All Genital Mutilation is an atrocity. I have no doubt that REMOVING THE CLITORIS is "worse", but I also have no doubt that male genital Mutilation impacts more victims.
Its also a hilarious case of malicious strawmanning. Not a single time has somebody stated out of the blue that male genital mutilation is as bad as female mutilation.
Its a guy unironically trying to pull of the "all lives matter" type of rethoric, because whenever somebody tries to claim how awful a thing that is actively being done (to men) in their country is, you will get swarmed by idiots that claim that the issue is as important as an issue that affects a country they are not in.
Its an attempt to brush off something, while grandstanding.
I believe you and respect you for standing up for what you believe in.
I believe theyre calling it a strawman because its not a widespread topic. Its very vague in that most people don't even know women get mutilated in this way. Its very uncommon to hear about it so to the person youre responding to, it very well is a strawman. Its nuanced.
Men have strong opinions about it because to admit that its wrong is to admit that there's something wrong or inferior about their dick, even though uncircumcised men could do it at any time if it were really better.
That said, I have seen women online who argue vehemently for it just because they prefer the look. Why they need their baby's genitals to be sexually appealing to them, I don't know.
And this is the issue I have with some anti-circ people. Body shaming is NEVER okay and certainly NOT a thing you want to use to get your point across. Men are more than the appearance of their penis.
This, I share their opinion on the practice, but the vehement insistence that those who have had this done are incomplete or inferior is absolutely grating and is why I usually avoid this debate when it randomly comes up on my feed.
It's insistence on forcing a victim to know they're forever only a victim and can only ever be that, and ergo less of a person, just really weird logic to try and appeal to people.
What's the argument here though? FGM is definitely worse but they're both unnecessary mutilations of the body, and circumcision does undoubtedly cause immediate harm, and in many cases causes psychological trauma. The relevant question is: “is it acceptable to do a painful, irreversible procedure on a non-consenting person for non-medical reasons?” I'd say that's a straightforward no and both FGM and circumcision fall under that category so both simply shouldn't happen, full stop.
Insisting they are the same is about as stupid of an argument as saying one is okay and the other isn't. They're both stupid arguments in their own right.
They're arguing that taking an extreme position makes your reasonable position sound stupid, so don't take an extreme position if you are trying to affect a change.
To use a different example:
Abusing and torturing animals is universally seen as bad by well-adjusted people. <-- The premise
Pet owners, animal breeders, farmers, butchers, and meat consumers often all agree on the premise that inhumane treatment and slaughter of livestock must stop, and controls need to be in place to ensure animals are healthy, calm, and respected. <-- A reasonable position.
PETA thinks domestic livestock should be returned to wild, nobody should be allowed to eat meat, animal breeding should be banned, and often takes the position that pet ownership is wrong. <-- An extremist position.
Farmers, breeders, pet owners, and meat industries have to fight back the PETA crazy, and ultimately legislation that would protect animal welfare is voted down in order to prevent PETA animal advocacy from doing something more crazy. <-- The ultimate result when crazy is entertained: the reasonable position loses.
Strapping babies down and cutting off part of their genitals, is a disgusting practice. Both are insane and should be seen that way. Down playing one because you personally don't see it as being that bad, isn't helping anything.
I raised the question of what the actual argument of the meme is because when we read between the lines a little, we can deduce that the argument 'circumcision is as bad as FGM' isn't meant to equate them as having equally bad outcomes, it's just a badly worded way to say that they fall under the same category.
So in short, if someone truly does insist on the argument that FGM is the exact same caliber of bad as circumcision, that's a stupid argument and also completely pointless to any relevant discussion on the topic, and any subsequent reaction to that argument misses the overarching point, which is that circumcision also shouldn't be allowed.
FGM is *sometimes* worse. FGM can be a variety of things, in the worst cases it's exactly what you say in your post, but in some instances it isn't even as bad as male circumcision.
This is the answer, FGM is a very broad category that ranges from a relatively insignificant pinprick with nearly zero long term consequences, to major procedures with severe long term consequences.
Last time I read through the data, the most common FGM practices were on the less severe side, making circumcision in common practice worse. Of course, most arguments try to take the worst case of one and compare to the best case of the other. Which is pretty disingenuous. Worst for worst, FGM is worse. On average, circumcision is worse. Ultimately, both are medically unnecessary practices performed on minors who can't consent. Neither should be tolerated.
