Comparing circumcision to FGM is grotesque. And wrong. Here's why:

[cali]

<snip>

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is an ancient cultural practice that predates both Christianity and Islam. It is not a religious precept of any religion although there is a persistent belief in the minds of millions that it is. Predominantly seen in Moslem communities it is also practiced by small communities of Eastern orthodox Christians, such as the Coptic Christian church (although not widely). Some African cultures practice FGM as a physical rite of passage without any pretense that it is a religious mandate (such as the Maasai). Although predominantly practiced throughout Africa and the Middle East, it has also known up in places as disparate as Indonesia, China, and Chechnya. Because of the widespread dislocation and migration of the many peoples who practice FGM, it is now showing up throughout Europe and the United States.

FGM comes in three basic forms, from the most extreme to the still extreme. It has been referred to as female circumcision but that is a gross misnomer and imparts on this practice a suggestion that it is the equal of male circumcision.

It is not.

If male circumcision were its equal then male circumcision would be (in its most benign form) the reduction or modification of the male penis in order to reduce or eliminate full sexual pleasure. In its most extreme form it is more the equivalent of castration with the exception that reproduction is still possible for a woman because the womb and other organs of reproduction are left intact.

The goal with FGM is not sterility but the mutilation of the external genitalia in order to diminish or erase the sexual drive in women. Some cultures also believe that the modification of the external genitalia is desirable aesthetically or justified under the grossly mistaken belief that is it best for hygienic and health reasons.

<snip>

http://www.opednews.com/articles/FGM-What-Now-for-Egyptian-by-Maureen-Gill-110216-998.html

[Boswell]

1. both are wrong IMHO

but yes FGM is much much wronger on many levels.

[cali]

2. Comparing them is just absurd.

[Boswell]

9. oh I agree

as far as that goes, at least modern circumcision goes, it can be pretty horrific if you look at history. but seeing just who and how FGM is perfomed on today (unsanitary, as well as not even any pain killers perfomed on a grown woman) the comparison as far as trying to diminish the pain and concequence to the women involved is absurd.

[social_critic]

19. They sure sound the same to me

But I haven't had either done. I'm a guy, I wouldn't let a doctor within 10 ft of my thing with a knife if his intent was to cut me.

The two seem to be forms of mutilation carried out for various reasons. I think there's a cultural issue here, since so many of you practice it, or did it to your children, you think your form of mutilation is just fine. To me, both are barbaric.

[cali]

23. wow. that's amazing. you think cutting off the clitoris and labia are the same as

cutting the foreskin?

They ain't. And no, I did not have my son circumcised. I think circumcision is unnecessary, but boys who have been circumcised go on to have enjoyable sex lives. I've had sex with men who were circumcised and men who weren't and they all were just fine.

[loudsue]

3. This is the most heinous of crimes. It's worse than rape, because

it means that a woman is forever unwilling to have sex because of the pain, and will therefore always be raped, in a way.

[WinkyDink]

4. I think the absurdity is evidenced daily in the lack of male complaints about their circumsized

state.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

29. If you were circumcised as an infant, you don't know what you are missing as an adult.

Very simple.

The foreskin has several purposes. It keeps the glans moist and protected. It makes sex a lot more pleasurable to the woman because the man is sliding around inside his own skin, instead of irritating the vagina and making the woman's vagina sore.

I am a fifty something female. I have very little experience with the uncut ones, but they are a lot more pleasurable. I can see why the Victorians who were anti-sex were in favor of circumcision. It makes sex a lot rougher and uncomfortable, even with adequate lubrication.

Maimonides admitted that circumcision weakened the organ a bit.

It's still anti-sexual pleasure, and it's sad that so many men do not have a choice in the matter.
They don't know what they are missing. That sensitive tissue and nerve endings were taken from them before they were sexually active.

[Crystal Clarity]

31. What does this have to do w/FGM?

Other then I guess to say that maybe circumcised men might be missing out on pleasure that we know the FGM victims are?

Ironically, from my anecdotal experiences, yes I admit that they ARE anecdotal, but... in the 2 long term relationships in my life, it was my ex-husband (the uncircumcised one) who had issues. No matter how much I tried to re-assure him, he was very self-conscious about it. He often lamented about how he never dared to play HS sports for fear of being seen in the locker room, and he told me about some sexual encounters he had before me where the women were "turned off" by it. I guess as a result of these, and who know what else, he just had a very hard time w/it. And I REALLY tried to calm these insecurities but to no avail. He refused counseling. Shortly before our divorce, he had it done as an adult.

Meanwhile, my circumcised SO of 21 years has no issue with having been circumcised. I know some men do, and I'm not trying to argue for or against the procedure...

But I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that, we KNOW for a fact that the sexual pleasure of women who have had FGM performed on them is GONE. That is the overall purpose of FGM. That is not the purpose of circumcision and the result does not appear to be NO pleasure for the majority of men.

I read somewhere upthread that some guys on DU make this comparison. That seems odd to me. Apples and oranges imho.

[WinkyDink]

34. Yes, let's reach back to MAIMONIDES.

[Pithlet]

36. Males don't know what they're missing. Same isn't true with females.

There's your difference. A big one.

[MicaelS]

5. Agreed, I'm a man, and IMO.....

Any man who compares being circumcised to FGM is a fool.

