Why is female circumcision considered bad but male circumcision considered good?

Question

I don't understand this. Both are cruel and unneccessary AND reduce sexual pleasure, and both are done either forcibly or by intense cultural pressure. But in the US, people are horrified at the idea of female circumcision yet think male circumcision is good.

An uncircumcised penis is natural. The foreskin protects the glans. If a penis wasn't supposed to have a foreskin, males would not be born that way.

Answer 1

Male circumcision is equally mutilation. Just because it has religious roots it doesn't make it right. Perhaps it made sense then to have male circumcision but today science has given us the knowledge of personal hygiene so it is completely uncalled for and an abuse of basic human right.

By the way not all female genital mutilation involves cutting the clitoris.

Answer 2

True, neither is inherently good, but male circumcision is generally viewed as "less destructive" than female circumcision. In male circumcision the foreskin of the penis is removed so the glans is always exposed.

Female circumcision has a much larger range. In its "least invasive" forms it involves simply piercing or remove the clitoral hood (basically the same thing as the male foreskin). However, female circumcision as it's extreme removes the entire clitoris and I think parts of the labia and something weird with the vagina. This is like removing a part of a guy's penis and then some. Clearly, this IS more destructive than any male circumcision.

All the above, male and female, reduce sexual sensitivity and pleasure, and all are inherently unnecessary. However, female circumcision in its most extreme versions can be very dangerous (more dangerous than male circumcision) and can manifest later in life during childbirth.

The ironic thing is that the arguments against female circumcision is usually not applied to male circumcision. There is a double-standard that shouldn't exist. Some of the fundamental arguments against female circumcision are the child's decision, the child's genital integrity, and the child's ownership of her own body. Why does neither of these apply to males? This is what most bothers me. It isn't fair to say that female circumcision is "worse" than male circumcision, because that's a given. But that doesn't decrease the fact that male circumcision violates those three arguments as well, just for males instead.

It isn't logical to say that male circumcision "may have some benefits" because there are actually some articles, very few, that state that "properly done" female circumcision may confer some health benefits. Clearly most people automatically disregard these. Again, there is a double-standard. Some things in life don't make sense, and some things aren't fair.

Answer 3

I usually avoid Bible verses unless necessary to answer a question - about yours.... male circumcision was done Biblically, but after Christ was crucified, thats one of those rituals no longer needed for that particular purpose; Religious circumcision has no gender intended - it is circumcision of the heart. That said, it is done regardless of religion; it is done today for medical reasons, for cleanliness. It would be a nesting ground for unfathomable types of bacteria. My son was done in the hospital right after birth, and they didn't ask me first if I was of a specific religion in order to do it. Female circumcism is genital mutilation; when a male is done, it does not affect the operations of the penis; but with a female, it destroys all the nerves that would provide pleasure; also, if you ever saw the documentary they have on Discovery channel about girls who are done in tribes in North Africa, you would see that they don't even wash off the razor blade - and, theres no pain killers or antibiotics given - nothing. They just scream and bleed, and these are female "children", about the age of 10-11. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with religion is my point. The reason they said females are "done" is so that they will concentrate on raising the family and doing the work needed, instead of thinking about pleasuring themselves. Its pretty harsh.

Answer 4

I agree with you, males are routinely circumcised and should not be. My son was taken against my permission and circumcised. There are claims that it is done for hygienic reasons, but isn't that what soap and water is for?

Anyway, to call the mutilation that is done to females circumcision is dreadfully understating the event. It is castration, not circumcision. The male equivalent would be to remove your entire penis. Which should be done as a matter of course to anyone that does this to another human being.

Peace.

Lizzy, I beg to differ, the removal of all or part of sexual organs IS castration, it matters not if you leave some of the organs intact.

Answer 5

Wow, that's like comparing chalk to cheese! Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with male circumcision but comparing the removal of some foreskin to the removal of a woman clitoris, come on! Male circumcision developed as a hygiene thing in desert lands the removal of the clitoris is a control thing. At least if you lose your foreskin you still get pleasure from sex! And I won't even get into the wonderful infections women get from this, you try urinating and menstruating through the same small hole that is left when everything is sewn together and then have intercourse. Yikes!

Answer 6

Female circumcision is horrible. I don't think male circumcision is good either. And it was the men's idea, not the womens'. I agree with you about non-circumcision. Any bodily mutilation is bad, but I guess a Moyo can twist religion where genital mutilation is just what god ordered. Go figure.

Answer 7

you obviously don't understand that female "circumcision" removes the clitoris, and follow up is that labia are sewn shut.

Check out movie "Moolade" came out about a year ago.

Equivalent for a guy would be having your glans cut off. Think about that.

(btw I am anti male circumcision too, God gave us a foreskin for a purpose)

Answer 8

female circumcision is done to prevent the women in those ethnic backrounds from enjoying sex! they say a woman is not supposed to enjoy themselves even if she is married and this is done removing almost all of the woman's sexual organ,whereas male circumcision is removal(and i agree it is unnecessary today)of the foreskin only!one is cruel and evil the other was rooted in the judacial christian society in the bible,to seperate god's people from the nations.'cause of the sexual practices of the pagans/surrounding nations.but,female "circumcision"is nowhere mentioned in the bible 'cause it is a cruel practice.

Answer 9

Male circumcision is good. I am very happy that my parents had me circumcised like my dad and my brothers. My wife and sons prefer it also. It is NOT a mutilation. Look up the word in any good dictionary.

There is nothing wrong about being uncircumcised if you don't neglect daily or twice daily hygiene. Many uncut men don't keep themselves clean, about 75% in the United Kingdom. Or if you ignore continuous infections under the foreskin or have a very tight foreskin, please consider circumcision. A lot of adults have it done. I have never heard that any of them regret it.

Female circumcision is the removal of the tiny foreskin of the female. It is a rarity but some women in the USA prefer it, and some men do also.

Female "circumcision" in Africa and in other parts of the world is a misnomer. It is really clitorectomy and the removal of the external female sex organs to prevent proper female sexuality.
It IS A MUTILATION. It is an abomination. The UN is trying to get it stopped. I wholeheartedly support its abolition.

As to some of the anticirc opinions voiced here, I am sorry to say they are unfair and incorrect. They are dictatorial and wrong. They distort the truth about circumcision. They are fanatics. My parents helped me understand why I was circumcised. I agree with them and in no way feel my rights were denied. My sons agree with me. We are highly educated. But people of all walks of life prefer circumcision. The rate remains as about 85% at infancy. It is not done as much in the hospital as it is now as outpatients in doctors offices. Pain killers are used in most cases and should be used. Babies then sleep throught the procedure. But the anticircs are attempting to tell us what to do. No one has a right to confuse the good will of parents with my human rights. I am sad that the anticircs cannot understand that we live in a democratic country (USA).

Answer 10

I agree w/ all you said, but the reason female circimcision is horrifying is that it is not just the foreskin (labia minoris) that is removed. The clitoris is removed, the vagina is sometimes sewn into an extremely small opening, at times the labia majoris....outer lips....are removed. The term "genital mutilation" is very correct. If you were to remove the penis and testicles of a male, you would have a similiar situation. In fact, this was sometimes done in years past, resulting in eunuchs.