In what exact way is FGM supposed to be "far worse" than MGM?

said_sadly_ · 2019-06-07T19:28:11+00:00

Both are horrible. As a woman I find the argument about the clitoris not being necessarily an important part of sexuality a little weird.

I don’t get why it’s a contest.

Instead of making arguments as to why FGM isn’t so bad (which is honestly how this comes across) we should all be focused on arguing that MGM is just as bad.

Frankly, this is the same shit I read whenever a crazy religious zealot is trying to justify FGM. There is never a justification for removing anything from the body of a baby or young person regardless of biological sex unless the life of the baby is in danger. Period.

valenin · 2019-06-07T18:48:23+00:00

You’re preaching to the choir.

ABitterSatireHeWrote · 2019-06-07T20:23:55+00:00

From memory:

Piercings, scrapes, pricks, tattoos, etc. on any part of the exposed female genitalia = similar procedures on male genitals (probably moderately worse on female genitals because this typically targets the clitoris where the nerves are very densely distributed, comparable to the frenulum, but that isn't a common location for [involuntary or culturally pressured] modifications besides complete removal)

Complete removal of clitoral hood = not as bad as complete removal of male foreskin, and by quite an extraordinary amount (and this is not even including a frenectomy which it often is done with, in which case the gap is even larger), it most likely isn't even as bad as removal of the ridged band alone

Complete removal of the clitoral hood and (both) labia and partial removal of the exposed portion of the clitoris = comparable to the complete removal of the foreskin (and probably frenulum)

Complete removal of the prepuce, exposed clitoris, and labia = circumcision, frenectomy, and subincision (which is largely limited to the australian aboriginals and a few amazonian tribes)

Complete removal of the exposed clitoris and labia and infibulation = worse than all practiced variations of circumcision and subincision by a fair margin (keep in mind both the penis and the clitoris [although the clitoris much more so] extend below the exposed portion that extrudes from the body and is visible unless removed, and that the prostate is a thing that exists). This is also the most rare form, largely limited to Sudan if am remembering correctly.

The only thing remaining would be complete castration which would be worse than all forms of FGM which wouldn't be almost certainly lethal.

I think these are reasonable comparisons.

2019-06-07T21:30:51+00:00

If you argue severity, you’re arguing on their court. They WANT you to argue severity, because they think they can come up with an argument that trumps yours, no matter what. Some FGM involves a full clitiderectomy, and there’s nothing even remotely comparable in the male world, shy of getting your dick chopped off entirely.

You’re better off arguing on rights and bodily integrity. The minute you shift to that field, now you’re in a world where severity doesn’t matter. The wrong is the violation of the rights of that child, whether that child is male or female. In that respect, FGM and MGM are absolutely equal, and always will be. It’s a field feminists cannot win on, so it makes sense for you to shift the argument to that field, instead.

Title	In what exact way is FGM supposed to be "far worse" than MGM?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	6
Comments	12
Date	June 7, 2019 6:17 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bxxwu7/in_what_exact_way_is_fgm_supposed_to_be_far_worse/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/in-what-exact-way-is-fgm-supposed-to-be-far-worse.1206399 https://theredarchive.com/post/1206399

Comments