Why do guys think that...?

Question

male circumcision is as bad as female circumcision? Female circumcision, or mutilation rather, is done to minimize, not enhance, the female sexual enjoyment. It is often performed under unsterile conditions with a rusty razor blade, whereas male circumcision is typically performed under sterile conditions with proper instruments, and with no risk of bleeding to death or getting infections. Non-technically speaking, female circumcision usually involves the complete removal of the clitoris, which is the sole spot of sexual pleasure and enjoyment. It is done to keep women subjugated as breeding machines, whereas male circumcision is simply removing some skin that would otherwise get in the way.

So please, explain this to me.

Answer 1

female circumcision does not include removal of the clitoris; only the covering. Just like male circumcision does not include the removal of all or part of the glans. So please keep the comparisons equal and do not include blatant mutilation of the genitals in your definitio of circumcision.

And yes, in priomitive cultures, circumcisions may well be done under less than ideal conditions. But that is to both men and women. In those regions, circumcision is a ritual not a medical procedure.

Though in countries where female circumcision is banned, it may well be done under less than ideal comditions due to the need to hide the fact it is being done. After all, no hospital is going to allow it and no doctor is going to do it. So those whose culture requires it are resorting to an undergournd system to have it done by non-qualified people.

So, bottom line is circumcision is circumcision and removal of the clitoris or glans is not by defniition part of it. Only those who do it without proper triinging would allow circumcision to remove more than what it is supposed to. But if it was all done under proper medical conditions, those types of accidents would be greatly reduced on both clitoris and glans.

However, where is the medical necessity of removing the skin from either a penis or a clitoris of a peron who is under the age of consent? Sterile conditions and removal of more than is intended aside, the skin that is removed belongs to the person not the doctors or parents. Or do you consider children to be property?

Answer 2

So, why do you think male genital mutilation is better than female "circumcision".

Evil is evil. Little bit or a lot!

"Circumcision" is mutilation for he or she.


BTW the foreskin, to you "some skin", has more than 20,000 nerve endings (more than you have in all ten of your finger tips together) and makes up the five most sensitive areas of the penis. No area on a "circumcised" penis can compare to that which is cut off. The glans (head of the penis) is actually the least sensitive area of the penis and that is what is left for a "circumcised" boy to feel pleasure with. The most sensitive "skin" on a male body does not "get in the way."

Male genital mutilation is worse in one respect, it is done here by supposedly educated people in what is claimed to be an enlightened society. Females are mutilated by ignorant savages (the same ones that started male mutilation 10,000 years ago).

Those that "circumcise" girls also mutilate boys, they are "equal opportunity" mutilators.

Answer 3

Actually, most people do not think it as bad.

However, both are bad from an ethical perspective. It is removing part of the genitals without the consent of the owner, usually without anaesthetic. I would say it should be obvious to anybody without half a brain that any genital interference like that should be illegal.

However, there are many types of female "circumcision" that only involve the removal of the clitoral hood (prepuce) and/or labia, the prepuce is the foreskin on the male, so it's the same. Illegal to remove a female's prepuce and legal to remove a male's one.

Just so you know, male circumcision almost always can and does interfere with their sexual pleasure in many ways.

Answer 4

Did you know that in Egypt, over 90 percent of women are circumcised and that the circumcisions were done in sterile, medical environments. Does that make them ok?

And not all female circumcisions remove the clitoris. Look up sunna circumcision, where they remove only the female prepuce, just like in male circumcision they remove the male prepuce.

The real question here, is what do you know about male circumcision and the foreskin. Judging by your post, not much. Educate yourself, the foreskin is not just something gets in the way. If that were the case, why are the majority of men in the world NOT CUT?

Answer 5

Removing most of the nerve tissue from the penis does not enhance sex for a male either!

Most boys are NOT "circumcised" in sterile conditions but in mud huts just like females are with rusty knives and even sharpened rocks. Many of them are disfigured and some even die; but nobody gives a damn because they are just boys.

Girls in Egypt were "circumcised", at their parents request, in hospitals and clinics, now thanks to western interference these clinics are closed and the practice is going underground. Was this the desired effect? The parents there believe in "circumcising" both sexes just as justifiably as parents in the US insist on mutilating their male children. They believe there are health, and cultural benefits for their daughters as well as for their sons.

