~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[removed]
[–]Jesus_marley8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Circumcision, either male OR female when performed on an adult with informed consent is perfectly fine.
Infant circumcision however is a blatant denial of basic human rights to the child. As the child is the only person who has the right to make the decision regarding what happens to their body, short of legitimate, immediate, medical necessity, the act of forced genital cutting denies their right to bodily autonomy. Her body, her choice. His body his choice.
[–]burritosandbeer3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Simply put, it removes someone's right to bodily autonomy. There's hundreds of good reasons to be anti-mutilation, but that one is key.
[–]rightsbot1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)
[–]Eryemil1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
A whole body is the default so by asking that question you've already biased the discussion before it can even begin. The question you should be asking is "what's right about circumcision", as it is the burden of those that favour the practice to justify it.
[–]sibqm_lmvm1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Nothing's "wrong" with circumcision if an adult (male or female) decides to do that to their own body.
What's wrong is people making the choice for their sons or daughters when the child in question is incapable of consenting.
[–]spokewrencher0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The main issue is that it is completely medically unnecessary to cut away healthy and normal tissue from an infant without it's consent and without anesthesia (because anesthesia is unsafe for newborns). However, if done right it makes no long term difference, and it is vastly different from female circumcision which severely and permanently damages them.
You're mostly right, but you'd do well to reconsider your thoughts on the lasting effects of male circumcision.
Here's a pile of links from circumcision.org with relevant reading.
[–]spokewrencher1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Thanks for the link, that is an excellent resource, I suppose I downplayed them too much in the comparison.
[–]Super_delicious-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If its not done professionally then there are several risks and lingering problems. If it is done professionally then I don't see a problem with it.
[–]Eryemil2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Are you in favour of repealing the sexist laws which prevent parents from circumcising their daughters in many Western countries?
[–]Super_delicious0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well I have to be since I'm ok with male circumcision. But I'd only think removal of the hood would be ok.
That's a false equivalence as they they are homologous in origin but not function. You could remove all of the external female genitalia with the possible exception of the outer portion of the clitoris and it would still not equate the loss of function that male circumcision entails.
[–]spokewrencher-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
There are several people here partially approving FGM, and while I'm fully against MGM, I don't equate them. Here's a summary of the practice:
"..is the removal of all external genitalia. The inner and outer labia are cut away, ...excision of the clitoris. The girl's legs are then tied together from hip to ankle for up to 40 days to allow the wound to heal. The girl may be pinned down so firmly that bones may fracture. The immobility causes the labial tissue to bond, forming a wall of flesh and skin across the entire vulva, apart from a hole the size of a matchstick for the passage of urine and menstrual blood, which is created by inserting a twig or rock salt into the wound." The initial bleeding complications can be fatal, and of course, no anesthesia. It usually destroys all feelings of pleasure, makes sex painful, and birth extremely hazardous (infant mortality is also high).
Again, fully against MGM, just arguing that these procedures are very different. At least most males are able to lead generally sexually functioning lives. Though seriously, all this nonsense needs to end ASAP.
You have a skewed perspective of what female circumcision is, obviously informed by Western and feminist bias.
There are types of FGM that are much less invasive than the amputation of the foreskin and frenulum and there are types of MGM that are more invasive than all forms of FGM.
True that's generally the worst of it, but in several countries that is the most common one performed, and that description is straight from Wikipedia. Could you show a source for "types of MGM that are more invasive than all forms of FGM" and show that they are just as common? I'm not an expert, and I'd like to learn.
Could you show a source for "types of MGM that are more invasive than all forms of FGM" and show that they are just as common?
Punitive castration and penectomy are worse, penile sub incision is comparable. As to how common it is, if you believe prevalence somehow impacts the severity of the mutilation itself then that alone makes MGM "worse" than FGM.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Jesus_marley8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]burritosandbeer3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rightsbot1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Eryemil1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sibqm_lmvm1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]spokewrencher0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]burritosandbeer3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]spokewrencher1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Super_delicious-5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Eryemil2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Super_delicious0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Eryemil2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]spokewrencher-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Eryemil2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]spokewrencher1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Eryemil1 point [recovered] | Copy Link