not so fun fact: there is such a thing as female circumcision and it is a horrifying concept. It is also known as female genital mutilation and is pretty much used to remove the pleasure from sexual experiences to reduce her “libido” and the procedure is done when the girl is still young.
Which is vastly more prevalent, circumcision or female genital mutilation?
Furthermore, you do understand circumcision is prevalent in the Western world today stemming from a 19th Century belief that circumcision would prevent masturbation, and that belief continued well into the 1950s, yes? Prior to that, circumcision had ceased in near-entirety as a Christian practice by the 15th Century. Yes, circumcision in the modern world was done literally to remove pleasure from sexual experience and reduce libido.
Why is circumcision prevalent today, you might ask? Well, foreskins are big fucking business. I could posit a few things about feminism, women and cosmetic products, the use of foreskins in that industry, and the social implications thereof, but I’m feeling charitable and won’t here.
Prevalence doesn’t matter. You cannot compare removing the foreskin of a baby to literally cutting up, slicing off, and MUTILATING the genitals of an infant or toddler female’s vagina, without proper medical care, or even in a hospital environment, without anaesthetic, literally cutting the clitoris off. Circumcision these days has been done for medical reasons, more often than not, because doctors tell you that it reduces the risk of infection, so it’s done for the benefit of the child. In a hospital. With proper medical care, with anaesthetic. Female genital mutilation is done for NO OTHER REASON, EVERthan to reduce sexual pleasure. Female infants die from it all the time, from bleeding to death, and they’re not given any kind of pain medication.
You CAN NOT compare the two.
I don’t know how or why FGM gets compared to circumcision when there’s such a difference between the two. If there was a female* equivalent to circumcision it would probably be labiaplasty, while the male equivalent of FGM would be having the head of the dick cut off. As much as I’m against male circumcision, I’m not going to compare it to something that amounts to amputation.
* yes, I know, I know. If someone could tell me a better way of labelling them rather than “male” sex organs and “female” sex organs, I’d be very grateful.
Exactly. FGM has absolutely NO VALID REASON TO EXIST aside from oppressing females. Circumcision has some basis in medical science, FGM has none and is ALWAYS detrimental to the victim, it is done with no good intentions, unlike circumcision.
>Circumcision has some basis in medical science
Which is why it predates all the current “medical science” “justifying” it by hundreds if not thousands of years, of course.
Also, MGM is generally performed without anesthetic as well. They take a baby boy, strap him down, then rip the outside of his dick off. There are forms of FGM that are much less invasive than that, and I can’t help but wonder why the people who go “FGM and Circ aren’t comparable!!1” never mention those kinds. In fact, the bit where you describe FGM could easily be used to describe MGM as well. Just swap out the gendered bits.
You cannot compare removing the foreskin of a baby to literally cutting up, slicing off, and MUTILATING the genitals of an infant or toddler, without proper medical care, or even in a hospital environment, without anaesthetic, literally [ripping a part of their dick off].
Also, FGM is commonly done to teenage girls, not just infants, and MGM does kill baby boys. And in David Reimer’s case, a grown man.
http://www.voanews.com/content/thirty-more-south-african-boys-die-after-botched-circumcision-ritual/1697451.html Oh, look, MGM performed for religious reasons.
Of course, you can argue that these many deaths aren’t statistically significant, but then you’d be talking about prevalence, which you claimed doesn’t matter. So with that out of the way, circ is just as bad as FGM by every metric you came up with.
I love how y’all move the goalposts to “Well, male circ isn’t ENTIRELY done to reduce sexual pleasure and libido!” and completely ignore the point about its highly profitable use in the cosmetic industry. Also, good job for focusing on my joke instead of the actual main point of the post.
Your problem isn’t with people comparing the two, it’s with people comparing the two and not coming up with the same result you do. Which is why you have to actively ignore prevalence, and use dishonest language when you do make the comparison. Either that, or you don’t really know much about male circ, which ain’t exactly a remote probability.
serious question I’m going to regret asking: what is the relationship of foreskin and beauty products?