"Sole spot of sexual pleasure"? Ever hear of the "G" spot? Females also have nerve clusters located within the first two inches of the vagina. These would be similar in function to the nerves located on the penal shaft which are the only pleasure sensing nerve endings left on a "circumcised" penis. The nerve ending of the glans are not pleasure sensing but rather pain sensors. There is not that great a difference in the two mutilations!

Answer 6

Female circumcision covers a wide range. It doesn't have to involve removal of the clitoris. Removing the prepuce of a female (Hood) and part of the labia is exactly the same as removing the male prepuce (foreskin). It is illegal to remove the female prepuce in the US under the Federal FGM act of 1996.

Many victims of FGM still claim to have good sex lives, and claim the ability to reach orgasm. Victims of FGM are most likely to have their daughter done. They could not imagine going against the social stigma of not having their daughters done. They believe it to be better, more hygenic, and better looking. I know I have heard that story line somewhere before, Oh yeah, it is in the US with males.

Simple fact of the matter, every male and female desires the right to grow up with all their body parts.

Answer 7

Your question implies that ALL guys think the same thing. I don't think male circumcision is "as bad as" female genital mutilation, although I disagree with circumcision performed on baby boys for no medical reason. Excuses such as "to look like his friends", or "its more hygienic" are stupid reasons to remove a perfectly natural and normal part of a boy's genitals.

Answer 8

Foreskin does not get in the way. Here are two anatomy sites that should explain the functions of the foreskin:
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
http://net.indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/

I'm against it on newborns. By leaving your son uncircumcised, if he's not satisfied with it he can always get cut and end up satisfied in the end. One survey found that about half of circumcised guys would have preferred to had made the decision themselves:
http://www.jackinworld.com/qow/q15.html

That may play a part into why circumcision rates have fallen so much. For example, circumcision rates were as high as 90% back in the 1960s and 1970s (that's partly why today's adults are so... brainwashed, I supposed you could say, about thinking that circumcision is better) but they have fallen to as low as 14% in some states. Here are the statistics:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/

The USA is the last developed nation doing circumcision on a significant scale without medical or religious reasons. That means Europe and Japan (and Latin America and China, for that matter) don't circumcise. Circumcision rates in Australia and Canada are low, and in Africa... it varies by nation/tribe. Here's a worldwide map that gives you a general idea of where circumcision is common:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html

So now there are many more uncircumcised boys. They don't get made fun of anymore due to that (I know, I'm one and I'm 18, a pre-med student).

In addition, there are medical reasons that I'm against it, too. For example, studies have found that it reduces sensitivity:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285532,00.html

Makes masturbation more difficult:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x

Which makes sense, that's how it was made popular in the USA:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0

Increases erectile dysfunction rates:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14979200&dopt=Abstract%7C

There's pain involved, often why doctors don't want you in the room when it's done:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/
http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/

If too muck skin is removed, that can reduce the size of the penis. The way that works is because the penis needs some skin to expand during an erection. Removing too much skin can limit the expansion. An urologist and pediatrician explain that below:
http://www.altermd.com/Penis%20and%20Scrotal%20Surgery/buried_penis.htm
http://drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=21&action=detail&ref=1125

Of course, there are other risks associated, but those are typically the ones due to surgery. You can also see rebuttals to common pro circumcision arguments below. You can research it more here:
http://shorl.com/rahytipustiku
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/against-circumcision.html

As far as cleaning goes, it's really simple. For the first years in life the foreskin doesn't pull back. That prevents stuff like poo/fecal matter from touching the head. Later on all it takes it 5 to 10 seconds to pull the foreskin back and rub the head; it even feels good.
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/protect-uncircson.html

And Christianity does not ask for circumcision. There are very critical parts on circumcision in the Bible, and the Catholic church actually condemned the procedure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_in_the_Bible#In_Christianity

Answer 9

Uhh. That's not really a question. That's a statement...

Answer 10

Guys that think circumcision is bad are simply uneducated or foolish.