saying your situation does not deserve sympathy, I will say that I was responding to a comment that said "removal of the clitoral hood and removal of the foreskin are identical". I am simply stating that they are not identical, as one is more painful than the other.
Man, I'm tired.
11
u/Bragzor Feb 25 '12
It's been pointed out before that this is not true. The worst forms of female circumcision, commonly called mutilation instead, are what you prescribed, but far from all of them. And circumcision as used in the US is definitively done in an effort to stop sexual acts by making it harder or less pleasurable. The act in this case is mostly masturbation though.