Female genital mutilation is illegal and gets this exposure, male genital mutilation is legal and thus gets little exposure even even children die! (I did not see reports of the boys who have died and been mutilated from a 'legal' procedure)

CORNDOGCOMMANDO · 2012-07-24T23:36:08+00:00

What really makes me angry is I read in the past that circumcision deaths are categorized as a death during birth so they can keep the deaths due to circumcision statistics low. Such fucking bullshit, one death is too many

thunder_mcshock · 2012-07-25T09:59:09+00:00

Consider that female genital mutilation is illegal on grounds of barbaric-ness and violation of the female's human rights, no matter to what degree it is performed.

I recall, after we collectively found out such things were happening and subsequently had a justified shitfit to get it banned in developed western nations, many of the people practising it attempted to opt for a compromise that would put their FGM rituals far below circumcision in the unnecessary-physical-and-structural-damage department.

I haven't heard it described in full disgusting detail, but I had heard the proposed compromise described as a "pinprick" or something along those lines, just enough to draw blood. I also haven't heard about any problems such a ritual may or may not cause later in life, but besides a small scar (if anything; I don't exactly have a scar for every papercut I've ever had, but maybe it works differently for babies or for genitalia) nothing will have changed.

Their proposal, IIRC, was declined on the spot and tampering with a vagina, no matter how slightly, remains illegal. Unless the adult woman elects to get it done--I'm not sure what exactly the law says about that, but common sense says that you can have basically whatever messed up shit you want done to your body if you're a free adult and that's what you think looks nice, and vaginal cosmetic surgery probably falls within that.

Anyway, the point is, how is it that we can say a small cut that leaves the organ functionally intact once it heals is a terrible, abominable human rights violation and anyone who does it should be thrown in prison and raped to death by the other inmates...

...And then turn around, amputate a functioning piece of a baby boy under no anaesthetic, and sell the amputated parts to be made into face cream for Oprah (with the added option of performing a sex act on the baby boy afterwards, with the prerequisite of being Jewish) and say that's perfectly okay, and trying to criminalize it is an aggressive attack on the Jewish faith, of an intensity not seen since the Holocaust?

RomeFlower · 2012-07-24T22:28:13+00:00

I post this as its an interesting mirror to the issues men face with Male genital mutilation, I would encourage you to visit the cross post of the same article in r/feminism

and make a note of the language and words that are used , I quote a comment...

a big part of the problem is that it's a cultural value in some parts of Africa,

could read ,male genital mutilation...a big part of the problem is that it's a cultural value in some parts of Europe /America ,

and also

make the claim that FGM reduces HIV infection. This has been thoroughly debunked, FGM actually increases HIV infection rates due to poor hygienic practices during the ritual.

applies to MGM.

Achlies · 2012-07-27T06:35:07+00:00

Circumcision is male genital mutilation. There's no way around it. And women die from it, too.

The difference, I think, is that female genital mutilation leads to her being completely, 100% unable to experience sexual pleasure whereas male genital mutilation leaves the penis fully-functioning most of the time. So it's a severity issue, I believe. Both should be banned. Both should be outlawed. But the difference in exposure has a rational basis.

singingsox · 2012-07-25T08:47:19+00:00

I have a few things I'd like to point out:

Recently, male circumcision was regarded as "bodily harm" and deemed illegal in Germany, so it is getting exposure and even being outlawed. Slow progress, but it is happening.

Now, I'm not saying circumcision isn't barbaric, but there are some pretty stark differences between male and female genital mutilation.

Male circumcision has been regarded as being "cleanlier", and it's often proposed as being an issue of hygiene. The second "appeal" of circumcision is purely an aesthetic one. Not saying I agree, but that is the culture behind it. The procedure for this act is often done at birth, or shortly thereafter. The child grows up not knowing the difference, really.

Of course, there are obvious drawbacks to male circumcision - one being reduced sensitivity. Another is reduced lubrication and protection. And of course, whatever the consequences of the procedure going wrong, including death and serious infection.

Now, women's circumcision is very, very different culturally. It is often done in patriarchal societies to assert the male dominance over women. It is done SPECIFICALLY to reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure, and in some more extreme cases, to completely prevent penetration. There are absolutely no perceived "benefits" to this procedure, and it is done specifically to harm the woman. Also, this procedure is done in some cultures as a "right of passage", not only implying to be a "real woman" requires you to have no interest in sexual pleasure and to stifle all your desires, but also means it is done after the woman has lived for a number of years. This is usually done around the onset of puberty. Many cultures do this outside of the hospital, by an "expert" in the procedure. It is very dangerous, and many have died due to infection. Other than the obvious physical risks, the procedure is done to strip women of their sexual feelings and overall personhood, which takes a huge psychological toll on women in these societies.

I'm not saying male circumcision isn't an outdated and barbaric take on how a penis should look, but please, look at some of the cultural background and facts on female circumcision. Both are awful, but female circumcision is absolutely horrifying.

ZimbaZumba · 2012-07-25T07:09:43+00:00

The BBC is a mouth piece for liberal elites of the UK. The only thing the BBC has to sell over other News networks is its reputation for objectiveness. It is losing it fast.

Comments