It’s a claim that I have come across often during the circumcision debate. Namely, that female circumcision is an atrocity, that cannot be tolerated at all. OK, I can agree to that. Yet once I say “It’s like male circumcision” some people say “it doesn’t compare at all how dare you”.
So can someone please explain to me why female genital mutilation should not be comparable to male circumcision? Why we cannot call it male genital mutilation?
As from where I am standing, there is no difference about the act itself. In both cases healthy tissue gets cut off without imminent medical need and without taking the child’s will into account. And even assuming that female circumcision is ten orders of magnitude worse than the male one, how come that male circumcision is seen as tolerable? As if it seems OK to cut off the little finger of boys while it is not OK to cut off an arm of girls.
For me, both a wrong, absolutely wrong.
Looking for reasons as to why those both acts should not be comparable.
- jalopyrustbucket likes this
- senjukannon likes this
- areyousure-lock likes this
- impurefools likes this
- saltymrshotgun likes this
- nhizo reblogged this from widdershinsgirl and added:
- trilliansthoughts answered: I don’t appreciate you re-posting my blog as a “Paragon Of Confusion”. For me, this is just musing on my own thoughts and upbringing. I have
- allyouneedarecats likes this
- uncutting likes this
- disastrid reblogged this from legalizeforeskin and added:
- random-guy-on-teh-interwebz reblogged this from widdershinsgirl and added:
- lydiamdeetz reblogged this from sunkissedsigh and added:
- derinthemadscientist answered: I didn’t say it was castration, I said it was more comparable in the level of pain and mutilation than it is to male circumcision.
- dickensianwerewolf likes this
- sunkissedsigh reblogged this from little-coyote
- widdershinsgirl reblogged this from random-guy-on-teh-interwebz and added:
- random-guy-on-teh-interwebz likes this
- awhooshingsound reblogged this from little-coyote
- little-coyote likes this
- ravenoussoul likes this
- derinthemadscientist reblogged this from freedominwickedness and added:
- legalizeforeskin reblogged this from disastrid and added:
- legalizeforeskin likes this
- oh-your-god answered: My understanding is that FGM causes permanent nerve damage while MGM doesn’t.
- jekell-wolf reblogged this from aurif3x
- viroblog likes this
- thexygal answered: It is an unnessicary and irreversible procedure preformed on a child without consent. Comparison ends there.
- bluetrafficlight reblogged this from cobblepot
- cobblepot reblogged this from widdershinsgirl and added:
- fractalcaster reblogged this from widdershinsgirl
- medeaismyfavourite likes this
- tapewarm answered: the penis still functions perfectly fine after circumcision while the clitoris is completely removed, not really comparable.
- much-ado-about-everything likes this
- disastrid answered: Hey, I found I couldn’t explain my thoughts in 140 characters, so I just reblogged with my response. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
- latinagabi likes this
- rainbowgenderpunk answered: fgm is often done to “keep girls pure”; female orgasms are viewed as shameful. still, infant circumcision should be fucking illegal.
- life-in-neon reblogged this from freedominwickedness
- sledgehammertoe answered: Penile circumsision has health benefits as well, most well-known being that circumsized men who are HIV+ are less likely to spread the virus.
- freedominwickedness reblogged this from random-guy-on-teh-interwebz and added:
- freedominwickedness answered: The short answer is, “Because even the mildest form of FGM is a far more extensive operation than male circumcision.”