One is considered acceptable and normal in Western society, the other is rape patriarchy privilege removal of a woman’s vital erotic essence.
This is the kind of stupid that warrants a reaction button named after the person.
I would think any sane person would do their best to avoid being labeled a sarif2soon.
One still mostly works normal 499/500 times post snip (according to OP’s article) and the other still mostly works normal 0/500 times post snip.
I’m all against male circumcision but that’s because of the facts. It’s a violation of “do no harm” over little more than peer pressure. It’s not female genital mutilation.
Exactly. It’s male genital mutilation.
The reason you’re not opposed to it is because you’re used to it, we all are.
But if you look at it from a position free of religious dogma or “following tradition”, you will see there is no difference between male mutilation and female mutilation.
Edit: snipping a girl’s clitoris doesn’t prevent her from having sex or giving birth. It does prevent her from experiencing the full sensation of sex, much the same as circumcised men who complain of decreased sensitivity (I"m circumcised and I can attest to that). If I ever have a son, I would never in a million years get him circumcised.
Do you not know how to read?
No it doesn’t, it causes immense pain during sex and leads to a huge lifetime risk of infection or other complications. You’re very stupid if you compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation. It’s very similar to saying something like date rape is the same as the rape of Nanking or Prima Nocturne, or a country having a significant murder rate being the Rwandan Genocide. They are very different in intent, scale, social and physical effects.
Niggas is still tight?
Just an FYI guys, I think you’re crossing wires in terms of the definition of ‘female circumcision’. The only socially accepted form of it is a hoodectomy, which in an optimal and well done procedure, removes enough of the hood to allow for more sensitivity while also not constantly exposing it to uncomfortable feelings such as rubbing against underwear and things of that nature.
The difference being that a hoodectomy is actually to the sexual benefit to many women that are recommended it (there aren’t any horseshit ‘but you won’t have to clean your dick for a week!’ pros to it), whereas circumcision makes sex less pleasurable for the man, all for the benefit of having to wash your dick less and not having to pull back your skin to make it look ‘normal’. Additionally, girls aren’t getting snipped when they’re an infant and can’t make the decision themselves. My opinion on the matter is that parents shouldn’t have the right to deny their kid the sensation of natural sex strictly because society tells them that circumcision is the default and correct way, it should be something the child decides for himself.
double post, can’t delete
Female genital mutilation is the equivalent of removing your foreskin AND your glans. Females lose their damn clitoris for fuck’s sake. Males only lose their foreskin when the procedure is done correctly.
Don’t even compare the two, even if they are wrong.
Did you get circumcised as an adult?
If yes, WHY?
If no, you cannot attest to decreased sensitivity, as you have never experienced sex with a foreskin.
Foreskin and frenulum, aka the portion of a natural dick that is more sensitive than a clitoris. At most you can hope to salvage a minuscule amount of it, but even then it won’t be comparable to having the entire thing.
Also he can attest to having less sensation than a man with a foreskin, because the man with the foreskin will have the entirety of his frenulum, medical conditions withstanding. That isn’t some subjective opinion, he has 20,000 or more nerve endings missing in comparison.
Collins S, Upshaw J, Rutchik S, Ohannessian C, Ortenberg J, Albertsen P. Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: Debunking a myth? J Urol 2002; 167: 2111-2112.
Fink KS, Carson CC, deVellis RF. Adult circumcision outcomes study: Effect on erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction. J Urol 2002; 167: 2113-2116.
Krieger JN, Bailey RC, Opeya J, Ayieko B, Opiyo F, Agot K, Parker C, Ndinya-Achola JO, Magoha GA, Moses S. Adult male circumcision: results of a standardized procedure in Kisumu District, Kenya. BJU Int 2005; 96: 1109-1113.
False. Studies have repeatedly shown men circumcised in adulthood experienced similar or GREATER sexual arousal after the procedure.
First thing is first; ‘arousal’ and ‘physical sensation’ aren’t the same things. Nobody is claiming men are unable to get aroused if they’re circumcised.
