Why is it that male circumcision is so much more accepted than female? I'm not saying that female circ is ok by any means, I just think that male circ is just as bad. I know that the intent with FGM is to keep women under control, but a little known fact is that male circumcision was first thought up as a way to stop boys from masturbating. Either way, the intent doesn't change the fact that the real effects are the same. The foreskin is very sensitive, and losing it decreases sexual pleasure significantly. Plus, without foreskin, the glans of the penis is exposed, and develops to be thicker, like a callus, further decreasing pleasure. There are no proven medical reasons for it, in fact the foreskin helps keep dirt and bacteria out. It's kind of like eyelids - you wouldn't cut off your eyelids as an attempt to keep your eyes cleaner, would you? The other thing people often bring up is the fact that male circ is a religious ceremony. Female circ sometimes is too!
2007-03-24 06:28:34 · 6 answers · asked by Onyx Blackman 3 in Health ➔ Men's Health
Genital cutting is genital cutting is genital cutting.
NO ONE has any business cutting on another person's healthy tissue without their consent.
2007-03-24 08:31:49 · answer #1 · answered by boingo82 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's interesting that guys who have foreskins are always the ones yelling about how great it is for sex - when guys who are cut seem just fine and happy with being cut. You can't compare FGM to MGM...dude - FGM removes the entire **** which is little cutting off a guy's entire penis. Foreskin removal in males removes only that - the sleeve of skin cover the glans. Sex is not hindered in anyway - the reports that claim foreskinned men are more sensitive are always from people who say it's due to loss of sensation - but HOW do you measure something so subjective as penis sensititivity = it's impossible....
2007-03-24 07:51:45 · answer #2 · answered by Richard H 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There are two studies, one that will be officially published in April, that have found that sensitivity is less in circumcised guys, and one that shows that 60% of guys who get circumcised report worse sex after the surgery. They're in the top portion of this page:
http://forums.govteen.com/showpost.php?p=3069995&postcount=2
(another study, also listed in that link, found a higher rate of erectile dysfunction after circumcision)
Female circumcision is, well, it depends what you're talking about. There's also just the removal of the clitoral hood, and that's illegal too, even though it's just like male circumcision. But when you remove the entire ****, I prefer to call that mutilation.
2007-03-24 08:23:57 · answer #3 · answered by Jorge 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A full 90% of women say sex is better with an intact man. http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html And a new study out this week proves conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that circumcision decreases sensitivity for the man. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x
So if it makes things worse for him AND for his future wife, why do parents persist in mutilating their sons? It should be illegal except for the very rare cases of medical necessity.
2007-03-24 14:55:27 · answer #4 · answered by Maple 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
what is all about?
to take away from a woman something that is there for her pleasure is as bad as taking something that is in a man for his own too.That you are minimizing the size of the klitoris compared to the penis as gross,less sensitive is not only INSENSITIVE is crude and biased for being blind to sadism
2007-03-26 01:27:33 · answer #5 · answered by Lucy,I'm honry! 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ummm yeah sure w/e. I think you are just mad that you aren't circumcised. It's alright.
B
2007-03-24 07:34:40 · answer #6 · answered by B20Mac 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