circucision is a lot worse than male?
I do i just want to get other ppls opinions on it.
2006-07-25 12:14:46 · 11 answers · asked by bobatemydog 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Other - Cultures & Groups
In some countries and religion the completely remove the clitoris this is known as female circumcision, it is so woman cannot enjoy sex so they wont have pre marital sex or stray during their marriage.
2006-07-25 12:20:29 · update #1
Oh, absolutely! But that really depends on what kind of female circumcision you're talking about. If you were to do to a female what is done to a male, then ONLY THE CLITORAL HOOD would be removed, and that's usually not harmful at all.
But what they usually do is that they remove the entire clitoris (which is like removing the whole penis). And then some of them remove the labia minora, too. And then some of them even take off the labia majora, and sew up the wound so that only a teensy little hole remains (for the urine and the menstrual blood to come out of), and then her husband OPENS HER UP WITH A KNIFE whenevern he wants to have vaginal intercourse.
The men who are anti-circ DO have a valid point. It's pretty rare for a (male) circumcision to be medically necessary, and it's usually only done because it's become a "custom." (Some of those guys are SO anti-circ that they're even against medically-necessary circumcisions: They feel that ANY alternative is better than circumcision.)
BTW, female circumcision is better-known as FGM, or "female genital mutilation," because that's what it IS. It's about keeping women under control and about making them oriented solely toward marriage and motherhood and not toward sex (because sex is not pleasurable, or it hurts too much).
Male circumcision was often done in the past (when not done for religious reasons) because it's easier to keep the penis clean if there is no foreskin under which to develop smegma. Lots of mothers don't teach their sons about how to keep clean! This is why guys who are uncircumcised sometimes have a reputation for being smelly and dirty. But it doesn't have to be that way! I don't feel that it's necessary to circumcise a bunch of people in the name of "hygiene." All that's needed is education.
2006-07-25 12:30:05 · answer #1 · answered by Cyn 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely!! Male circumcision is quick, heals fairly easily when done as an infant. Female circumcision would be the equivalent to ripping out a male's penis without real regard for damage or pain. The females in those cultures still practicing this horrific procedure have virtually no rights at all. The goal of female circumcision is to prevent any pleasure from sexual intercourse. It is done under frequently insufficient pain control or sterility. Post surgical infection is very common. Hope this helps...
2006-07-25 19:36:16 · answer #2 · answered by john d 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, definitely. It makes her unable to enjoy sex, and is the complete removal of at least one part of her genitalia (the clitoris). It also leads to complications with childbirth and menstruation. Male circumcision isn't ideal, but at least the penis still works the way it's supposed to and doesn't hurt a man to use afterwards.
2006-07-25 19:47:32 · answer #3 · answered by GreenEyedLilo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is. In male circumcision only the foreskin is removed, it doesn't affect his sexuality or performance in any way. However, with female circumcision, the clitoris is removed, therefore preventing her from experiencing most of her pleasure during intercourse or foreplay.
2006-07-25 19:21:03 · answer #4 · answered by somebrowning 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, male circumcision is to make things easier to clean. Female circumcision is to stop sex from feeling good so she won't cheat.
2006-07-25 19:19:17 · answer #5 · answered by stezus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's horrible especially since it's done in countries that when they do it it spreads all those horrible diseases and it's not sanitary at all. It's basically like they are doing it in the medieval days when no one knew what the heck they were doing (in some cases at least.)
2006-07-25 19:19:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's horrible.
Mainly because it's done without the woman's consent. Whatever someone chooses to do with their body is their choice, but when it's done against their wishes/will, it's abuse and mutilation.
2006-07-25 19:19:09 · answer #7 · answered by Lil' Dog 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Especially since there is far less to work with and can easily become removal.
2006-07-25 19:17:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, it sexually ruins a female for life
2006-07-25 19:19:05 · answer #9 · answered by Shybruh 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, but I'm sure both can be equally painful, lol
2006-07-25 19:27:08 · answer #10 · answered by lil m 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