Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Men are raised and thought to be disposable in society. As soldiers, police officers, fire officers, manual labour's. Instead of sending out a woman into a dangerous and potentially life threatening environment men are taught that they must do it, after all, men can't get pregnant and it only takes one man to impregnate multiple women so we don't need there to be as many men as there are women. So men have a duty to society to protect more important people, the sick, weak, frail, old, young and female. By mutilating a man his disposibility is reinforced because society does not want to change that behaviour. It's okay to mistreat men and boys, it's okay to mutilate them at birth and even older ages if the society demands it from them. Women are much more important we as men are taught to protect women and be chivalrous, women are taught its okay to hit men, the can't do anything in retaliation, men will do the jobs that are too dirty, too dangerous and die for your sake. We put women on a pedestal where if someone hurts a woman, makes her cry, mutilated, enslaved or any other evil act, that we should be disgusted in that behaviour and we must rescue them and vilify the perpetrators. When these things happen to men, we often turn a blind eye, he probably deserves it right? He's a man, what kind of whimp can't stand up for himself. Where is his honor or manliness when he breaks down crying? Nobody cares what happens to men, because men are apparently the cause of all evil in the world.
Because people are sexist. To be honest...
Yeah
I don't think either are okay but they are certainly not the same at all. FGMs sole intention is usually to prevent the girl from having premarital sex by sewing up the labia together and cutting it off for marriage, and second intention is to get rid of female sexual pleasure. And the pain and complications of FGM lasts a whole lot longer. None of these reasons are the same for men at all which is why people would take FGM far more serious than male circumsicion. Still it isn't right, and should only be made by the decision of the person themselves.
And for the males to prevent masturbation. Both try to remove pleasure from the act of sex. Both equally despicable.
Now we know it doesn't. Back then they thought it did.
Rainie_ : Babies can't make decisions for themselves. Their parents have to make the decisions for them. Circumcision when an infant, is when it is most easily done, with the fewest complication, and gives the child the greatest protection if done when a new born. That is why you can't wait for the infant to be able to decide for themselves. It would be like not vaccinating a child for any diseases, until they are adults, and can chose for themselves. If vaccinations waited that long, literally millions of children would have died, and continue dying right now.
@chris1984 it removes approx 75% of the pleasurable feelings in the penis. Thats coming from those who've had circumcision in midlife. Then killed themself.
Because they're idiots and think it's actually beneficial to a child's health to cut off part of its penis, which was true in the 19th century when such a barbaric practice was popularized, but not in today's world. These days it serves no other real purpose than for aesthetic appeal, and for that reason I strongly believe the parents have no right to make that kind of decision for their newborn infant who can't possibly have a say or even remotely understand what's going on.
I will give this opinion MHO
Sorry dude, but you're the mistaken one here. I have looked at the medical science, and being circumcised actually doesn't significantly protect a baby from any kind of diseases. It used to, but in the modern world with our bettered hygiene habits those diseases are scarce, and advanced medical technology provides plenty of other much more humane options to safeguard a child against those illnesses. Mutilating your child's genitals is completely unnecessary and a cruel solution to an unlikely-to-occur problem, and so even as a parent it should NOT be your decision to make.
I think they’re both bad, I support neither it is disgusting and some fucked up shit that needs to end, it causes health problems makes you more prone to stds and things like aids and infections.
Actually people try and claim being circumcised makes you less likely to get HIV.
Doesn't make sense, if you stick your dick in a bee hive you're going to get stung either way lmao
Wait sorry I misread that you’re tricking me 🙈 you know why one is worse than the other lol.
Uncircumcised men can still get pleasure same
Way though women have problems.
Female genital mutilation completely destroys a woman's source of sexual pleasure. Circumcision does not.
Why should male babies have their skin cut off? Let it be their decision when they are older
Because a foreskin serves no useful function that I know of, and if you do it as a baby he probly won't remember the pain as an adult.
When precum happens it lubricates the penis and also when circumcised it kills nerve endings and the penis looks scarred af lmao
Circumcising it does no useful function either, same way with female circumcision she won't remember the pain as an adult.
Not necessarily, there are several different kinds of female genital mutilation. Some only include cutting a part of the clitoral hood, very similar to cutting a boy's foreskin. Regardless, male genital mutilation serves no purpose in today's world. You're just needlessly cutting up a part of your child's genitals because it might look better aesthetically, that's the only real benefit it could possibly have now.
@CarpetDenim basically
Women want to mutilate men for their porn standards, brilliant
You both raise interesting points. Thank you.
