Do you think it’s fair to refer to circumcision as Male Genital Mutilation (MGM)? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
49Opinion
I don't think so. The way this definition defines mutilation, I reckon whatevers been mutilated would've been made impaired. Obviously circumsized pennies work fine.
How do you define "fine?"
Its fair to refer to it as that but i dont think its fair that they compare it to female mutilation. To me its not the same. One is for health purposes and the other is more so a punishment
It's done on males, on the genitals, and it's mutilation. So I guess we could call it that way, yes.
It is a mutilation. Not sure if it’s comparable to female genital mutilation though.
Yes, it is fair. That's what it is. You are bleeding when it happens and it is willful cutting actual skin. That's mutilation.
both sounds horrible to me
Just makes my teeth clench thinking they are cutting off genitals
No I don't think it's fair or even similar. But I do think unless it's religious it shouldn't be done (male circumcision
Well it makes sense, but some guys have it done for medical reasons and it would probably annoy them
That's a bit extreme! I thought it was better for it to be a euphemism anyway
Great question. NOPE! I really don't know where all this anti-semetic anti-pro-penis-health thing comes from. It's a very weird thing to freak out about, but I've even seen a doctor who refused to do one. [shrugs] I don't get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng
@goaded LOL, funny video - it's hilarious! But, It makes fun of responsible adults who make this decision for specific reasons, as if we are following some tradition based on some weirdo's thoughts. #1 - yeas, it helps stop the formation of yeast and other bacteria. It means the difference between catching it or not catching it from a girl you didn't know had an infection.
#2 - HIV isn't the only thing foreskin removal tends to slightly protect again, there are many others this procedure resists to varying degrees.
Would you cut off your toes? Stops athlete's foot. Babies don't have a choice, and that's wrong.
If it’s okay to cut off a boy’s foreskin specifically because it “helps stop the formation of yeast and other bacteria,” why is it not also okay to cut off a girl’s clitoral hood or trim her labia when that would do the same thing? The theory that circumcision makes a penis more hygienic comes from idea that having less layers of skin means that there are also less moist, warm, sheltered areas for bacteria to hide in. Women’s clitoral hoods, the biological equivalent to a male’s foreskin, and their inner labia are full of these moist and warm areas for bacteria to breed and run rampant, but I don’t see anyone using this as a justification for FGM. In fact, if doctors started recommending that newborn baby girls have their prepuces removed and labia trimmed to promote cleanliness, in the same way that they promote circumcision to promote cleanliness in newborn baby boys, those doctors would lose their licenses and have angry mobs banging on their doors. Why are boys not given the same consideration or protection under the law that girls are?
Yes, you’re right that an uncircumcised man would be more prone to having yeast or other kinds of bacteria build up under his foreskin, but literally all he has to do to clean it is pull the skin back and wash under it and around it. Claiming a circumcised penis is cleaner or more hygienic than an uncircumcised one is completely false. As long as you actually wash yourself thoroughly, your genitals should be just as clean no matter if you have a foreskin or not. Something so easily avoidable is absolutely no justification for mutilating a newborn’s genitals, and if you think it is then you’re sick.
OMG I was circumsized and now I have traumatic syndrome. I want all circumsized males to start a movement MFM male foreskin matters. Then we can go out and protest and riot, and get rewarded for bad behavior.
Nah, that's not any mutilation to men in the least. No harm is done.
Nah.. it's not mutilation to me... You're just removing the hood that covers the glans. I'm glad mine's gone. Quite an improvement! Thanks, Fam! ❤️❤️
It's good you're satisfied with the result, but were you actually given the choice? Did you get to experience life with a whole penis? According to studies, you lost 75-80% of the sensation (and nerves) by the foreskin being removed. So what you have is 20% is what you could have. Think about that...
Interesting. Well, I'm happy with it. Hope You have whatever I'm missing out on.
I unfortunately don't. I was forcibly cut as well, and left with a semi-working, painful penis. The only fix, according to a urologist, was to remove the penis to stop the pain, and even that's not a guarantee due to amputation neuromas that my body is apparently great at creating.
Not really. The male circumsion just removes a small amount of skin, the function of the penis isn't affected. The female version, removing the clit, is far more invasive. I dont think you can equate the two.
On the adult male, the amount of skin taken is the size of a 3x5" post card, or roughly the size of the palm. That is not small.
I had a circumcision last year, i was surprised how much was taken, was first thing i said to other half and to consultant. But after a week or so it heals.
