I read about this article about this guy who got like 4 years in prison for circumcising his daughter for his religion. Now while this is an awful horrible thing, why is it that it happens to 1 girl and it makes front page news, but its done to 90% of american boys and no one blinks an eye. Studies show it decreases sensitivity by as much as 50%. Decreasing sensitivity is the purpose for circumcising a girl. While it may be worse than male circumcision, that doesnt make male circumcision right. Im so glad i was born in the UK. Thank GOD for that!!! Never had an infection an STD, or ED!!!!
2006-11-03 08:41:24 · 17 answers · asked by xdfsddfgdfgdfg d 1 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
damn im glad i wasnt born into this brainwashing american society. You people act like a foreskin is a diesease. At least we got some sense in the east.
2006-11-03 09:50:42 · update #1
Females are not intended to be circumcised and to do so is a MUTILATION of her genitalia.
As for males it is a matter of choice and and not necessity.
Uncircumcised males require very good perineal care. Bacteria that maybe left under the foreskin can become infected. However males who are circumcised have a lower risk of cancer than those that uncircumcised. Either way it matters little with regard to the male's arousal, performance, and sexual satisfaction whereby a female who has had her vagina mutilated often feels pain and discomfort while having relations and are unable to achieve orgasm. That doesn't happen to males and is a crime perpetrated against females.
2006-11-03 09:19:07 · answer #1 · answered by GrnApl 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Male circumcision was created for cleanliness.
Female circumcision was not to decrease the sensitivity but the REMOVAL of it and thus to discourage women from seeking sexual affairs.
To truly compare the two you would have to chop off the penis and leave the testicles to match the female circumcision which removes the clitoris, but leaves the vagina and if I'm not mistaken in some cases they also sew up part of the vagina opening and place a straw their so to allow an opening for menstruation.
Female circumcision is a barbaric attempt at controlling a women's sexuality and I don't anyone can really make an argument that they are the same thing.
2006-11-03 10:04:38 · answer #2 · answered by snack_daddy10 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
90% of American boys were circumcised? Really? Why? I am surprised. I don't know what the American think and the culture. I think maybe the father is guilty because he was not a doctor while most boys are circumcised by doctors...but why? I think most boys and girls don't need a circumcision, unless for medical reasons, such as tumor....
2006-11-06 05:20:34 · answer #3 · answered by MH 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Circumcision does NOT have the same effect on males and females. Female circumcision actually makes sex quite painful, and renders the victim frigid. Now, I'd say that's a bit more than guys need to worry about.
2006-11-04 17:48:02 · answer #4 · answered by Purplepossum 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No double standard in my opinion. Decrease in sensitivity is not the point of male circumcision. Decrease in infection is the point. Not everyone gets an infection, and you should be happy that you haven't. For those that have had them, and were never taught to properly care for their uncircumcised penis, they wish they had been when they deal with the intense pain. Oh, and it is closer to 70% not, 90%.
2006-11-03 08:44:44 · answer #5 · answered by Blunt Honesty 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Have you been sleeping in a hole all your life? Female circumcision is reportedly being done to thousands of women not just "1" as you put it. In our country anyone who practices medicine without a license is imprisoned.
Your thinking is very juvenile and your compassion misplaced. The issue here is not that the father went to jail but that a "child" was harmed. How fortunate we here in America are that you live an ocean away. Thank You for not contaminating our country with your stupidity.
2006-11-03 14:55:29 · answer #6 · answered by AVA 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It seems totally different to me and unrelated. While such may result in a traumatic change in the case of a female, I've never heard of a male complain about a lack of sensitivity. Also, the baby boy's parents have a choice in this matter and can deny the procedure if they prefer.
2006-11-03 08:53:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Man guys go too fast anyhow so less sensativity is better for us, but dude girls need that sensativity cuz they are hard to get off either way. Plus he might have gone to jail because the religion that does that does it when she turns 13. Now don't you think thats a little old for a father to chop off a chunk of skin from his daughter?
2006-11-03 08:45:57 · answer #8 · answered by mathewhp22 2 · 6⤊ 3⤋
i trust you one hundred%. in spite of the indisputable fact that, the michael richards incident isn't something. seem at each and all of the fuss the media drummed up over the don imus fact. all he did replaced into call them a attractiveness and it grew to develop into headline information for weeks. yet on the comparable time, a youthful white couple replaced into carjacked by capacity of four blacks. the extra youthful female replaced into forced to observe as they murdered her boyfriend and minimize his penis off. then for days, the female replaced into many times raped, sodomized, and tortured. interior the tip, the blacks poured bleach down her throat to wreck all d.n.a. evidence, then they minimize her breasts off and strangled her and set her physique on hearth and the media refused to record it.
2016-10-21 05:20:45 · answer #9 · answered by dorseyiii 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is not a double standard..
Circumcision for men is a good idea..
Circumcision for women is horrible...
Decreasing a mans sensitivity by 50% ( if this is true )
is a blessing to most men..
Men buy lotions which they apply to reduce their sensitivity..
2006-11-03 08:50:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