[Commentary] On Male Genital Mutilation

[belinus]

It seems odd but I have to laugh when I hear someone get hysterical about female genital mutilation happening in the world. I laugh not out of any sick sense of humor or misogyny, but rather at the hypocrisy of these individuals. They cry about women in far off countries having the clitoris forcibly removed but yet they are strangely silent, and in

Comments

Re: I heart math.

[belinus]

I do not view them the same in regards to the medical aspect since the procedures in and of themselves because they cannot be compared in that way against each other. Circumcision is generally performed by a medical practitioner or someone trained specifically to do it (i.e. a Rabbi) and are done using sterile instruments in a clean/sterile environment. Clitorectomies are generally performed in antithetical conditions.

Since the environments are so radically different they confound the statistics in terms of the rates. For example there is a lot of HIV transmission now in FGM but that is not a side effect of the procedure but rather the environment and instruments in which it was performed.

Those numbers could easily be reversed if clitorectomies were performed by doctors in clinics/hospitals and circumcisions were done in the village square or wherever clitorectomies are performed now.

In terms of the sexual side effects, they are identicle. Rates will vary because age plays a factor but the psychosexual stuff is the same. Feelings of incompleteness, depression, and anxiety in women which are the same feelings some circumcised men describe as well. There is even a positive correlation between infant boys who receive no anesthetic during circumcision and pain they experience later in medical procedures like innoculations.

Re: I heart math.

[dianak]

If the situations were reversed, I doubt the stats would change, as there is evidence that circumsicions have been done for centuries. Those weren't all done in "sterile environments".

I could also argue the rest, but honestly, I just want to point out that you are comparing two things you yourself said you couldn't compare... your argument that circumcision and clitorectomies are both mutilation in every case, when there's no real scientific evidence that a properly done circumcision has any side effects does NOT hold up. You may want to look at some of those links I sent you, as well as some more information regarding this, because you really can't say what you're saying and back it up with the arguments you've provided.

Re: I heart math.

[allamericanjock]

"In terms of the sexual side effects, they are identicle."
That's not true. You're talking about the psychological after-effects. In terms of physical side-effects: removing the clitoris (according to my understanding) reduces the woman's ability to be sexually stimulated DRAMATICALLY more than removing foreskin reduces a man's ability to be sexually stimulated.

Removing the entire clitoris, I would think, would be more like removing a man's entire penis.... a practice that is not condoned in any culture.

Re: I heart math.

[belinus]

Actually, it would be like removing the head. The "male clitoris" is where the foreskin connects to the head of the penis.

Re: I heart math.

[dianak]

It'd be more like chopping off the tip/head of the penis. Either way, though, you're correct; no one would dare practice that!

a female mutilation doesn't just reduce female sexual arousal dramatically, it removes it entirely. Which is, actually, why the "practice" started. It began (experts claim, anyway, I'm no expert) because men didn't want their women to be sexually promiscuous, and wanted them to stay tied to one man, their husband. By removing their sexual pleasure source, this tended to happen, because for the woman the sex became incredibly painful. This of course did NOT stop the men from having sex with whomever they want, including the "loose" women of the town who did not have this done to them.