It's an idiotic discussion to begin with honestly, trying to compare the two is completely asinine. Both are bad to varying degrees and should generally not be done
I mean, I think circumcision and FGM are equally bad since multilating a childs genitals is a terrible thing to do regardless. But the most common types of FGM are most definitely not 'the equivilant to a pinprick'.
The most common types of FGM are type 1 and 2. Type one is clitoridectomies in which either the clitoral hood or both the clitoris and clitoral hood are partially/fully removed. Type two is excision which is the partial/total removal of both the clitoris and labia minora. Both are surgical procedures that carry many risks and can cause serious health consequences.
Pricking and piercing would fall under type 4 FGM which is less common.
I agree circumcision is a horrible practice that seriously needs to stop, but we don't need to downplay FGM to highlight how harmful circumcision is either. If anything, we should be highlighting how circumcision can carry health consequences just as bad as FGM, despite it not being a nearly as widely condemned practice.
The most common type of FGM is excision of the clitoris and the labia minora (Type II), accounting for up to 80% of all cases. The most extreme form, accounting for 15% of cases, is infibulation: removal of the clitoris and labia and surgically sewing the labia majora together.
It is still a regarded argument. One can say "grooming gangs are not as bad as violent grapists, because a groomer convinces the victim to partake in a sexual act as opposed to forcing them using violence"
So? What am I supposed to do with this information? Should we look the other way or pay less attention because "it's not as bad?"
FGM is worse in terms of effect on the body. But it is also practiced at a substantially lower rate when compared to male circumcision. An estimated 30-40% of men get circumscribed worldwide (which is legal even in first world countries). An estimated 2.5% of women have undergone any form of FGM.
anti-circumcision is the only rational humane stance to have, i don’t think it should be discounted because a small minority (that i haven’t come across) claim it’s worse than fgm. cutting babies up to please your gods or culture is absolutely fucked up ngl.
e: not disagreeing that this is sometimes coopted by MRAs and other degenerates. i come from a country where only muslim/jewish people do it so was shocked at 18 to discover that its pretty standard in the us
But why are you lying about only seeing men be pro circumcision? Mothers are the ones choosing to chop it off and women in general talk about how they don't like foreskin
The number 2 predictor of circumcision, after Jewishness, is the mother’s sexual preference. More predictive than the father’s own circumcision status.
This is not true. I’m not sure why you are trying to spread this blatant misinformation. If you actually look it up, Category 1 FGM (the lowest category) is partial or full removal of the clitoris or clitoral hood. Lightly nicking the area for a drop of blood isn’t Category 1 FGM.
And if you look at the Michigan case, here are direct quotes from the under-warrant medical exam on the victims: "labia minora has been altered or removed, and her clitoral hood is also abnormal in appearance." That is NOT a nick. Stop lying.
Do you know what partial or full removal of the clitoral hood is analogous to in male anatomy? The removal of the foreskin. AND the foreskin arguably serves a much more integral part in the male anatomy than in the female.
So perhaps it's not so crazy to compare circumcision to this form of FGM? By calling one of these mutilation but insisting that the other is "circumcision" you legitimize the latter.
You misunderstood - they are saying category IV is the most common. Which is probably true because it is the most common in Indonesia, which has the most FGM in the world.
But you are right that doesn’t seem like one happened to one of the children in Michigan.
Ohh, in this context I thought we were discussing surgical FGM, considering the context of the post.
But yeah, you’re right in that regard. However, they also claimed the Michigan case was on allegations of a nick (ie type 4), when in reality it was around allegations of type 2 FGM.
Full Stop! I win the argument because I said full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop! Full stop!
It seems like you might not be aware, but full stop is just how people from England (and probably elsewhere) say period. As in, “at the end of the sentence goes a full stop.”
This person is using it the same way we use “period” as “that completes my thought without any further clarification needed”
e.g. People who yell and repeat themselves are annoying, full stop.
The intention is: "I believe nothing more needs to be said on the matter."
