This says it all.

46n2arejustaheadofme · 2014-01-12T22:21:33+00:00

Just to preemptively clear up the inevitable slew of misinformation that comes with this topic, and give some talking points for discussion:

Male circumcision (partial or full removal of the foreskin) is comparable to any form of FGM, that's not up for debate. People will bring up the anti-intellectual drivel and state that "you cannot compare male circumcision and FGM..." and they are wrong, but they probably aren't worth arguing with in the first place. Any two things can be compared on their objective characteristics and have their similarities highlighted, FGM and MGM aren't excluded, denying that two objectively similar things can be compared is a mental roadblock to logical thought progression, nothing more.
The fact that FGM can be objectively worse than male circumcision is utterly meaningless to the debate on whether or not we should continue either practice. The "not as bad as" fallacy is not an argument, it's a distraction, and it's run rampant. Ignore it when you see it, chances are the person whose acceptance of infant genital mutilation is conditional on how bad they consider the damage isn't really worth arguing with, they don't understand the concept of fundamental human rights to bodily autonomy.
There are a variety of forms of FGM, some are more severe than removal of the foreskin, some are not as severe (more info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM#Classification) but that's irrelevant because as I pointed out before, the severity has no bearing on the morality of these practices, they are both ways of depriving people of their bodily autonomy. What is important is that while ALL forms of FGM are currently banned under federal law in the US, male circumcision is entirely legal. This is a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the US constitution, in that women are protected from genital mutilation, whereas the male version is excluded. There is no good reason that men should not be protected under the law as well.
Male circumcision is unequivocally genital mutilation, and men who had their foreskins removed in infancy were victims of MGM, even if they don't recognize it. The words mutilation and victim are not defined by "feeling mutilated" or "feeling like a victim," and unfortunately many men are unable to or unwilling to recognize this, which inevitably continues the cycle. Male denial of the harm of MGM is a considerable barrier to having the practice banned.
The foreskin is an essential part of male sexual anatomy, it contains a large concentration of nerve endings, protects the glans from exposure (which is normally a very sensitive mucous membrane, but becomes rough and keratinized after being exposed) and facilitates a gliding action around the glans like a linear toroidal bearing which reduces friction on the glans, while creating sensation through the folding and stretching of the foreskin. It also reduces the amount of force needed for penetration during intercourse, and when retracted the foreskin created folds which make intercourse more pleasurable (ribbed condoms are meant to simulate these).
Normal hygiene prevents your genitals from becoming dirty for men and women, it's dehumanizing to suggest that permanent surgery is a normal alternative to the responsibility of regular washing. Uncut men and women will produce a secretion called smegma, which is basically skin cells and oils, and it needs to be washed off, this is not a justification for surgery.
UTIs can be effectively treated with antibiotics and good hygiene in most cases, and are rare at that, routine removal of the foreskin is not medically justified for this purpose.
Phimosis can be painful are hard to treat, but in many cases can be treated with stretching and steroids. In cases where this doesn't work, full-circumcision is still rarely needed. Routine removal of the foreskin is not medically justified for this purpose.
Some will proclaim that removing the foreskin lowers the rate of HIV transmission. Ignoring that this meta-study reviewed data from studies in sub-Saharan African, with questionable methodology, this is irrelevant for several other reasons, namely that an invasive surgery for a partial reduction in HIV transmission is inferior to condoms. Forcing men to have their foreskins removed because we can't trust them to use condoms is dehumanizing.

Note: Here I'm referring to non-therapeutic circumcision, where there is no medical reason, which there typically is not for a child, or non-elective, where the person isn't old enough to make an informed decision. Adults choosing to get circumcised for personal reasons or having it done for medical reasons is not an issue.

ProBread · 2014-01-12T16:50:02+00:00

hobbsrambo · 2014-01-12T17:36:32+00:00

What do they even remove in a female circumcision?

Daviddave · 2014-01-13T02:31:08+00:00

Can't we do something to change this? I've never tried to edit a wikipedia page but it's supposed to be open for people to edit right? there must be something we can do to change it.

Ivan_Fackoff · 2014-01-13T09:06:43+00:00

I feel out of all brunches of MRM, intactivists are doing best of all on PR and exposure. Many feminists are against cutting and sites like Feministing condemning Jeezbells who apparently are pro-cutting. That is huge and for a moment I forget all the shit slinging and love every single feminist who care about newborns boys. Sometimes it is the nastiest worst of the worst radfems who will drown a man in a teaspoon of water, are who argue with a foam at the mouth for genital integrity of boys. That shit melts my heart.

nebno6 · 2014-01-13T12:57:47+00:00

Very powerful human rights wise they are exactly the same.

ThePigmanAgain · 2014-01-12T23:47:22+00:00

Wikipedia. What else were you expecting?

Bainshie_ · 2014-01-13T04:25:02+00:00

Am I the only one that doesn't really have a problem with this? It makes sense to link the two together, especially as someone looking for FGM might search for circumcision.

The only real issue I see, is FGM doesn't link back.

Maximus7713 · 2014-01-13T05:04:39+00:00

I always enjoy it when this topic comes up. And by enjoy, I mean loathe. Why? One reason : the comments.

I was circumcised at birth, at the request of my father, who was 19 at the time. He was uncircumcised, and had an medical issue that apparently caused him to experience a great deal of pain. So, my dad thought he was doing me a favor and saving me from a painful ordeal.

The last time this one came up, I thought about asking questions, but after reading the comments I decided not to comment. It seemed to me that some of the uncircumcised redditors on here were going so far as to belittle or attack those of us who were not lucky enough to survive intact.

I often wonder what it would have been like had my parents (dad mostly) not made that choice from me. But there is very little I can do about it now. I know if I had a male child, I can say that I would not push for circumcision. I just hope this doesn't devolve into another thread where those of us who were victims of circumcision are made to feel inferior to those of you who survived childhood intact.

J_esbian · 2014-01-13T00:47:32+00:00

It's called that because 'female circumcision' can involve sewing up a womens vaginal opening and only allows urine and menstrual fluids through, controlling her sexual activity. Male circumcision removes skin and does not control the male's sexual activity, and it is also in the bible, unlike Female circumcision.

46n2arejustaheadofme · 2014-01-12T18:42:19+00:00

Such brave in posting this. Again.

Honestly, I disagree with the anti-circumcision crowd and I'm not going to debate it (there is no point, yet someone will reply trying to enlighten me or tell me how horrible of a person I am, or how I don't understand "the truth", etc)... However, female circumcision and male circumcision are not comparable and this picture proves nothing.

Considering also that Wikipedia is the subject of a scandal stating it's mostly edited by men and sexist to women - where at our rights in jeopardy here? They clearly aren't. Oh, its ironic? Awesome. But we are aware.

This is just karma whoring.

Title	This says it all.
Author	davidcwilliams
Upvotes	289
Comments	99
Date	January 12, 2014 4:23 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1v1atf/this-says-it-all/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/this-says-it-all.1613737 https://theredarchive.com/post/1613737

Comments