That's good you were able to choose for yourself. You were able to grow up with a whole penis. When they're cut at a young age, they develop differently. Mine was completely normal, but caused constant curving/cutting pain, and numb spots. After speaking to urologists, and it deemed as normal, I walked away quite angry.
Give it morebtime to heal. I haven't yetvmet a man who was intact and enjoyed being circumcised a decade later. I wish you well. Perhaps the author means "routine infant circumcision," more than voluntary adult circ.
Yes, I did mean routine infant circumcision. Voluntary adult circumcision is completely different because an adult can understand and consent while a newborn cannot.
I still don't think it's the same thing. With female FGM it generally takes place when the are older, around 10, so they are far more aware, and in general isn't just the removal of skin but removal of part or all of the clitoris. It would be more akin to taking a 10yr old boy and cutting off his penis.
As has been referred to elsewhere, there is some evidence that male circumcision is more hygienic. There's no benefit to FGM.
It’s not more hygienic. It’s just easier to clean because you don’t have any foreskin to wash under. FGM would make it easier for a woman to clean her genitals if her clitoral hood were removed or if her labia were trimmed, because then there would be less folds of skin to clean between. That’s the theory behind why circumcision is “more hygienic,” but there’s actually no reason the same logic can’t be applied to women with less folds of skin and no prepuce to clean around/under. But you don’t hear anyone trying to justify FGM because of that, do you? It’s only men that have their mutilation justified with such a bullshit reason. It *doesn’t* make a penis cleaner if it doesn’t have a foreskin. As long as you actually wash your genitals and teach your children how to thoroughly and properly wash their genitals, they are going to be just as clean as mutilated genitals.
www.who.int/.../types-of-female-genital-mutilation
I was wrong. Type 4 is the most common with the ritual nicking, but IIa is also fairly common. Removing the glans of the clitoris has also reportedly not stopped females from achieving orgasm by rubbing that area, as the clitoris itself is much larger, and mostly internal, since it's analogous to the male penis.
The concentration of nerves in the clitoral hood are much lower than the male foreskin, and both are analogous to the other. Removing the glans penis alone would be akin to removing the glans clitoris. By comparison, the clitoris has ~ 8,000 nerve endings, to the glans penis 4,000. However, the foreskin has the additional 20,000 nerve endings; fine touch, stretch and temperature sensitive, much like the lips and fingertips.
Circumcision, by removing that, especially in infancy, fairly cripples the penis, and can be directly related to clitoral removal, as the majority of nerves in the penis are removed. While ejaculation is still possible for the majority of men, that should not be confused with orgasm; they are different, and require different neurological pathways. Ejaculation is based in the spinal cord, and doesn't require sexual pleasure to function, so fathering children can work, while the man may only have pain. Electro-ejaculation is available even for people with severed spinal cords, provided there is still a connection.
Yes. It should also be banned like fgm is.
Male circumcision is like taking a convertible and welding the top down. FGM is like stripping a car down to the frame; while repeatedly punching the driver in the face.
what is male genital mutilation?
and what is female genital mutilation?
It's any kind of scissoring or removal of the genitals without ones consent. Its particularly done during infancy with boys, due to religion like Judaism. They cut off the boys foreskin
For girls, its typically done at infancy, when a girl is about to get her period or when she has her first period. With girls, its typically done in villages or poor taditonal communites where the girl is awake during the whole thing. Now, depending on the communites and peoplex a gurl can expect to have her labia cut off, or her kabia, clitoris, and even get her hole (where the dick goes in and all that) sowed up. This is done because some view the cultures view the womans labia to be "dirty" or something dumb like that, this, her path to womanhood, is started with having such procedures done.
It's all gross
I meant the removal of ones skins and such on their genitals
@Mystic_Nova I know about circumcision.
I'm Muslim, and I'm circumcised.
@Mystic_Nova ewww
female circumcision is so gross.
@Mystic_Nova why they do female genital mutilation?
whats the reason?
I'm listening it for first time.
@Mystic_Nova male circumcision is in religion.
but I never heard about female's.
Its because some cultures view female genitalia as being "dirty", so they remove the parts they deem to be so. Also, it can also be linked to controlling female sexuality.
@Mystic_Nova its so gross.
if the remove then how can girls have babies?
@Mystic_Nova I can't understand that why they remove the female hole. how the hell they can do this shit with females?
That's the thing, women in some places have a hard life ahead of them if the dont die from the procedure. Theu can die during the birthing process, need be cut agian, etc.
They can get internal bleeding, infections, etc.
