Why is male circumcision okay but female circumcision isnt?

Question

I know that female circumcision is more a cultural thing rather than religious and that male circumcision is more associated with religion, mostly Judaism but Ive heard it is also sometimes done in Islam and Christianity.

My question is why is there such out lash against the female one and not the male one?
I know that the female ones are usually done without consent but so are the males ones. The females ones usually arent dont in proper medical settings but if they were like the males ones, would they be accepted?
And I know there can be sever physical medical problems arising from female circumcision but that can also happen with the males i.e. taking off too much foreskin.

I am not trying to be rude or anything; I am actually against both of them but I am simply curious as to the reasons why they are differently treated.

Oh and I should add that yes I know that the female version is meant to basically control the woman sexually but some female teens I have are who are of that culture consider it to be a part of their culture and as a rite of passage.

To the person who said Islam makes it compulsory to have female circumscion, I must say you are wrong.
I am an atheist from a muslim family and I havent had that or my cousins or my sister.

Answer 1

There are several reasons for the sexual discrimination, which is evident in the matter of genital mutilation:

1. There is a resistance to the idea that a male can be a victim, even if he is only hours old.
2. Males are not likely to admit that their penis is lacking in any respect, even if it is in the amount of enjoyment they get from it themselves.
3. Males do not mind if other males get genitally mutilated, because they view all other males as rivals. Deep down some fathers view even their sons this way.
4. Some females like the idea of reducing the masculinity of males; cutting their genitals makes them seem less menacing. (They would prefer a eunuch tending the harem)
5. With the growing political power of females it is fashionable to be against female "circumcision" and to talk about "how much worse” it is than male mutilation. (Does it make one crime not a crime because another crime is worse?)

One poster said: "Finally, if male circumcision is that damaging and degrading as some people would like you to believe, why does it have to ride the coattails of FGM instead of being wrong in its own merits? "

Male genital mutilation does NOT "ride the coat tails" of fgm. It IS wrong in it's own lack of merits. It is just your anti-male-genital-bias that makes you see it this way. If a male could produce offspring with any further damage to his genitals done, they would be doing more to boys too.

What is this? Is it a choice? Is it a matter or deciding which is worse and doing the other? Well, let's "circumcise" boys because "circumcising" girls is worse???? They are both wrong, totally wrong. Even if your Stone Age religion "requires" it, it should be a decision left up to the owner of the genitals. The asker says she is an atheist from a Muslim family, would she like to go through life with a permanent mark on her body to show the religion of her family even though it is not her religion?

One note: Not all girls are "circumcised" in mud huts, some were done in hospitals. Not all boys are done in sterile conditions, more boys are done in mut huts than girls are; but nobody gives a damn because they are just boys. They share the same rusty blade and they become "blood brothers" with all the possible diseases that might spread.

Loveallbabies, even if they are boys.

Answer 2

I thought I should point out- male circumcision was originally designed to control male sexuality as well- at the turn of the century circumcision came into vogue as a "cure" for male masturbation, which was considered a terrible disease. Even the Jewish philosopher Maimonides stated that male circumcision controls the sexuality of the male, making his organ less sensitive and therefor allowing him to be a better Jewish husband to his wife. Lets get our facts straight. I think that this is a case of "civilised" americans looking down on the "barbaric" african poor. The truth is that male babies are cut without anesthetic, outside of sterile operating theaters in the united states every day. And MANY of them have terrible side effects, excessive scarring, loss of part of the glans or the whole penis, removal of far too much skin, MRSA infections and more. And thats just in America! In Africa and many other parts of the world boys and young men are indeed cut with rusty knifes in little mud huts and some of them DIE from the procedure. Heck, in parts of India they DO turn men into Eunuchs, but nobodys up in arms over that. I think they are both equally reprehensible. The reasons they are treated differently are social, boys and girls are seen differently and Americans don't wish to admit that not only have THEY been hamred, but they are actively doing harm to their children. If you ask Africans WHY they cut their girls they will cite the EXACT same reasons that WE cut our boys- it's cleaner, female genitals are dirty, it was done to the mother and she doesn't mind, men like cut girls better etc etc Women's rights are big issues with the public right now, mens rights to act like HUMANS and not as stereotypical men have been slow to catch up. -Neb

Answer 3

Male circumcision, though really a stupid and barbaric practice IMO, is nowhere near as bad as female circumcision. A better analogy to female circumcision might be if you somehow deadened all the nerve endings in the penis so that it was completely numb. It's also usually done in a sterile hospital by trained professionals, not by some amateur with a straight razor he probably cleans with his spit.

Besides that, the reason male circumcision is "OK" is that it's a social tradition with a lot of inertia behind it in our culture, while female circumcision is an alien custom. People are almost always more critical of the questionable practices of other societies than those of their own.

My own opinion is that if somebody wants to get their genitals messed up they should be able to, but it sure as hell shouldn't be done without informed consent of that person.

Answer 4

It's very simple: because boys have a penis and girls have vaginas. two different things. Even a kindergarten kid knew that....

The two practices are completely different in every single aspect, as well: physical, psychological, emotional, social and religious. They're not comparable in the slightest, but since they're both done is the same general area, and because FGM is a degrading practice and an accepted human rights violation, anti-circumcision activists usually use it to try to put circumcison in a more negative light. IMO, it does the opposite. By comparing something as traumatic, damaging, dangerous and degrading as FGM with a simple, safe and beneficial procedure demeans the impact of FGM. It's a poor way of treating the women that have been victims of FGM and a way to demean their pain.
Finally, Amnesty International has directly declined to accept male circumcision as a human rights violation 3 times.

Here are some links:
An article from the New England Journal of Medicine

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/3...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

(WARNING! Link contains explicit pictures!)

Here are the responses to this article, including acommentary by the author:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/332/3/188

"I use the term ``female circumcision'' to acknowledge its cultural importance, the positive perception of this procedure on the part of those who practice it. These characteristics constitute the main similarity of female circumcision to male circumcision. The difference is that, unlike male circumcision, the most commonly described types of female circumcision are anatomically and functionally mutilating."

"From the perspective of public health, female circumcision is much more damaging than male circumcision. The mildest form, clitoridectomy, is anatomically equivalent to amputation of the penis."

"In my extensive clinical experience as a physician in Sudan, and after a careful review of the literature of the past 15 years, I have not found a single case of female circumcision in which only the skin surrounding the clitoris is removed, without damage to the clitoris itself."

http://www.euro.who.int/document/e60522.pdf

"According to Dr. T Turman of WHO headquarters, there is a technical difference between male and female genital mutilation. The removal of the clitoral prepuce (female circumcision) is equivalent to male circumcision and constitutes less than 1% of all female genital mutilations. In young girls this procedure is extremely difficult to perform. In over 95% of cases, the clitoris, the labia minora and (in some cases) the labia majora are excised and the vulva sewn up. The biological equivalent in the male would be partial to almost two-thirds removal of the male sexual organ, inculding in some cases removal of tissue from the scrotum followed by stitiching the remaining tissue."

Finally, if male circumcision is that damaging and degrading as some people would like you to believe, why does it have to ride the coattails of FGM instead of being wrong in its own merits? The answer is becase it isn't. If it's not being compared to something that's actually barbaric and damaging, then the facts support that it's a valid medical prophylactic procedure.
But intactivists don't want you to know that...

Answer 5

Male circumcision is done in the interest of preventing disease, basically. Many of the 'laws' given to the nation of Israel were actually given for health reasons. After God dis-owned the nation of Israel, circumcision is not required of His new people, Christians.
1Corinth 7:19 Circumcision does not mean a thing, and uncircumcision means not a thing, but observance of God’s commandments [does]
Romans2:29 But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and [his] circumcision is that of the heart by spirit, and not by a written code. The praise of that one comes, not from men, but from God. (Speaking of 'spiritual' Jews/Israelites)

Female 'circumcision' is, in most cases, actually mutilation, removing the possibility of the woman being able to enjoy sex, and the end result would not change if it were done in the most hygenic of circumstances.
Check it out here, some types are much worse then others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

Answer 6

OMG! Female circumcision is mutilation to the point where the girl won't be able to enjoy a normal sex life once becoming an adult. It's completely barbaric and inhumane. At least a circumcised male isn't adversely affected (most cases, obviously there are some that are affected).

As one that has been circumcised, I'm not bothered by it and live what I believe is normal in terms of my ability to enjoy sex. I'm not fond of how it's carried out. Both of my sons lived through it too (although it was their mother's decision to have it done, I would have let them be, she had it done for COSMETIC reasons only).

Answer 7

Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin only. Female "circumcision" involves removal of the clitoris itself, often with no antiseptic (which means infection) and no anesthetic to control the pain. A better term is FGM (female genital mutilation). If an equivalent operation was performed on a boy, it would cut off the glans of the penis, not just the foreskin.

Answer 8

You seriously need to read up on what it is. Female "circumcision" is nothing like what they do to the boys. Even calling it by that word as they do is such a lie. If what they did to the boys was the same, they'd call theirs male CASTRATION. It's not removing skin (like it is for males), it's removing that whole part of the body necessary for those certain, well, physical feelings. Like castrating a man and expecting him to still do it with a woman somehow and get no pleasure from it at all.


Edit:
"Female genital mutilation (FGM), often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia..."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Answer 9

religiously speaking (and that's what we're supposed to be doing here, right?) circumcision is a covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. It is done on the 8th day of a baby boy's life by a mohel(although it used to be done by the father) and is a simcha- a joyous celebration. We do it because G-d commanded us to do it. There is no such command for female circumcision.

Answer 10

I'll add to what Rockin Robin said. They completely sew the woman up to the point that they cannot have sex. They cut it loose for their wedding night. If the husband leaves town for a while he might have her sewn up again until he returns. It is a cruel thing.