Thank you for being open-minded and receptive to them.
Circumcision removes a large portion of nerve endings and pleasure sensors in the penis.
Opinion
24Opinion
Male circumcision and female circumcision aren't even close to the same act. Cutting the foreskin does arguably nothing whatsoever to the child, albeit making it easier to clean and prevents the build up of smegma. Female circumcision irreparably damages the organ itself, dampens a girl's ability to feel sexual pleasure and makes childbirth endlessly more dangerous.
It's not hypocritical to think one is irrelevant and the other should be stopped when the are entirely different situations with entirely different consequences.
Male circumcision has both benefits and drawbacks, so can easily be argued.
Female circumcision is literally mutilation of the worst kind that nobody in their right mind would freely opt into.
Quite honestly this is like comparing assault to murder.
It's comparing murder to murder
Wrong again. There are several versions of female genital mutilation, and some only include cutting part of the clitoral hood, comparatively very similar to removing a boy's foreskin.
Male genital mutilation in this day and age has no medical benefits at all. The only "good" thing about it is that being circumcised supposedly makes a penis more aesthetically attractive. Seriously, that's the only reason. People are pushed to believe that circumcised looks better because that's all you see in porn, and so a psychological revulsion is built up to foreskin, and that way it's assured they'll mutilate their baby without the baby's consent or understanding.
Cleanliness. How do you define that?
Controversial to say but: promiscuity and STIs do have a connection, if you circumcise women they will be less promiscuous thus society is "cleaner" of STIs. The cleaner argument is absolutely rubbish because it can be argued in both ways.
I will tell you the same thing I told another person who tried the hygiene argument. Unless a man has completely terrible hygiene, doesn't know how to wash his dick, and regularly shits on it, being circumcised is not going to do a thing for cleanliness, and thus is completely unnecessary in our developed 21st century first world countries. We have showers now y'know.
I'm aware of smegma. We have showers now. Men should know how to wash their genitals.
I have never had an issue with smegma, those who do must be dirty cunts who don't know how to pull it back to clean it.
If one is an unhygienic savage they will have issues with their unclean dick regardles whether circumcised or not.
Carpet, look. Female circumcision almost never has a positive side to it: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
I'm not saying that either is okay, but female circumcision is a hell of a lot worse than even a botched male circumcision.
"hell of a lot worse than ever a botched male circumcision"
HELL NO, a botched male circumcision is far worse than a successful female circumcision. One get's reduced sexual pleasure and one has probably lost their entire penis!
How can you say that? You're just as bad as the rest of society, overlooking all of men's problems and holding women up on a pedestal as the only ones that matter. You are a part of the problem.
You're still trying to place the same practice as more severe and more awful for women than for men. According to you, a botched male circumcision, in which a baby boy could lose his entire penis, is worse than any kind of female circumcision. Does that not sound the slightest bit unfair or the slightest bit inconsiderate of men's issues to you?
Alright a badly botched male circumcision is potentially penis-threatening, but most often the mistake made just leaves a scar or deformity that doesn't cause a huge amount of issue beyond aesthetics.
Yes, it has the potential to caused major physical distress but the operation is so simple that this almost never happens.
Female circumcision even when done well runs the risk of not only deforming the genitals, but fairly serious problems with the act of sex later in life.
There are plenty of problems that are equal, but this is not one of them.
To be fair, people are less sympathetic to mutilation of men in general rather than just when it comes to genitalia.
I agree
People are less sympathetic to men in all areas, not just mutilation. Men are so overlooked and women are held up on pedestals and it's disgusting.
If anyone even thinks about it then Islam, Christianity and Judaism all comes crashing down on them at once saying things like it being the worst prosecution since Hitler (That is an actual official statement coming from a Jewish Rabi)
Opening that Pandora's box is not something you should do lightly.
Personally I see it as a cleanliness thing. The guys don't give up that much for higher cleanliness where as a vagina is a crevasse that would hold bacteria regardless of if she is circumcised or not. However in modern first world areas worrying about cleanliness is a thing of the past in most cases so it is unnecessary.
Fucks sake I knew this was coming
The Rabbi ate my foreskin
Because female genital mutilation is a major, very damaging procedure, and circumcisions is cutting off a flap of skin. That's like comparing a amputation of a leg, with cutting fixing a toe nail, both amputations.
Have you done your research before posting this question? There are plenty of people trying to stop female genital mutilation, it's just not often talked about because it's already illegal in most countries. And there's a lot of people who aren't okay with circumcision. It's hard to take it away though because it's a religious thing - though many do it also for cosmetic purposes, which I think is awful. It's child abuse.