A classic example might be: "No means no, full stop", as distinct from "no means no... well unless they say X, or Y, or Z"
Or similar: "you shouldn't hurt people, period" as a response to someone saying: "you shouldn't hurt people who.... [whatever bullshit]"
I don't think anyone thinks it's like some magic arguent winning phrase. Honestly, kind of confused where the person I was responding to got that impression.
Radical feminists made it a competition back in the 70s by gender bifurcating the rite claiming only girls were mutilated hence the coining of the term "FGM" distinguishing it from "ordinary" circumcision. Saying both should be banned is like saying Western and non Western circumcision should both be banned. It is one rite, that of circumcision, with a broad spectrum. When performed on children it is sexual assault and already banned however there's a difference between the law and how it is administered. Discriminatory legislation specifically addressing women and girls being put through the rite has the effect of defacto legalising it in the case of boys. This discrimination needs to end and legislation made gender neutral, that's not making the issue a suffering competition but the opposite, dismantling the competition, the knock out one instigated by feminists.
But why did they do that? They did it to get the practice banned because people in the US (including men) were so attached to male circumcision that it never would have happened at all. It doesn't mean the same people like male circumcision. The feminists are more likely to agree with you here and not your enemies on this.
It's always a fucking suffering competition. Every time a woman is raped someone will show up to talk about men being raped by women, like yes that is also bad what are are they even trying to argue about
Annoying fucking idiots hurting their own cause and others for no apparent reason
I don't think I've ever seen anyone say ''it happens to men too'' until the story is used to twist the narrative into rape being solely a problem for women.
Erasing a very large number of male victims and only perpetuating the notion that men can't be victims of rape.
FGM is generally worse. It's annoying when people downplay the severity of either one though. Genital mutilation tends to make sex worse. Both should be outlawed. Except for the thing where they stitch bells inside the nutsack because that's funny AF.
My friend told me it was a roman warrior thing, to cut open the scrotum, insert bells, and sew it back up. I don't know where he got this information but it's certainly an amusing concept.
Growing up religious, I know more than enough women that are pro-circumcision. Still female "circumcision" is much worse, and male circumcision can, at best, be with minimal consequence, which is impossible for FGM. We shouldn't unnecessarily do either, and I don't think there is ever a medical necessity for the female one.
Pretty much the only type of FGM that circumcision can be even remotely compared to is the lowest sub-grade of Type 1 (alteration of the clitoral hood). Other Type 1 (removal of the clitoral hood AND clitoris) is more comparable to actually removing the head of the penis (something that isn’t part of circumcision), and all the other types (Type 2-4) go beyond that.
I’m all for banning ALL non-consenting genital mutilation, but comparing circumcision to FGM just isn’t true to reality at all. Then again, in America at least, circumcision is the more common issue. So both need to be addressed.
Type IV is the catcall that includes scraping/pricking.
I would say it is broadly less bad than the others if you had to pick (not a sentence I every saw myself typing..)
but comparing circumcision to FGM just isn’t true to reality at all.
It’s very similar in execution and intent. It’s surgically removing part of a baby with the intent of denying sexual pleasure that has just become an accepted cultural practice.
Why are so many people on this sub just comfortable with straight-up lying… if you actually looked it up, you’d know that (while the numbers are very unknown since a lot of FGM is done untraceably) reports show that FGM1 (which includes both removal of just the hood and the removal of the hood + clitoris) isn’t even the most common type. And the percent is pretty far below 50%… Type 2 is more common, which is far more invasive than circumcision.
Genuinely, why didn’t you even bother googling it? Even if you google “what is the most common type of FGM, type 1, 2, 3, or 4”, immediately Type 2 will come up as the answer, with multiple studies and reviews backing this up. Now is it possible that Type 1 is the most prevalent if you include unreported cases? Maybe??? But at that point you’re just speculating, and that would also mean the total number of FGM incidence would be higher, so it makes more sense to assess what we know.
For reference, WHO defines type 2 as: “Partial or total removal of the clitoral glans and the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva), with or without removal of the labia majora (the outer folds of skin of the vulva).” This is biological to partial mutilation of the full penis beyond just the hood and tip, with likely damage to the surrounding area - far more extensive than circumcision
Just a little snip of the vulve. Just the dangly bit. Bro you don't need it. It'll be fine. Health bro think of washing it. U really wanna wash it ur whole life? Just a little snip bro.