Secondly, free hand circumcision is the only possible form of modern circumcision that can maintain the connection between the frenular nerve and artery in an infant. In modern hospitals, of which my partner is currently working in, they use clamping methods that sever the connection between the two, rendering it useless. If you lose the sensitivity in your frenulum, regardless of outdated studies, you literally lose upwards of 28,000 nerve endings in a concentrated area. If you believe malarky like ‘removing this incredibly sensitive piece of your penis will actually make you feel more!’ then you have a lot to learn about medicine. Also, this discussion is about infantile circumcision, not adult circumcision.
If we’re talking about post-toddler circumcision, though, the frenulum can be preserved via something called a Plastibell, but it is apparently a really uncomfortable experience. Still, if by the time the kid is that age and can decide what he wants, it’s an acceptable age to decide what he wants to do with it. It’s in a whole different ballpark than mutilating a human being who has absolutely no say or method of objection.
Do you happen to know if those studies relied on testimony alone? I’m asking because most studies on “what do you think of your sexual performance?” is not going to be very objective.
My previous comment was incorrect. The tests showed increased sexual satisfaction, not arousal. The tests relating to ejaculation latency were measured by timekeeping people in the act. Of course you can get aroused after circumcision, however:
Payne K, Thaler L, Kukkonen T, Carrier S, Binik Y. Sensation and sexual arousal in circumcised and uncircumcised men. J Sex Med 2007a; 4: 667-674.
showed that uncircumcised men had less sensitive penises while flaccid and that during arousal, circumcised men were MORE responsive to erotic stimuli. Uncircumcised men had lower skin temperatures and reported the sensation of touch to the glans or shaft to a touch on the forearm. Measured below the glans at the coronal ridge (i.e. where your foreskin attaches).
Studies by the same authors in this post show the female reported greater vulvar sensitivity as well.
Are you a urologist? If you were you’d have said so instead of making reference to your partner.
Please refer to the Krieger study. 64% of the men studied reported an INCREASE in sensitivity after circumcision. I am not a urologist, but I would think this to be due to greater contact time with the glans and the vagina. Circumcised men do not have their glans making repeated contact with their foreskin.
On the whole, studies have shown REPEATEDLY that circumcision, whether as an infant or as an adult has little, or no effect on a man’s sexual performance or satisfaction.
All of this said, I am not condoning the procedure. It is mutilation, I agree. And exactly BECAUSE it does not increase sexual performance or satisfaction (and violates “do no harm”), I agree it should be outlawed.
But look at the research and stop relying on your broscience. If removal of the foreskin and its 28000 was really so damaging to the experience, it would be showing through repeated observation. It is not.
Having less sensitivity is pretty sweet if you ask me. Less disappointing for my partner since I’ll last two pumps instead of just one. 
Well, apparently your lady will actually enjoy it more if you’re cut.
Arguments about all the fucking benefits and drawbacks of circumcision… “No circumcision is fine because nananananana!”
Here, let me break it down so it’s real simple. What’s so fuckin’ hard about letting the baby grow up, analyse all of these pros and cons and make his own goddamned decision? Then he can have that pretty dick you’re so proud (read: insecure) of by HIS OWN CHOICE. Or, you know, maybe he won’t think it’s worth it.
“I love my circumcised dick!” Irrelevant.
“I don’t even remember it.” Irrelevant.
“Girls love it.” Irrelevant.
“It’s not as bad as FGM!” There are varying degrees of FGM, some forms of which are LESS intrusive than male circumcision and are STILL ILLEGAL. Either way, irrelevant. Jaywalking is illegal and I’m pretty sure that’s not as bad as FGM. See how one has no bearing over the other?
“I don’t think anybody else should be able to make lasting, even the smallest, most superficial cosmetic decisions about my body but me.” FUCKING RELEVANT.
Why is that hard for you to get? How can a reasonable, rational human being disagree with this?
Seriously, unless the procedure is going to save a live and ensure they actually reach the age of informed thinking and consent, shut the fuck up. I’m cut and sure, I get along fine in bed. But that choice should have been mine alone to make.
Why do people care if people circumcise their kids anyways? Its not like the kid is gonna care too much either when they get older. As long as the shit is pissing and cumming no one is really gonna give a fuck.
Step 1: LRN2 Kegel
Step 2: Don’t just jerk away when you do
Step 3: When having Sexy Time™ with significant other, don’t just pump away, eat some to
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit