Is it true male circumcision is worse than female circumcision?

[Anonymous]

[Long post ahead] Many people claim that female circumcision (or mutilation as they like to call it) is akin to removing the glans of the male penis and therfore worse than male circumcision. Here's the problem with that theory, the clitoris is NOT analogous to the penis, it is in fact an undeveloped nub that remained as it is during the fetal stage, it is the initial phase which the penis had to go through to become a penis. And it is not psychologically important to women like the penis is to men, because while men instinctively start masturbating and orgasming the second they reach puberty, most women need to learn how to orgasm in their 20s and 30s, and even when they learn it it's still hard to get, and a large percentage of women can never orgasm their whole life. This is because biologically nature only deemed male sexual pleasure important while it treated female sexual pleasure as a vestigial afterthought. This is the reason why losing their penis is the most horrying nightmare to men whereas most women would prefer to lose their clitoris over their finger. It's also the reason men get confused when women laugh at a man whose penis got cut off, men are thinking "Why are women laughing at this horrific thing?" whereas the women are thinking "What's the big deal? It's just his equipment". Neither sex understands how the other's psyche works. Now what does the foreskin do? It helps keep the penis sensitive and easy to stimulate and masturbate, without it the male loses many sexual functions. And since sexual pleasure is far more critical to the male psyche than to the female, you'd have to conclude that male circumcision is more harmful than female circumcision. Do you agree?

[nakedalligator]

Then why do men willingly get circumcised while a women would never willingly get circumcised?

Furthermore, female circumcision includes partial or full removal of the clitoris, removal of the forskin and possibly removal of part to all of the labia and sometimes include further burning or scarring.

en.wikipedia.org/Female_genital_mutilation

Not to mention that women get the forskin (that is clitoral hood) reduced intentialy for esthetic reasons like a man might.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Clitoral_hood_reduction

So therefore female circumcision is much different then male circumcision.

Also I've never cared that I'm circumcised.

[Asker]

"Then why do men willingly get circumcised while a women would never willingly get circumcised?" Women DO get willingly circumcised, far more often than men. Stop being so ignorant.

[nakedalligator]

In a ritualistic way, yes, as is expected from them. And if I am ignorant, then cite sources rather then avoiding the issue and committing such ad hominem. My point is that female circumcision is not even comparable to male circumcision, it is much closer to castration as it often fully removes the clitoras.

[passageone]

I think what makes male circumcision worse than female circumcision is the number of people who can see that female circumcision is a sick and barbaric practice but believe that male circumcision isn't a big deal.

There's nothing useful about male circumcision in most cases.

[mistixs]

Male pleasure isn't more important than female pleasure. It's possible for men to ejaculate without orgasm; it's called "ejaculatory anhedonia". If anything, female pleasure would be more important, because they'd need more motivation to have sex when it can potentially be deadly (via childbirth). Hence, multiple orgasms. It's simply more difficult for women to acquire pleasure because it serves as a litmus test to help ascertain who's a suitable mate (which is more important since a woman can literally die giving birth to a child sired by an unsuitable man). But women are able to experience greater HEIGHTS of pleasure than men, when they do experience pleasure.

[Anonymous]

Typical male ignorance! I'd be devasted if I could never have an orgasm again. You seem to think of women as sex machines who have no feelings, sexual needs or psychological needs!

Male circumcision is only removal of the foreskin. It should only be carried out for true medical reasons. Female circumcision is the worst form of mutilation there can ever be.

I'm sure there is a good chance we'll never know, but I'm convinced you're not from the west!

[Asker]

I'm from Canada and 100% white.

[Opinion Owner]

Then you need to learn so much about women!

[Opinion Owner]

I could excuse you in some ways if you were from some Asian or African countries!

[Asker]

They're not hard to figure out with some observational skills.

[nakedalligator]

@juicyjessie Please don't group me with this imbecile.

[LittleSally]

Male circumcision is actually useful - women's is mutilation - makes no sense and it is only used in some messed up tribes who want women to not feel anything down there.

[LittleSally]

To compare women circumcision to men's you'd have to cut off the head of the penis entirely - would you consider that circumcision or mutilation? =)

[Asker]

It is useful for religious zealots who think god commands them to mutilate themselves. All the "medical benefits" are debunked pseudocience created by the very same zealots who aupport the practice. The only reason male circumcision existed in the first place was either as a religious practice or as a way to curb masturbation. The "medical benefits" only started popping up once people began to wake up and ask themselves why they're mutilating their own babies.

[Sitewalker]

Really?

[JoeCensored]

Female sexual pleasure is certainly not an afterthought. It is as important for the woman to want to have sex with the man as it is the reverse, the pleasure aspect is strong encouragement to do so, for both sexes. Unless you think it is perfectly natural for men to rape unwilling women every time they have sex.

[Kuraj]

It is not, it is just equally bad.

[Asker]

No, it is worse.