@Mystic_Nova if females don't have a hole, then how can they have sex?
how can they have babies?
so disgusting.
They usually show up enough to just stick a pwnis in, but alotnof the time, it will tear and they will bleed agian and so forth.
@Mystic_Nova I was never in touch with this thing.
its really a strange and disgusting thing.
its totally unfair and injustice with those females.
It's all terrible. Forskin is designed to protect the ownis from the environment and disease. It also holds many nerve endings and if done incorrectly, can cause serious damage to the male as he grows up, like severe loss of feeling, infection, etc
@Mystic_Nova male circumcision is just about to remove a little skin from penis.
and its in Religion.
like in Islam and Judaism.
Also, I really dont want someone cutting of my babies privates.
It's still legit cutting of a babies privates. To me, not worth it. And its typically done for the same reason, because its deemed "cleaner"
@Mystic_Nova its really so injustice with those females.
they left one way for their own joy, so disgusting and so injustice.
Also, it says it's because god told them to do so, but if he didn't want it, he wouldn't have made it so, so I really dont think religion is a good e ni ought exucse to do that stuff to children
@Mystic_Nova its not a problem.
Billions of Muslims have done circumcision.
and you can see that Muslim population is growing more than any other Religion.
@Mystic_Nova its your own choice. but we will keep doing this.
Religion into a good enough excuse. If it wasn't meant to be there, it wouldn't be there. You are still cutting off a babies privates, for the heck of it. Foreskin to a man, is the labia to a woman. It's there for. Reason, to preotc the gentials and shopdnt be cut off because some old dudes think that's what their god wants, when wouldn't be their if it wasn't designed that way in the first place.
@Mystic_Nova we can't understand our GOD's orders, we have to just follow the orders.
Nah, if he disnt want it there, it wouldn't be there. An old book or what ever, isn't. Reliable enough excuse to me. While I can't control whg people do. It still isn't sugar coating the fact that the room a blade to a babies privates
Also, in some Muslim communities they do in fact practice FGM, which you just said was wrong.
@Mystic_Nova then why you cut your hairs? your nails?
let them there free. grow them.
why you set your eyebrows?
let them free?
they shouldn't be there if we have to cut them.
why are they there?
Actually, they do break and fall off and that's different then gentials. You'd be removing the whole nail, as well as the whole fair follicle for the same concept to be the same as mutilation
@Mystic_Nova if some Muslim do some wrongs, then it don't mean that wrong thing is good thing now.
the wrong thing must be wrong.
no matter who do this.
if some do FGM, its still wrong.
I won't defend them.
Then why defend Male mutilation? Which you just did. Foreskin is the Male equcilnt to female labia. Same function, different formation on gentials. It's still wrong.
Equivalent*
@Mystic_Nova hahaha.
if we just remove a little skin from penis, then its mutilation,
but if you remove hairs from genitals, eyebrows, and cut nails, then its okay.
hahahaha
what a joke.
if hairs have to remove, then they are there?
Did you not read before? In order for it to be the same concept of mutilation, you'd have to remove the the follicle on the hair and the follicle on the nail. Also, it has to be done WITHOUT the indivuals concent.
You literally have yourself no leg to stand on. And no matter what, mutilation of the gentals n. v is wrong. No matter the religion, doing so is wrong, which you stated to be true. So thanks for agreeing!
@Mystic_Nova and I will defend male circumcision for ever.
@Mystic_Nova I'm not agreeing with you at all.
Male circumcision in my opinion is ok if the child gives consent cause some people grows up and end up not liking it. Female mutilation is violating human rights but it is a culture and in my opinion it can be allowed only if the female, educated so she knows what it is and the risks, has given her consent and the procedure is done professionally (18+ yro) with anesthetics. <--- because some women do actually want to go through this as part of their culture, got to respect that?
@DrMeow children cannot consent. That's the whole problem with male circumcision. No one cares if a 40yo wants to get circumcised.
@morrowlow yes which is why I don't like any form of body modification on the child who cannot consent (e. g. babies). And most especially, I dislike children/people getting their genitals cut and sewn without their consent or full understanding of the situation and why.
^regardless of gender or religion or culture. Some people might grow up and not want to be a part of the process.
@Mystic_Nova spelling is definitely not one of your strengths!
@Paige90 hahahaha.
you are right lmaooo
@Paige90 I saw her wrong spellings,
but I ignored it. and focus on discussion.
Well isn't that exactly what it is?
Yes.
Unless there is a medical problem.
No cuzdome cultures people dont plat with meat hahaha