Another hateful pro-circumcison article @ www.fatherly.com. Same feminist author: Lauren Vinopal. Last one was only 3 months ago.

HeForeverBleeds · 2017-11-08T05:43:43+00:00

Even though the article is attacking intactivists, I agree entirely with the points Anthony and Christopher made. If the interview were published without the bias preface, it would be a great thing to share around

At one point the interviewer says

The custom of removing a clitoris isn’t for an even marginal public health benefit, and doesn’t so much lessen sexual experience as obliterate it. That’s why I don’t think we can call them the same thing.

The custom of removing the clitoris is not the only nor most common kind of female circumcision; that was the intactivists' point of saying that there are different kinds in the first place. She's taking one of the most invasive forms of female circumcision and saying it can't be compared to male circumcision, when the less invasive forms (piercing, removing the prepuce, removing or reducing the labia) are equal or less invasive than typical male circumcision, and also affects sexual experience the same if not less

So it's dishonest to argue that female circumcision is always worse. Which is what Anthony and Christopher were trying to explain, but the interviewer was far to biased to listen

It's also ironic that the interviewer argues that female circumcision is wrong because it reduces female sexual pleasure, but then when C and A argued how male circumcision also reduces male sexual pleasure her response was "That’s an emotional argument"

Anthony's answer to

why would anyone lie about circumcision preventing disease?

was

I don’t know. You’d have to ask them.

I believe one reason is that it's a big money maker, and unfortunately some doctors prioritize that over the patient's well-being. Whether or not there are health benefits, if a doctor gets $800 per mutilation, he's / she's not going to want people to come in telling him / her to stop performing the procedure

I believe part of it is also that, whatever reason it started (in the U.S., it was to prevent masturbation AKA control male sexuality read: Dr. Kellogg), it's become so normal that there's a sort of cognitive dissonance to being told that it's not only wrong but a horrible act of violation

What parent wants to hear that he / she allowed his / her child to be literally physically and sexually abused for no good reason? What circumcised man wants to hear how much he's missing out on without foreskin? He'd probably rather believe that needing to use a ton of lube and having a dried, insensitive glans is normal

So you don’t think it’s worth it for even a small reduced risk of HIV?

This also shows the interviewer clearly is completely ignorant to how much is lost with the foreskin, not to mention the traumatizing experience of having it removed while conscious and unanesthetized in the first place

And even when they explain how no, it's not worth it; uncircumcised men wouldn't generally choose to be circumcised for that reason; many circumcised men still would prefer not to be; her response is pretty much "it doesn't matter how men feel about it, because that's not science"

I'd say how a person feels about a forced, painful, permanent alternation to their body with no significant benefit is extremely significant to whether or not it should be continued or even legal

Overall, I believe it's a very foolish article and a very foolish interviewer, but the interview itself has some good points

Razorbladekandyfan · 2017-11-08T14:48:21+00:00

Hey, if the World health organisation is so right, why are 80% of the men around the world intact?

Foregen_Is_Life · 2017-11-08T21:28:38+00:00

Type one is the removal of the clitoral hood, which is the anatomical male equivalent of the male foreskin.

This is a very serious understatement.

If we're talking about the proportion of erogenous nerve endings amputated, then cutting off the foreskin is far more severe than cutting off the clitoral hood. There are 20,000 nerve endings in the foreskin and only 8,000 in the clitoris (not just the clitoral hood).

Virtually all erogenous tissue on the penis is contained within the ridged band, the frenulum, and the frenular delta, each of which is removed during circumcision. The entire point of circumcision is to remove as much sexual pleasure as physically possible without affecting the ability to reproduce. The female equivalent to cutting off the foreskin wouldn't be amputating the clitoral hood. A more accurate comparison would be the complete amputation of the entire external portion of the clitoris as well as the entire labia minora. Here's a list of references if you think I'm exaggerating.

If we want people to take this issue seriously, then we should not continue to sugarcoat the truth.

jmg83 · 2017-11-08T21:38:56+00:00

I don't care for this interviewer. She seems to be doing her damndest to portray these men as nutters without even acknowledging any of their better points.

Consilio_et_Animis · 2017-11-08T04:21:24+00:00

Actually, a search of the website show an endless list of filthy, bestial pro male genital mutilation articles.

Swiss_Cheese9797 · 2017-11-08T11:35:05+00:00

What's the point of a woman being pro circumcision?

Title	Another hateful pro-circumcison article @ www.fatherly.com. Same feminist author: Lauren Vinopal. Last one was only 3 months ago.
Author	Consilio_et_Animis
Upvotes	54
Comments	18
Date	November 8, 2017 4:18 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7bixnw/another_hateful_procircumcison_article/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/another-hateful-pro-circumcison-article.911582 https://theredarchive.com/post/911582

Comments