6 ms·

It's horrifying that these are even compared. The foreskin is just some skin and absolutely not required to experience sexual pleasure or climax. But for women,

It's horrifying that these are even compared. The foreskin is just some skin and absolutely not required to experience sexual pleasure or climax. But for women, they cut their clitoris out, fundamentally altering their ability to have sex forever. You cannot compare this. There is no equivalence here. IMO, female genital mutilation is comparable to male gelding --- removal of the entire penis. Both are designed to ruin sexual pleasure Always weirds me out when a dude compares a circumcision to FGM, like someone is intentionally conflating a much lesser evil with a far greater one.

nehal3m 4y ago
One, how do you know I am a dude? I am, but you're assuming. Two, I did not compare them, I explicitly said they are NOT equivalent, even accounting for the type of female genital mutilation where the clitoris is merely nicked.
drekipus 4y ago
FGM also can be just cutting some skin (the inner labia) and it is comparable to circumcision. The function of the inner labia is to help keep in moisture and lubricant, very much the exact same function and role of the foreskin.
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
circumcised males experience less intense orgasm and sexual sensitivity.
FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
> just some skin You could use chemical or thermal burns to remove all the skin, preserving a numb nub of mechanical structure.
betwixthewires 4y ago
FGM refers broadly to a multitude of traditions related to modification of female genitalia, not only to that one specific kind. And generally speaking, they're all illegal in the west, even ones where the damage is comparable to male circumcision. You can compare this, fundamentally and in principle. Both involve the irreversible mutilation of an infant's sexual organs. One might not be quite impactful as another later in life, but on principle they're equally abhorrent in a society that believes in bodily autonomy and values its children.
lelanthran 4y ago
> The foreskin is just some skin and absolutely not required to experience sexual pleasure or climax. A significant portion of ED is traced back to male genital mutilation. > Always weirds me out when a dude compares a circumcision to FGM, like someone is intentionally conflating a much lesser evil with a far greater one. You keep avoid using the term "male genital mutilation". Always weirds me out when people don't want to call an amputation, an amputation. (See how that works?)
- criley2 4y ago
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > I now posit that you do so to undercut the horrifying abuse done to women. Why you choose to do that, I'll leave to the readers imagination. Me calling male genital mutilation an amputation does not, in any way, venture any opinion on other types of mutilation.
    - criley2 4y ago
      In context of this discussion, it's classic Whataboutism, and it does implicitly offer an opinion that is heard loud and clear. Whenever we talk about FGM, there's always an army of men ready to Whatabout! the discussion to death. I don't even think an imagination is required to understand why.

nehal3m 4y ago

One, how do you know I am a dude? I am, but you're assuming. Two, I did not compare them, I explicitly said they are NOT equivalent, even accounting for the type of female genital mutilation where the clitoris is merely nicked.

drekipus 4y ago

FGM also can be just cutting some skin (the inner labia) and it is comparable to circumcision. The function of the inner labia is to help keep in moisture and lubricant, very much the exact same function and role of the foreskin.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

circumcised males experience less intense orgasm and sexual sensitivity.

FooBarBizBazz 4y ago

> just some skin You could use chemical or thermal burns to remove all the skin, preserving a numb nub of mechanical structure.

betwixthewires 4y ago

FGM refers broadly to a multitude of traditions related to modification of female genitalia, not only to that one specific kind. And generally speaking, they're all illegal in the west, even ones where the damage is comparable to male circumcision. You can compare this, fundamentally and in principle. Both involve the irreversible mutilation of an infant's sexual organs. One might not be quite impactful as another later in life, but on principle they're equally abhorrent in a society that believes in bodily autonomy and values its children.

lelanthran 4y ago

> The foreskin is just some skin and absolutely not required to experience sexual pleasure or climax. A significant portion of ED is traced back to male genital mutilation. > Always weirds me out when a dude compares a circumcision to FGM, like someone is intentionally conflating a much lesser evil with a far greater one. You keep avoid using the term "male genital mutilation". Always weirds me out when people don't want to call an amputation, an amputation. (See how that works?)

criley2 4y ago
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > I now posit that you do so to undercut the horrifying abuse done to women. Why you choose to do that, I'll leave to the readers imagination. Me calling male genital mutilation an amputation does not, in any way, venture any opinion on other types of mutilation.
  - criley2 4y ago
    In context of this discussion, it's classic Whataboutism, and it does implicitly offer an opinion that is heard loud and clear. Whenever we talk about FGM, there's always an army of men ready to Whatabout! the discussion to death. I don't even think an imagination is required to understand why.