thaluikhain said:
Mr. Eff said:
No. I find it quite abhorrent.
I find it funny how up in arms people get about how bad "female genital mutilation" is, yet "circumcision" (see how it has a nice word to describe it?) is perfectly acceptable.
You can't compare the two. The foreskin is totally unneccesary, it's removal does not adversely affect the man.
Removing part or all of the clitoris has obvious effects on the woman, and the practice of basically sowing the vagina shut to ensure she stays a virgin (though they cut other bits off while doing that) has serious health implications as well.
EDIT: Double ninja'd
ravensheart18 said:
Mr. Eff said:
No. I find it quite abhorrent.
I find it funny how up in arms people get about how bad "female genital mutilation" is, yet "circumcision" (see how it has a nice word to describe it?) is perfectly acceptable.
You do understand the difference right? Maybe you should go research the details a little before you say they are the same. It's like comparing a nose piercing to cutting your nose off.
I get the feeling that neither one of you really understands how this works so I'll post a link to a great video about it: http://www.youtube.com/user/freedom0speech#p/u/24/98f3IavuEgQ
and briefly summarise some of the main points in the video.
The idea that genital mutilation specific to one gender is worse, more abhorrent or more severe than for the other gender is unproductive, confusing and wrong. There are several types of genital mutilation for each sex and they are summarised below:
Male Genital Cutting:
Type I: Removal of the prepuce beyond the glans
Type II: Removal of all the prepuce
Type IV: Subincision
Type III: Removal of all skin (inc. scrotum)
Female Genital Cutting
Type IV: Piercing, Pricking, Incising, Scraping
Type II: Labiaplasty (with or without) Partial Clitoris Removal
Type I: Hoodectomy or Partial Clitoris Removal
Type III: Infibulation (with or without) Partial Clitorise Removal
To explain some terms, subincision is to cut into the underside of the penis and partially open it up lengthwise and infibulation is the sewing shut of the vaginal opening. Further research also suggests that Type III male genital cutting can include castration (the removal of the testes).
Now, to suggest, as you believe Mr Eff was doing, that Type I/II MGC is equivalent to Type III FGC (i.e. foreskin removal is equivalent to sewing shut the vagina and removing the clitoris) is indeed quite wrong and most people would say they are on different levels. But similarly, I would put it to you that Type IV FGC being equivalent to Type III MGC (that pricking the clitoris but leaving it whole and it working order is equivalent to removal of the male's genital skin or castration) is also an unacceptable viewpoint.
The point is to condemn all of these forms of mutilation being performed on non-consenting children. If you find yourself thinking it's perfectly acceptable to remove nervous tissues from the genitals of a little boy but scandalous and unthinkable to do the same to a little girl then I think you have to explain why that is an acceptable view to hold.
And @thaluikhain, since the foreskin and the clitoris play roles in pleasure and not the core mechanism of reproduction they could both be considered "unnecessary". More to the point, since cut men still ejaculate and women can achieve orgasm solely through stimulation of the g-spot that renders the clitoris and foreskin "unnecessary" to achieving orgasm and enjoying sex. However, this neglects so much of the sexual experience that I no longer wish to continue exploring this viewpoint, so if you stop referring to parts of my anatomy as pointless I'll do likewise.
amaranth_dru said:
Pretty happy my parents opted for the snip-snip at birth. Any more skin in that nether region and I'd be custom ordering boxers.
Actually tho, compared to uncut dudes, mine looks more streamlined and I've know a shit-ton of women who refuse to sleep with dudes who aren't cut.
So definitely yes.
If the streamlined design is the best then why the sale of ribbed condoms "for her pleasure?"
Frankly an erect penis is the same whether or not it's circumcised so I don't know what these "shit-ton of women" have a problem with.
And as a final note can everyone stop saying that the state their penis is in is more pleasurable? At best any evidence so far is anecdotal which renders all of that pretty pointless.