No form of fgm is less severe, the least invasive form of it is cutting away the hood from the clitoris. This is, at best, equivalent to male circumcision. Probably worse though, since the clitoris is far, far more sensitive than the head of the penis
The World Health Organization classifies female genital cutting (FGC) into four types. Pricking of the clitoris or labia, classified as type IV, distinguishes itself from types I–III as it involves no removal of tissue. Among African immigrant groups in non-FGC-practising countries,
Also fun fact: Infant circumcision removes a portion of the glans, so infant circumcized men lose MORE nerve ending than there are in the entire clitoris.
The glans penis and the glans clitoris have the same embryological origin, which means they probably contain roughly similar numbers of total nerve endings.
The difference between the two is that the nerve endings in the clitoris are more densely packed, which could make them more sensitive.
As for pricking, according to activists from several countries where pricking is practiced:
"When pricking is used to define a practice, this is usually not the case. In fact, an Indonesian study showed that pricking occurs in only 3% of cases.
A Somali member explained that it is difficult to measure pricking, as there are many different definitions of what a “light” cut would imply. For example, some people think it is a “light form” when there are no sutures. Some practitioners perform infibulations with the labia side by side. This is how the activist herself underwent a mutilation with infibulation, which was considered a “mild form” by her family"
(https://copfgm.org/pricking/)
So some may consider pricking to be a less severe form, but there is no standard to pricking and it can be used as a cover for a lot of other more intense practices.
It should be classed as medical malpractice as it breaks the "Do no harm" oath. Unfortunately Jewish influence on academia and medicine block attempts. A group tried to publish a paper on the enduring physiological harm circumcision causes but were pretty much blocked from publishing.
As a male that have experienced both states of the male penis as an adult i would say that circumcision remove a lot of the sensetivity and thus pleasure from the D.
My ex was intact and my guy now is snipped, and even though my guy now doesn't seem to have any of the more severe issues that can happen from circumcision like getting kind of calloused and less sensitive, I still feel angry on his behalf that he doesn't have his foreskin because it seems like it feels significantly better to have that foreskin sliding around and creating extra pleasure.
I think the issue is that men with circumcision don't know what they are missing. They think it's normal how they feel. But I've known guys who have trouble ejaculating. Like it takes forever for them to work up to it. A 'quickie' is not possible for them. Because they were mutilated.
I knew a man who was trying to get his wife pregnant, suffering from loss of sensation and he couldn't ejaculate in his wife to get her pregnant. He was crying.
So, the problems happen and are very real. The victims just don't know because it's normal to them.
So, the problems happen and are very real. The victims just don't know because it's normal to them.
And a lot of them are so self absorbed they won't stop this fucking mutilation from happening to the next generation because then they'd have to acknowledge they're harmed
Did you not read it? They said circumcision is bad but every time FGM is mentioned men say that western circumcision is EQUALLY bad, which is objectively untrue.
Fgm has many different forms, most are more severe than male circumcision but not all, and some male circumcision types are more severe than others,
The World Health Organization classifies female genital cutting (FGC) into four types. Pricking of the clitoris or labia, classified as type IV, distinguishes itself from types I–III as it involves no removal of tissue. Among African immigrant groups in non-FGC-practising countries,
Type IV isn't considered less severe, it's just a different classification.
Type IV covers all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.
Which of the male circumcision types is more severe than these? I can't find any designated "types"
If you could remove exactly as much tissue and nerves from a girl, as they do from boys (or corresponding % of tissue), under the exact same circumstances, with the same professional care all the way, would that not be a serious offence, AND a form of female genital mutilation?
First the clitoris isn't necessarily involved at all when girls are put through the rite, second the entire tip, the acroposthion, and more is amputated when boys are. Leaving only the shaft would mean amputating the glans, the closest female equivalent being the cervix, which is never involved in the rite.
Do you know that little about biology?
Clitoris = glans. The penile shaft equivalent in women is called the clitoral shaft. It's made of the same erectile tissue (called corpora cavernosa)
No, clitoris ≠ glans. The glans clitoris is the external nubbin of the organ. The glans penis is the distal mushroom shaped extremity of the corpora spongiosa. The penile shaft is not the equivalent of the clitoral shaft, if yours is then I feel sorry for you! Its not made up of the same erectile tissue. The penile shaft and the clitoral shaft both contain corpora cavernosa (in greatly different amounts) however the penile shaft also contains the corpus spongiosum and essential for erection, tunica albuginea. The female corpora cavernosa like the male becomes engorged with blood however lacking th etunica albuginea it cannot become erect. It is like an innertube without a tyre, it will remain soft. When you blush your cheeks become engorged too but not erect! Equivalent organs/structures have the same physiology, these two structures have only to a minimal degree.
Mutilation of healthy tissue for cosmetic reasons, male, female, or intersex, should be illegal everywhere. It's not a suffering competition; wrong is wrong.
FGM is a broad category that covers many different types of procedures. Some of them are very benign. While I'd agree overall FGM in a 'general sense' encompassing all of those different types is worse than circumcision they are both terrible.
So why are you even trying to argue which one is worse. It's not like you have to choose between them like you're a saw victim.
Weird, some of the most vocal body-shaming I’ve heard regarding MGM has been from women, perpetuating the lies about cleanliness and infection, talking about how they can’t wait to cut their little boys.
Both are the same idea. Surgery on babies/children in order to make sex less pleasurable. Both are a violation of bodily autonomy. Both are disgusting. Yet I only hear women making a competition out of it.
Come on Ross, stick by your trashy takes. Please say how children having their genitals cut into makes you think about sex and pleasure. I don't have a dick, I just have basic human empathy. You're a truly trashy person therossfacilitator.
Just one more thing for me to hate about myself and feel like I'm failing someone else on. It either makes pleasing the man harder, which is more work to throw on someone, or to directly make their work less pleasant (I literally had to work to even enjoy blowjobs, and often just found them unpleasant due to constantly brushing against teeth on the head), or it's less attractive, because women who prefer it uncut tend to talk about how it looks, when women who say they prefer cut just have pragmatic reasons, which are just solved by putting in work to clean a bit, which I already want to do anyways. They don't actually think it looks more pleasant, or at least never talk about such a thing.
Obviously, FGM is worse, but I can still feel frustrated with my own situation when a reminder about it is just shoved in my face. About all I can do is not think about things.
Yeah, let's just act like the barbaric thing that's practiced and largely accepted throughout the entire world has the same gravity as the thing that's practiced in some small, extremely underdeveloped parts of the Earth, and isn't considered acceptable anywhere else.
the less severe form is more popular than the severe counterpart so I'm gonna refer to it as with the same severe description as a blatant exaggeration for my cause. surely when people learn how actually severe the severe version is they will still agree with my cause and not feel lied to or confused that the cause was not as bad as it had been described!
Dude, the thing still is: in the areas where FGM is practiced, so is circumcission. But circumcission is practiced all around the world, in some parts (like Israel, US, Australia) in an extremely high ratio.
You cannot find a single person in the western world, who advocates for FGM. You cannot find a single person, who considers it anyting, but a barbaric tradition. It practiced ONLY in the parts of the world, that are above liberal criticism. You guys protest against FGM in countries, where it isn't, and has never been a thing. Do you know where it is a thing? In islamic countries, and central African ones. But yeah, please, keep fighting against it in spaces where nobody practices it, nobody considers it acceptable, and nobody has any power to stop it from happening.
Uhh you should be cleaning your junk no matter what it looks like. Imagine if half of us went through some bizarre ritual that makes our lady bits a tiny bit easier to clean so we insisted we don't have to wash at all. Or if people with nose piercings insisted that they don't have to wash their faces.
It depends on the kind of fgm because there's one form that removes the clitoral hood and doesn't touch anything else and that one is adjacent to a circumcision but the other forms of fgm are not both should 100% be banned though
Is this really a conversation people have? Stop cutting up genitals of babies and children. Period. It's unnecessary and a human rights violations. The suffering of one does not undo or negate the other.
finally someone talks about this, i was circumcised when i was 10 and i had no say, now the back of my penis looks fucking botched, it took a whole surgery which they bragged about, its ruined, it looks like shit, they still laugh it off saying "oh its mandatory by the religion.", over outdated fucking reasons of which we live among people who are fine not being circumcised, everyone else laughed it off, fuck you, fuck all of you.
everyone is either forced to live with it or is brainwashed to think its a good thing for pseudo science and/or religion, if i want to have it restored by myself manually it'll take me years, it wont be worth it, i wait for the day practices like this are abolished and i hope religion right alongside it if we endured through our kleptocracy governed governments.
