RE: Elephant in the Room: Female Genital Mutilation is bad, so why is Male Circumcision OK?
Without getting into the debate (because I really haven't settled), I think there's a problem with equating the two. One deprives the recipient of sexual pleasure and, in extreme cases, results in a lifetime of pain, especially during intercourse. The other may (probably does?) result in some reduced sensation, but rarely causes any physical issues after the initial healing.
IMO, a more rightful comparison would be to compare the removing of the clitoris with the removal of the penis (or perhaps the head?). Someone can call it mutilation if they want, but the distinction should be kept clear. What's done to women/girls is far more grievous than the removal of the male foreskin. Again IMO, equating the two at all diminishes the horror of what is done to the female.
I disagree.
The inference that there is a slight loss of sexual sensitivity is based on evidence that is at best biased and flawed. Further FGM practices vary. I am not suggesting that they are equally bad in terms of the severity - I am making the point that from moral perspective the issues are very similar. I find the idea of cutting off a babies foreskin horrific in itself.
Murder is worse than beating someone but they are both wrong.
Just because one thing is more extreme it does not make the the less extreme any more acceptable. That is a logical fallacy.
No, not more acceptable, but more horrific. It is more horrific to cut off an arm than a finger, for instance. Neither is acceptable.
I have no clue on the loss of sensitivity.
Men shouldn't have to mention women's issues every time they are to speak of their own. They should be able to speak without having to say that women have it worse to be taken seriously, to avoid being called misoginist, or avoid being accused of playing victims or derailing the conversation from people who are truly struggling.
Yes.
The comparison was made in the OP, so it's entirely relevant in this discussion. It was this particular aspect of the OP that I was addressing.
I've tried taking the opportunity to call for more awareness to this practice when I see it being discussed elsewhere and this is the kind of reasoning I get for comparing the two, but it also happens for other issues that relate to men too. I just wanted to place it somewhere in this thread, it wasn't meant for you :)
It shouldnt be contrasted with FGM. The arguments happen when trying to equate things that aren't equivalent. I can't say that reading about FGM that it sounds anything close to a liveable procedure.
A baby shouldn't be mutilated in a way he can't even choose for reasons of superstitions or some assumed aesthetic appeal. do some mothers think something like: "I prefer cut cocks so I'm concerned how my son will do sexually if his isn't" ? Really...It should be illegal. Can always brave it later --if he chooses to be that damn religious he deserves it lol sorry had to
Yes I understand what you're saying and I am not saying they are equally severe. We just rarely hear about the male side even though it is more common.
As for the research and evidence on sensitivity. I think the problem is there is no really good way to research this ethically. It would also be hard to get funding for this given the controversies and the fact that there is nothing in it for drug companies. Also if you have had it done as a child then you don't know any better so can't really say what you have or haven't lost.
I'm pretty certain uncut is more sensitive. Just an observation lol
It makes sense given the number of nerve endings involved.