Post # 1
This came up at a family dinner the other night (deep, I know!).
My siblings (female) believe that male circumcision is exactly the same as FGM, and wondered why one was legal and perfectly acceptable, and the other was illegal. Both should be illegal, in their opinion.
The partners I have had have all been circumcised, which hasn’t affected their pleasure in any way. FGM however, in a lot of cases, removes the clitoris whereby removing the pleasure aspect. I don’t know that they are one in the same. I have a cousin who wasn’t circumcised as a baby, but later had to be due to persistent infections. The clitoris doesn’t cause the same kind of issues – to my knowledge.
I don’t know though. Maybe I don’t know enough about it to have a strong opinion one way or the other. I just wondered what other Bees thought.
Post # 3
@Deejayelle: They don’t “feel” the same to me in a gut instinct visceral kind of reaction. However, that’s probably because I was raised in the USA where male circumcision isn’t taboo (mostly) and is fairly common and accepted.
It also depends on what form of FGM we’re talking about, as there are many kinds.
From a medical standpoint, they’re just about the same (when you’re talking about the female equivalent that doesn’t impact sensory regions such as the clitoris).
From a cultural, emotional perspective, I don’t believe they can be compared at all.
Post # 4
I believe they’re the same in that they are both unnecessary, painful procedures that mutilate the genitals and don’t allow the person whose body it is to have a say.
Post # 5
No. I do think I would have a hard time choosing to circumsize a child, though.
eta: To me, male circumcision is no more traumatizing than piercing a little girl’s ears. I don’t have any problem with it; I just think I would have a really hard time with it because of the pain.
Post # 6
I think they’re both awful, but male circumcision isn’t used as a means to oppress men. So no, they’re not the same.
Post # 7
No. I don’t believe in circumcision unless it is medically necessary, but FGM involves the removal of the clitoris and sewing shut of the vaginal opening. The removal of the foreskin is not comprable at all IMO.
Post # 8
- Wedding: May 2013 - Pavilion overlooking golf course scenery, reception at banquet hall
No. FGM’s sole purpose is to shame women for having/enjoying sex whereas circumcision at least helps with cleanliness and prevents infections.
If I have a son I’m like 75% sure I wouldn’t circumsize, but I’ll leave it up to husband. I feel like he’s more “qualified” to research the pros/cons and make that personal decision.
Post # 9
@Deejayelle: Wow, I am shocked that so many people here are answering the poll the way they are. Shocked. Circumcision is the surgical removal, often without any pain relief, of a part of a newborn baby’s body. It’s a body part that serves actual functions including protection of the glans. I think it’s horrific to slice off a piece of a newborn’s body when there isn’t anything wrong with it. The foreskin is formed from the same tissue that forms the clitoral hood in baby girls, but it’s fine to cut off the foreskin even though most people agree that FGM is wrong? I don’t understand.
Post # 10
Even if it does not completely do away with the pleasure of sex for a man, it’s still incredibly barbaric and completely unnecessasary. This is like asking if dying in a 1-alarm fire is the same as dying in a 4-alarm fire. I guess technically the 1-alarm fire is less bad but they’re both horrific situations so why get hung up on specifics?
Post # 11
@HappySky7: Technically, the definition of FGM by the World Health Organization is “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” So FGM isn’t always as extreme as the definition you give, FYI.
Post # 12
No, I don’t feel they’re on the same level at all.
Post # 13
@Deejayelle: I don’t feel like they’re the same if the male circumcision is done shortly after birth. Male circumcision also doesn’t really affect a man’s ability to enjoy sex. Female circumcision is wrong on so many levels. It is forced mutilation IMO.
I have 3 boys. I did not want a circumcision when my first was born, but my clean-freak Aunt convinced me that it was necessary. I have never been so sorry I let someone else influence my decision about something so important. My son’s circumcision didn’t go well, didn’t heal up for almost a year. I can’t imagine that didn’t somehow affect him.
I also wasn’t aware that the hospital would not let me be there, not let me hold him afterward. Once I signed that paper they had free license to do whatever they want. So at a time when I was not in the hospital they strapped him down, without anesthesia and cut him. I didn’t even find out it had been done until hours later.
My 2nd and 3rd sons have not been circumcised (which might better be named traumatized IMO) and it has caused absolutely zero problems.
So basically, I don’t agree with any circumcision, but I feel like FGM is just a whole lot worse.
Post # 14
to even compare the two seems ridiculous IMO.
Post # 15
@Jijitattoo: I’m pretty sure most boys are given anesthetic when it’s done – although I think during a Jewish religious ceremony they aren’t (but not sure). All my friends who had boys and had them circumcised had their babies anesthetized so they didn’t feel the pain.
For the original question, I don’t think you can even remotely compare female genital mutilation to a boys circumcision. Not even close. Will I do it to my future children if boys? I’ll leave it to fi. He didn’t get circumcised until 18 and then it was bc of reoccurring infections and pain. Now 11 years later he’s all good and says he prefers it. So I’m guessing he would do it
Post # 16
@Jijitattoo: Even so, not comparable at all.