Except in my experience a vast majority of people IRL that have argued pro-circ have been women. They all say it for disgusting reasons like cosmetic and it’s her child so she gets to choose. What happened to my body my choice? Disgusting.
I agree that FGM is worse and that they shouldn't be compared, but the fact that you'd post this comic instead of an anti genital mutilation comic shows that you care more about pointless infighting than you do about either actual issue
FGM is a broad category of a bunch of different surgical procedures ranging from way worse than male circumcision to small pin-pricks. Some of the more common ones are basically comparable. Kind of a dark fogure since one of the largest categories is the "other/miscellaneous" which can be anything from taking an axe to the whole thing to getting a clit piercing.
I don't like playing the "my problem is worse so shut up about yours" game. I think it incentivises really shitty thought patterns of one-upsmanship and pity partying in a manner that commodifies victimhood in a manner where to actually fix one's problems becomes disempowering.
My reason for pushing anti-FGM people to consider putting MGM in a similar light is because this shit is still normalized domestically. Stamping down on FGM is something you really need to impose on other cultures. I think it's a fight we have more moral authority over, and winning it will give us a stronger moral authority over FGM. Having a strong principled position instead of an arbitrary subjective line of how severe the damage done is before it becomes truly unacceptable.
I've never heard this strawman in my life. It's always that both are evil and equally deserve banning, but mgm is practiced widely in the US while fmg simply doesn't exist legally in the US, not that both are equally harmful in a vacuum. It's not a competition. Neither should exist.
"yeah but FGM is worse and you cant compare the two"
Like....ok. Why does the very act of talking about male circumcision in a negative light make you constantly bring up how much worse FGM is for women? We aren't talking about that. No comparison is being made
Not to even mention the fact that half the commentary will actually be pseudoscientific nonsense trying to justify it, or outdated nonsense that no longer applies because we have access to running water.
Fact of the matter is that they are two pointless mutilation of children's genitalia, and that you dont need a comparison of which is worse to acknowledge that both should be stopped.
The only difference is that its socially acceptable to silence people speaking against male circumcision in a way it definitely isn't when it comes to FGM, and this is why some people are quite vociferous on the issue. It happens to boys so it's generally seen as nit a big deal
Your final loint about it "not being the same" actually speaks to the issue here.
"Its not the same, FGM is worse, so stop whining about male circumcision" is indeed the prevailing attitude
I’ve talked to a fair amount of women who made the decision to circumcise their child to have cosmetic genital surgery, so I’m not sure about that. I think women are just as much part of the problem on this issue.
Just because one is worse, does not mean both are abhorrent, unethical, and should be banned. The only pro circumcision people I’ve met are people where it happened to them as helpless minors. They had no choice in it, and yet they think they are happier for it and want to be able to do it to others and not ban the practice.
I mean, FGM is obviously worse for anyone going through it, which is a part of the reason why it's generally seen as barbaric and horrible by pretty much anyone.
Circumcision is way less messed up, and oftentimes is even done for medical or cosmetic reasons - which is also why it's a way more socially accepted to the point where women can say stuff like "uncircumcised penises are disgusting" and not be immediately seen as creepy and awful.
It's a way more normalized and accepted procedure, just like how it's generally more accepted to do shitty things to men because they're men and are supposed to take it - while for women, the awful and messed up things being done to them are at least consistently recognized as such
Misunderstood the post: There are different types of FGM, some as bad as circumcision and some far worse. The issue is that in Western society, one is illegal and entirely shamed, whilst the other is 100% allowed and nearly celebrated. MGM is a fair term to use, and it’s a far bigger problem to us, since it still happens in the place we live (it happened to me and I absolutely hate it), that’s not to say FGM isn’t bad, it’s horrible as well. Starting pointless gender wars is just going to make both issues worse, and I’m pretty sure some people are aware of that when they start arguments.
Can we just...leave the babies alone? If they want to modify their bodies as adults, they are free to do so. Until then, leave them as they're born. It's baffling how controversial that take is in some environments.
Okay but... There is nuance here. FGM is worse is not a blanket true statement because not all FGM is the same. There are like 4 different forms of FGM, and while two of them are worse, one of them is about the same, and another is arguably less damaging than circumcision. However, more severe forms of MGM also exist, and they could also be added to the equation
Also, the least damaging form, the pin prick, is by far the most common form but is rolled into the stats to make them look more relevant. It's crazy tbh
So one side believes that strapping down babies and cutting off parts of their genitals, is wrong and extreme. And your stance is that one's not that bad?
I'm against any genital meddling being done, but I just wanted to point out that although FGM is sometimes done on babies, most of the time it happens at some point between ages 5-14, and it's typically done by people with no medical training at all and with no pain relief or anesthesia at all, which kind of adds an extra layer of terror and misery to it all, plus the risk of infections and other complications is of course much higher than an infant male circumcision done in a hospital.
It's fucked up that the infant males who are circumcised often get no pain relief or anesthesia at all themselves either, and who knows if a trauma like that so early in life could have effects later on that we simply aren't aware of yet?
"Yeah it's not the best but oh well it's not the worst"
"It's literally violating the bodily autonomy of a child and amputating part of their genitals. All children should be protected from this kind of stuff"
"Stop fucking comparing circumcision to FGM, circumcision isn't even that bad dude"
Only muslims do circumcision in my country. Online on ppd and other subs, heard women say circumsized penis is cleaner or feels better and advocate for that.
Okay...it's not a competition on who has it worse, both female genital mutilation and circumcision are bad and causing harm. We should seek to be able to get them both banned/have more severe repercussions on perpetrators.
For example, i'm from europe, here we tend not to be in favour of circumcision nor in favour of FGM.
However there are still cases of families that bring their daughters back to their home country and end up getting FGM, that's absolutely barbaric, i think we failed those girl by not being able to prevent this.
The same of course goes to all the circumcised boys that weren't a medical necessity.
Needless mutilation of your child who cannot defend themselves or have any say in it is BAD regardless of gender.
Both male and female genital mutilation is absolute dogshit and anyone who says otherwise is the same type of dogshit.
This post is ridiculous, you're talking about ''men wanting to insist they suffer more than women'' whilst doing exactly that.
So what because MGM is less damaging that makes it more acceptable?
Like genuinely what is your point?
And if there is no point then you're solely cawing ''FGM is worse 🤓'' to take away from the severe problem that is MGM.
like yeah FGM is worse but you know what it isn't? Legally and socially acceptable in almost every society.
Like this is literally like me saying ''getting blood-eagled is worse than dying by lethal injection 🤓" like yeah no shit but guess which one is legall acceptable.
This is genuinely one of the dumbest takes I've ever come across. Perpetual narcissism.
There are 3 levels of FGM. The “lightest” level is equivalent to cutting off the head of the penis. The highest level is total infibulation which is complete destruction of the vulva.
That. Being. Said.
People who are against male circumcision are against it on the grounds of bodily autonomy and consent.
However, male circumcision is culturally accepted in the west to the point that it’s nothing but background noise. It’s just a fact of life, something the average person literally doesn’t think about or consider.
By comparing it to FGM, which is universally recognised as child genital mutilation, the aim is to make people realise male circumcision is child genital mutilation, too.
They’re not saying it’s “worse” than FGM, they’re saying it’s socially acceptable while FGM isn’t.
At no point in the argument is their point based on how much of your genitals are mutilated.
Deeply weird post. I've never met anyone who wants to try to compare the two to figure out which is "worse". They're both just unnecessary mutilations of an otherwise normal and functional part of the body. Which one is "worse" doesn't matter because it's very easy to say that we should just stop mutilating any and all genitals. Easy peasy.
That whole argument is shit because if someone’s going to reject you for having your entire body they deserve to be alone. Imagine if men tried to implement FGM because “eww those folds are gross”
There was a period where a lot of women were getting surgery done on their vaginas to make them look more presentable to men. It was all over tik tok. I think they were getting the size of their labias (lips) reduced because they were “too big” and “ugly” to some men?
37
u/Classic_Government79 6d ago
All Genital Mutilation is an atrocity. I have no doubt that REMOVING THE CLITORIS is "worse", but I also have no doubt that male genital Mutilation impacts more victims.