@markscott forgot about that too, I think that's the only acceptable case for it.
@markscott it's not. As they said before we have better access to hygiene and health products. It's barbaric.
No one cares about men so mutilating them at birth doesn't bother them
Women prefer circumcised penises too, how do we win this one?
I'm already gay
I don't prefer circumcised penises. I actually don't even have a preference in that regard. Don't worry boys, there is hope.
@CarpetDenim I'm asexual
they are different. but admittedly i don't agree with circumcision on a child unable to decide or protest.
if a grown up wants to have the op, go for it. but don't force someone to do it.
Tbh they both look mutilated enough already before having their skin ripped off of their genitals
Genitals look weird anyway lmao
Genital mutilation should only be allowed for medical purposes, otherwise I would still have urinary tract infection.
RIP u
Because from male foreskins Fibroblast cells can be harvested which have a rejuvenating effect on the skin. These cells go into wrinkle creams for women. This is the only reason why the male circumcision lobby still exists.
Wow. So when I'm old and getting wrinkly I will be rubbing mutilated penis parts all over my face. Interesting.
Because it would mean admitting that they've been a part of perpetuating genital mutilation too.
Because the modern western society is largely gynocentric.
True
I'm strongly against both. I was cut at birth and I wish I had a foreskin.
Im confused? What part of the female genitalia needs to be mutilated?
You'd have to remove the clitoris to match what you're removing from the man, at birth, without his consent.
I don't think either is okay, but mgm and fgm aren't really the same thing, are they?
Wait wait wait, this is about circumcision? In all honesty, both should be widely acceptable. It's much healthier to be cut than uncut.
People like to demonize the penis because people like to reveere it as well. Some people GENUINELY care about that sort of thing, and others don't.
Having foreskin removed isn't the same as having your pussy tied up. I personally think that childhood circumsition should be banned, but it isn't the same as FGM
Male circumcision doesn't destroy sex life.
Our son isn't circumcised.
We are saying the same thing. It does nothing to prevent masturbation.
It does however remove pleasure from sex according to research
Because one is done with the only intention of hurting and taking away pleasure.
The other is done with the intention of better hygiene.
If guys wanna speak up about it, go ahead. Dont cry about someone else not doing it for you
"better hygiene"
Lel that's the exact same argument where sexual health is concerned with taking away pleasure
Women are less likely to be promiscuous if they don't get pleasure from sex so less STIs are spread therefore we should do it because better hygiene :^)
Circumcision was introduced in the US to curb down masturbation, thus in non-religious communities in the US it is done to take away pleasure from the male and is completely unrelated to hygiene.
I also disagree with the better hygiene comment. Unless a man has completely terrible hygiene, doesn't know how to wash his dick, and regularly shits on it, being circumcised is not going to do a thing.
So just because the intention is good makes it okay? "Oh yeah, I robbed that man, but only because I had intentions to buy a nice watch for my boyfriend for his birthday, that makes it okay."
Why are you defending it then if you don't support it?
In what way am I "lashing out"? I thought we were having a perfectly calm debate, and I did address your intention argument. There's no need to insult and question people's literacy just because you didn't effectively communicate your thoughts in an easily followable way.
@CarpetDenim
Because there's no debate 😂😂
I stated the opinion of the general public. You're trying to argue with me as if it was my opinion. I simply said that i just stated the general view of the topic. Thats all I'm doing. You wanna fight so bad 😂 sounds like you've got issues.
I understand that and I get what you were originally trying to say, but now you're trying to make the claim that I'm intentionally trying to provoke something, and I'm not. You're the one stooping to personal attacks here. I apologize if I came off as aggressive at all, that wasn't deliberate.
I'm not though?
Another hit and run comment from a woman. She never returned to defend or acknowledge the responses to her disgusting comment.
I don't really understand which part of female genitalia need to be mutilated
I would never have a child of mine circumcised. If an adult wants to get it done that is his decision.
I don't believe in genital mutilation at all.
I'd rather be circumcised honestly
You're Jewish it doesn't count
I'm a jew who is devout to Allah, he is our saviour!
Im not ok with any multilating of any genitals
Because smegma is disgusting
I swear you have showers in the middle east
It's sexist
Because it’s very different for both genders.
It’s gross
You're gross
I don't know
I guess because before and after the second world war people thought it actually helped against penile diseases. Then the people born in that time were circumcised and wanted their kids to look like them so they had their boys circumcised as well. Other reasons are religious
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions