As someone who has little information on the subject and doesn't want circumcision pictures in his search history, what is the difference between it and FGM?
In a purely objective manner, male circumcision is removing the foreskin. FGM is typically done in more archaic traditions, mostly in the middle East or in middle eastern communities. Not as prevalent as male circumcision however. FGM can range from the worst sewing the vulva shut, cutting off the clitoris, or removing the hyman.
While many anti male circumcision activists like to call both sides genital mutilation no matter how you put it, that blanket term worsens the real effects on men and lightens the effects on women. In men a botched circumcision is rare and the long term differences between uncircumcised and circumcised makes according to some studies is less sensitivity during sex, other studies claim that circumcision helps prevent contracting HIV. The long term consequences for women who face FGM is irreparable damage to their sexual organs in almost all cases of FGM, zero sensitivity during sex for those who've had the clitoris cut, among other potential relationship issues along the road that stems from a result of it.
This has nothing to do with whether or not male circumcision is moral or ethical, but everything to do with people who would have to be delusional to say that both male and females face the same effects.
While many anti male circumcision activists like to call both sides genital mutilation no matter how you put it, that blanket term worsens the real effects on men and lightens the effects on women.
I mean, no matter that the procedures are usually much worse for the women (about 5% are the male equivalent clitoral hood removal) - they are both still ritual mutilation of the genitals, there is no way to avoid that. In general, ritual mutilation is a very blanket term - and much of it isn't especially damaging or debilitating, for basic practical reasons - you know, because people need to function. That's why much of it is cosmetic, scarification, tattooing, removing or altering of non-essential body parts, etc.
Maybe the solution to your linguistic situation is to find a weightier term for FGM - because it really is far more damaging than the norm, not make special exceptions for male circumcision.
99% of Type IV FGM (which btw is also the most common type worldwide) is less invasive than regular old circumcision, and nobody in the west stands for that nonsense.
12 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-04-02
Providing a Safe Space™ from SRD since 2009!
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a lifesbrink 2017-04-02
Ah, fundamentalist Christian in the wild...nice!
n/a Peetrius 2017-04-02
Why do people bother posting these? It's literally the same shit every time.
People defend it on freedom of religion
People falsely equate it to FGM
Slap fight ensues
It got old years ago
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-02
As someone who has little information on the subject and doesn't want circumcision pictures in his search history, what is the difference between it and FGM?
n/a Peetrius 2017-04-02
In a purely objective manner, male circumcision is removing the foreskin. FGM is typically done in more archaic traditions, mostly in the middle East or in middle eastern communities. Not as prevalent as male circumcision however. FGM can range from the worst sewing the vulva shut, cutting off the clitoris, or removing the hyman.
While many anti male circumcision activists like to call both sides genital mutilation no matter how you put it, that blanket term worsens the real effects on men and lightens the effects on women. In men a botched circumcision is rare and the long term differences between uncircumcised and circumcised makes according to some studies is less sensitivity during sex, other studies claim that circumcision helps prevent contracting HIV. The long term consequences for women who face FGM is irreparable damage to their sexual organs in almost all cases of FGM, zero sensitivity during sex for those who've had the clitoris cut, among other potential relationship issues along the road that stems from a result of it.
This has nothing to do with whether or not male circumcision is moral or ethical, but everything to do with people who would have to be delusional to say that both male and females face the same effects.
n/a ______________pewpew 2017-04-02
Delete your foreskin.
n/a eskachig 2017-04-02
I mean, no matter that the procedures are usually much worse for the women (about 5% are the male equivalent clitoral hood removal) - they are both still ritual mutilation of the genitals, there is no way to avoid that. In general, ritual mutilation is a very blanket term - and much of it isn't especially damaging or debilitating, for basic practical reasons - you know, because people need to function. That's why much of it is cosmetic, scarification, tattooing, removing or altering of non-essential body parts, etc.
Maybe the solution to your linguistic situation is to find a weightier term for FGM - because it really is far more damaging than the norm, not make special exceptions for male circumcision.
n/a TraurigAberWahr 2017-04-02
why "falsely"?
99% of Type IV FGM (which btw is also the most common type worldwide) is less invasive than regular old circumcision, and nobody in the west stands for that nonsense.
n/a Peetrius 2017-04-02
Wew lad I'm not falling for the b8
n/a TraurigAberWahr 2017-04-02
it's just the truth.
n/a i_lick_fedoras 2017-04-02
I'd have slightly more respect for these people if they just admitted that they don't have enough willpower to break a pointless tradition.
n/a HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-04-02
Uncircumcised dicks look like carrots