I understand the purpose of this argument however I would like to put forward what I believe is a fair rebuttal. The primary objective of circumcision is for genital health in males. Until very recently the ability to keep one’s genital area clean was limited at best. UTI’s, yeast infections, and general warts, were incredibly common and so the practice of circumcision held immense medical benefits. This practice took on religious significance as much of medicine did at the time. In today’s world, the purpose of circumcising is less necessary with good hygiene but still reduces the rate of male yeast infections in countries where the practice is common. Unlike FGM which offers no health benefits and only serves to limit and most often prevent female orgasm, male circumcision has a minor but not significant impact upon sexual pleasure. For these reasons an equivalence between the two practices is not well supported and in my opinion can be used to down play the unique brutality of FGM.
Thanks for weighing in. Good points about hygiene, although I hadn't run into anything about genital warts. Which are caused by the HPV virus which is responsible for that other nasty stuff. I'm not sure, though, that the practice started *because* of genital hygiene. How did they know? How did they make the connection between hygiene and the foreskin? And at any rate, HPV is sexually transmissible with or without the foreskin. Once again, a condom is a best practice, esp if you have multiple partners.
For these reasons, I don't know that the hygiene argument washes (ar ar!) anymore. Yeast infections are a very weak argument for it--I've had those too, men can get them and give them, and once again---a trip to the doctor or pharmacy.
I did state that FGM isn't comparable but the point is, Is there any good reason to do it anymore apart from phimosis? Yes, they can still have *some* sexual pleasure but why not all of it? What if, say, doctors found that a woman's inner labia made them prone to certain infections or cancers, and suggested removing them but leaving the clitoris intact? Should parents do this, since the baby will grow up to have *some* sexual pleasure but not as much as she might?
I appreciate your comments, you bring up some good points. But I admit I find the unconvincing, mostly because live in 2024, not 1624 :)
I once had an interesting conversation with an OB-GYN. He 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 the modern practice of having the father present for the baby's delivery. Almost half the time, he faints dead away! The mother or baby may be in distress, and now those attending to the delivery have 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 problem to deal with. Or so my informant said.
He went on to say what's worse are fathers who witness the circumcision. Nearly all of them faint! (I have no idea of what happens at a 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘴 since I've never attended one and it's such a sanctified ritual. Do people applaud the honoree's blood curdling scream?)
One wonders how men ever came to rule the world, when they faint at the sight of something they caused (a pregnancy) or seeing what was done to them lo these many years ago :)
FGM and male circumcision are not comparable issues. The research on sensitivity seems to be for adult circumcision. You downplay the disease risk, very flippantly. UTIs in men, HIV, Cervical and Penile cancer are all very serious health conditions. Ask any Jewish man, not many problems with sexual function there. And your positioning of male circumcision as being a “response” to masturbation similar to Victorian torture is extreme. Male circumcision is of course a topic for debate but this feels like ‘let’s blame the Jews for trans “bottom” surgeries.’
I'm not blaming any one group, esp as the Jews hardly invented it. Where's the rampant penile cancer in cultures with uncirumcised men? How many men do you know who ever had penile cancer? In 2022, 78 Canadian men died of penile cancer. https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-types/penile/statistics. That was out of nearly 39M Canadians, roughly half of which I assume were male. Where's the justification for circumcising millions of infants in the unlikely event they get penis cancer? As I mentioned, maybe we should remove their appendix as we're slicing their penis since appendixes are AFAAK pretty useless and they could get infected later. A massive .2 Canadians died of it in 2022!
UTIs, as I noted, can be treated with penicillin (I've had them), and the rest are preventable with a condom. So where's your justification for this?
I'm not quite sure what the spitball is. Male circumcision, AFAICT, leaves a man with *some* sexual feeling but not as much as he might have had without it. Whereas FGM leaves a female not just sexually unresponse, but finding sex very painful.
Well said. I've always thought it was a horrible thing to do to a boy. Completely pointless - they could do it for themselves at 18 if they really wanted. If the idea was invented now, it would be immediately made illegal and those who suggested it be regarded with great suspicion. With good reason.
Of course it’s wrong but not nearly as wrong as changing pleasure to intense pain, and dripping acid taking 5 minutes to pee.
There’a a pill for that. Also…drink lots of cranberry juice!!!