[cali]

6. sadly, there are more than a few here who make that comparison.

[MicaelS]

7. Yes, I've read their posts, and I just shake my head n/t

[social_critic]

22. You would have to do more than shake your head to convince me otherwise

Both are forms of mutilation. I've seen people who put bones through their nose, and hang weights from their earlobes to stretch them. Those are forms of mutilation as well.

You should have the intellectual honesty to admit it's a form of mutilation, period. You either got cut, or you cut your kids, or your religion tells you to do it, and you think YOUR form (whatever it is) is fine. But it's still mutilation, and it's still primitive and barbaric.

[donheld]

8. Am I too late?

:popcorn::beer:

[xchrom]

10. recommend

[MineralMan]

11. I completely agree.

K&R

[apocalypsehow]

12. Kick, Rec, and put the DU fire department on notice all at the same time....n/t.

[yurbud]

13. non-Jewish circumcision in US WAS originally about reducing pleasure

It started in the Victorian era to discourage masturbation, and now coasts as a brain dead tradition.

It is not as bad as FGM, but only as a matter of degree.

Also, if the effect is the same, does it matter what the intent is?

Someone could say they are beating their child out of love, but if the kid ends up dead, for the kid himself, the motive is the same as if they killed him on purpose.

[apocalypsehow]

16. Comparing male circumcision to beating a child to death is *another* dubious comparison, but lets

put that aside and ask you about this:

"non-Jewish circumcision in US WAS originally about reducing pleasure

It started in the Victorian era to discourage masturbation"

I have never heard this about circumcision (though it's not like I've studied the issue much in any event), and would be interested in reading some history on the phenomenon of Victorian-era surge in said practice for the sole purpose of reducing sexual pleasure.

Do you have a cite or link to such material? Thanks in advance.

[yurbud]

17. have you heard of the google? try circumcision history united states

It's not some esoteric conspiracy theory, it's pretty widely known.

[apocalypsehow]

32. So, no link or cite. Well, I tried. "have you heard of the google" is not a very polite way to

respond to a request for information that was made in good faith by a fellow DU'er.

"It's not some esoteric conspiracy theory, it's pretty widely known"

I did not claim it was a "conspiracy theory" of any kind; you made a claim, and I simply asked you for some corroborating data/information that would confirm said claim, and, perhaps, allow me to learn about something new in the process.

You have refused to comply with this polite request, for reasons that are not clear.

Regardless, it is the veracity of your claim that then comes into question, not the reasonableness of my polite inquiry.

Have a good evening.


Edit: typo.

[yurbud]

35. I was at work. Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#Male_circumcision_to_prevent_masturbation

[apocalypsehow]

38. Thank you - this link is appreciated. I will check it out. n/t.

[riderinthestorm]

14. K and R! nt

[DearAbby]

15. Both are wrong,

Both are GENITAL MUTILATION. To me LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION, makes them the same. Reasons may be different. If Nature meant for a human being to have less skin at that location, it would have evolved that way.

[cali]

20. but they couldn't more obviously NOT be the same.

That you actually think this is about less skin in the genital area displays you're gross ignorance. sad to see it.

[DearAbby]

30. Both are gential mutilation

the reasoning for it not relevant. Anyone can place reason on any action, ie..the bible was used to explain slavery, we all know slavery is wrong. Be it male genital mutilation of an infant who has no say in what happens to his penis, a sign of dedication for god. Or a female being mutilated for Allah. It's WRONG.

[Vinca]

18. In the late 1960's I entered nursing school. One of the things that made me decide

it wasn't for me was the witnessing of a circumcision on a screaming infant. It was one of the most horrible things I've ever seen.

[cali]

21. just imagine how much worse it is to see a woman's clitoris and labia cut out

much, much, much worse.

[uppityperson]

24. If "Comparing circumcision to FGM is grotesque", then why are you doing it here?

Seriously. Why compare if such is grotesque?

[cali]

26. I'm objecting to it because I see it here frequently. I'm not doing it.

[uppityperson]

25. I saw one in 80's and that did it for me.

He may not have remembered but he sure as hell felt it.

[cali]

27. These are some of the medical consequences of FGM

Other serious long term health effects are also common. These include urinary and reproductive tract infections, caused by obstructed flow of urine and menstrual blood, various forms of scarring and infertility. Epidermal inclusion cysts may form and expand, particularly in procedures affecting the clitoris. These cysts can grow over time and can become infected, requiring medical attention such as drainage.<37> The first episode of sexual intercourse will often be extremely painful for infibulated women, who will need the labia majora to be opened, to allow their partner access to the vagina. This second cut, sometimes performed by the partner with a knife, can cause other complications to arise.

A June 2006 study by the WHO has cast doubt on the safety of genital cutting of any kind.<1> This study was conducted on a cohort of 28,393 women attending delivery wards at 28 obstetric centers in areas of Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal and The Sudan. A high proportion of these mothers had undergone FGC. According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum haemorrhage compared to women without FGC. Estimating from these results, and doing a rough population estimate of mothers in Africa with FGC, an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies in Africa die during delivery as a result of the mothers having undergone genital cutting.

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Medical_consequence

[Manifestor_of_Light]

28. Both are wrong in my opinion.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[Union Scribe]

37. Oh, I've heard of these threads.

:yoiks: