It also often creates health issues, and exposes sensitive nerve endings which can be desensitized over time just from sex without foreskin (that's why I think I will get foreskin reattachment surgery).
Circumcision damages, and in many cases destroys the frenulum the most sensitive area of the penis the same way (but not the as extreme way) vaginal mutilation targets the clitoris.
The biggest reason circumcision is not as extreme is because it happens to infants. The surgery appears like it is just a little "snip" but the foreskin is actually 10-14 inches or 60-90 square centimeters of skin when spread flat on the average adult male. It is a big deal. If that happened to mature men the surgery would be much more bloody painful and scarring.
... Because it's generally done in Africa without the woman's consent? And removes a woman's ability to feel any sexual pleasure. And hurts like a bitch. I mean, hey, if it's their choice then it's their choice, but it's done in Africa to keep women from enjoying sex so they don't become "promiscuous" or some bullshit like that. Male circumcision, while weird and done at birth without their consent, doesn't have any adverse physical side-effects. That's why there's a difference to most people when it comes to the ethical quandary of it all.
Yes it does have adverse physical side effects. The foreskin protects the frenulum, the most sensitive area of the penis, and if your lucky enough isn't completely removed from circumcision, but it being exposed will lead to desensitization from normal sex (which is why I think I will get reattachment surgery eventually)
Keratinization occurs more frequently on circumcised penises, because the foreskin prevents drying. This is one of the arguments for why allegedly it is easier to spread HIV for uncircumsized males; some physicians believe dry calloused unhealthy skin is stronger but this is scientifically unproven. www.cirp.org/library/disease/H…
The foreskin actually secretes many of its own immunoglobulin antibodies on the inner mucus wall, which reduce the risk of infection such as such as the pathogen-killing enzyme called lysozyme www.cirp.org/library/disease/H…
If HIV really is more easily transmitted with a foreskin, it still is not an excuse in the first world. We have HIV testing and cheap protection that is almost 100% effective.
Male circumcision can go awfully wrong but the exremer forms of female circumcision are much more invasive, dagerous, even deadly, painful and remove the ability to feel any pleasure at all. Having said that I am against both and it should be the decision of the teen/adult.
The human right ofthe integrityof the own bodyand thusalsohuman dignity is a high value. Both gender circumcisions are absolutely wrong, because they circumcise (literally) this high value. So, the circumcision of male babies or young boys is as an abuse as female circumcision/mutilation, because these children have no possibility to choice if they want this or not and I really compare it with a violation against someone's body. I am actually horrified that there is still a need to discuss this in the 21th century.
Well, it's a hard to discuss, without coming into an emotional debate, which is understandable. Of course, female circumcision is much more horrible as the male one...however, in both cases human rights are abused.
Male circumcision is horrible! Let it be his choice, after he grows up, he should be able to decide! It's not the parents choice to ruined their son's life by breaking their sperm count in half (yes, if you're circumcised, you'll have a shit ton of problems having children!
Uh. Well I see both as completely wrong, but female circumcision is an entirely different thing to male circumcision.
Female circumcision is done usually so that sex cannot be enjoyable, meaning that women are discouraged from engaging in sexual activities because it is not pleasurable or downright painful. Why? Because females having sex is wrong, obviously! The idea in its very self is misogynist and disgusting.
Secondly, female circumcision is never performed by specialists because it's illegal - meaning people use tools that are dirty and they haven't been trained to operate on people.
And finally - the blood supply there is huge. Young girls can bleed to death or at least end up seriously ill from the loss of blood.
That's completely different to male circumcision, which is by no means right, but not nearly as damaging.
eIectraumaticFeatured By OwnerNov 7, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
Really? Because they have penises? Honey, you obviously have not had your period yet. If men had to give birth to kids and bleed Niagra Falls out of their "no-no" area they'd be crybabies. Us women are built to withstand the pain of having children and getting our bodies ready for said children. You might've grown up in a place that says "Men are awesome rock on yeah", but women are equal to men, if not better. Cold hard facts.
Not because of that. And I started mine when I was 11 if you must know. I'm talking about in the real world, not just my town. If women were qual to men, then we'd be seen for more than our uterus and milk-duct, and the world would be so hell-bent on trying to control us.
Men are still hired more than women (it was actually in the news paper not to long ago) and men get paid more. Men can go topless in public women can't. Men can have a full say on abortion but women can't get a say in vasectomy.
Sure, but that doesn't make them superior. Perhaps you're wording too harshly?
If a man is alone with his daughter, the public may try to name him a pedophile.
In court, the mother almost always gets custody, just because she is the mother.
People are not suspicious of single moms (usually), but if it's a single dad, the child must be sexually abused!!111!!
If a man grabs a woman's ass, it's considered a sexual advancement, but if a woman grabs a man's ass, it's an accident.
If a man and a woman have sex, and the woman decides she didn't want it the next day, the man goes to jail.
If a little boy claims he was sexually abused, he is less likely to be believed than if a girl claimed she was sexually abused.
The president sees the shrinking number of men in colleges across America as “a great success".
Traditionally, masculine characteristics are virtues, not flaws.
Broad gender-wide slurs against men are socially accepted, I.E "pigs", "bastards", etc.
A man's life, career, reputation and connection with his family can be easily destroyed by a single, false and anonymously whispered accusation.
It is fine to call a man a “dick”, a “cock”, or a “prick” on the street or on television; a woman must never be called a “cunt”.
While the rape of a woman is properly regarded as a crime, the rape of a man is funny.
If a man is killed in an accident, people will care less than if a woman or a child is killed. News readers make this clear every time they utter the phrase “women and children” (This one urks me a lot, too, men matter just as much as women and children..)
I think both is wrong. But female circumcison is worse.
No, not because it is happening to "dee prefect female!11", but because:
1. With male circumcision, although may hurt the baby male, he forgets about it as he is older. Whist with female, it is done when she is a teen and she is scarred remembering the pain.
2. Female circumcision is more fatal, due to the hole sometimes being plugged up with period.
3. It is more painful for her. When it is time for her to have sex, the skin has to be ripped to get the penis in. The male, however, goes through no pain or skin tear when he has sex if he was circumcised.
There are no health benefits in any form of circumcision, it has been around for 100s of years, what makes people think they knew anything back then? I am sure it was an old wives tale. It really should be banned unless there really IS something wrong down there.
Actually the 3rd point is only true of male circumcision if it goes perfectly; there have been rare instances of circumcised males having serious complications and bleeding from erections after puberty.
For all male circumcision, the frenulum (if it is not removed by the operation) is exposed and suffers from desensitization over time, and is more easily injured, without a foreskin.
I am against both make and female genital mutilation, I just think the female one is worse for the basic fact that she remembers it and she is immobile for days. Other than that they are both equally painful and barbaric.
I think that circumcising a boy/girl when he/she can't consent yet it's ok only if the parents are doing it because of some medical problems that could developed in the future and stuff like that. Otherwise, I think it is not ok to do something at a person's body without asking their consent. Some people who has been circumcised in childhood are ok with it; others aee not (I am talking about males and females in general). Since no one will be able to know whether the boy/girl will be glad of it when they'llbe adults, I think it is better not to circumcise, and wait until the person is an adult and will be able to decide themselves.
About those who support forced circumcision on males but not on females and call themselves "feminists", I see them as faminazis that are abusing the name "feminism" and are making all feminists look like feminazis. They should at least shut the fuck up and stop geving a bad name to feminism.
Also another type of women I dislike on this subject are those who prefer a circumcised penis over an uncut one and think that men should be circumcised because of their tastes (yes, I've actually saw something like that around).
I never heard a feminist trying to defend male circumcision I see myself as a feminist and I don't agree with neither practices these practices should only be done when the people are of 21 and can consent to it. ( children and babies cannot consent.)
I think the reason is is because there is more risk involved in female circumcision. It's a lot more dangerous. That doesn't mean male circumcision is anybetter.
From what I read she has some medical points to why she believes so. She doesn't support it because she hates men trough she even posted one stamp that she believes its terrible for mothers to use their son's circumcision as a form of pride or to get attention.
I don't agree with her supporting male circumcision for medical reasons myself. The problem is there is a lot of people who still believe these medical reasons make it good for men to be circumcised.
No there is something to cut. The clitoral hood is exactly like the skin on the penis. In fact sometimes it's too much and women go to have it reduced. Which is a good thought at first, but eventually the exposed clit will become hard just like the penis eventually will because it's lost it's protection.
Actually no. It's not mutilation. In fact a lot of women in the USA actually volunteer for it. It's removing skin just like you remove the skin of penis. It's the skin on the penis isn't genitalia then this wouldn't be considered part of the genitalia because it's just skin. I think you need to really research this because you gave the same answer. It's like you don't know what else to say so you copy yourself.