I understand the purpose of this argument however I would like to put forward what I believe is a fair rebuttal. The primary objective of circumcision is for genital health in males. Until very recently the ability to keep one’s genital area clean was limited at best. UTI’s, yeast infections, and general warts, were incredibly common and so the practice of circumcision held immense medical benefits. This practice took on religious significance as much of medicine did at the time. In today’s world, the purpose of circumcising is less necessary with good hygiene but still reduces the rate of male yeast infections in countries where the practice is common. Unlike FGM which offers no health benefits and only serves to limit and most often prevent female orgasm, male circumcision has a minor but not significant impact upon sexual pleasure. For these reasons an equivalence between the two practices is not well supported and in my opinion can be used to down play the unique brutality of FGM.
Thanks for weighing in. Good points about hygiene, although I hadn't run into anything about genital warts. Which are caused by the HPV virus which is responsible for that other nasty stuff. I'm not sure, though, that the practice started *because* of genital hygiene. How did they know? How did they make the connection between hygiene and the foreskin? And at any rate, HPV is sexually transmissible with or without the foreskin. Once again, a condom is a best practice, esp if you have multiple partners.
For these reasons, I don't know that the hygiene argument washes (ar ar!) anymore. Yeast infections are a very weak argument for it--I've had those too, men can get them and give them, and once again---a trip to the doctor or pharmacy.
I did state that FGM isn't comparable but the point is, Is there any good reason to do it anymore apart from phimosis? Yes, they can still have *some* sexual pleasure but why not all of it? What if, say, doctors found that a woman's inner labia made them prone to certain infections or cancers, and suggested removing them but leaving the clitoris intact? Should parents do this, since the baby will grow up to have *some* sexual pleasure but not as much as she might?
I appreciate your comments, you bring up some good points. But I admit I find the unconvincing, mostly because live in 2024, not 1624 :)
Preach!
I once had an interesting conversation with an OB-GYN. He 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 the modern practice of having the father present for the baby's delivery. Almost half the time, he faints dead away! The mother or baby may be in distress, and now those attending to the delivery have 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 problem to deal with. Or so my informant said.
He went on to say what's worse are fathers who witness the circumcision. Nearly all of them faint! (I have no idea of what happens at a 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘴 since I've never attended one and it's such a sanctified ritual. Do people applaud the honoree's blood curdling scream?)
One wonders how men ever came to rule the world, when they faint at the sight of something they caused (a pregnancy) or seeing what was done to them lo these many years ago :)
FGM and male circumcision are not comparable issues. The research on sensitivity seems to be for adult circumcision. You downplay the disease risk, very flippantly. UTIs in men, HIV, Cervical and Penile cancer are all very serious health conditions. Ask any Jewish man, not many problems with sexual function there. And your positioning of male circumcision as being a “response” to masturbation similar to Victorian torture is extreme. Male circumcision is of course a topic for debate but this feels like ‘let’s blame the Jews for trans “bottom” surgeries.’
I'm not blaming any one group, esp as the Jews hardly invented it. Where's the rampant penile cancer in cultures with uncirumcised men? How many men do you know who ever had penile cancer? In 2022, 78 Canadian men died of penile cancer. https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-types/penile/statistics. That was out of nearly 39M Canadians, roughly half of which I assume were male. Where's the justification for circumcising millions of infants in the unlikely event they get penis cancer? As I mentioned, maybe we should remove their appendix as we're slicing their penis since appendixes are AFAAK pretty useless and they could get infected later. A massive .2 Canadians died of it in 2022!
UTIs, as I noted, can be treated with penicillin (I've had them), and the rest are preventable with a condom. So where's your justification for this?
Well, male circumcision doesn't leave you with the inability to feel pleasure and/or achieve orgasm?
Just spitballing here...
I'm not quite sure what the spitball is. Male circumcision, AFAICT, leaves a man with *some* sexual feeling but not as much as he might have had without it. Whereas FGM leaves a female not just sexually unresponse, but finding sex very painful.
Not just sex, but menstruation, sitting, walking, etc. ☹️😡
Well said. I've always thought it was a horrible thing to do to a boy. Completely pointless - they could do it for themselves at 18 if they really wanted. If the idea was invented now, it would be immediately made illegal and those who suggested it be regarded with great suspicion. With good reason.