First of all, “circumcision” is not the correct expression for what is done to girls’ genitalia: it is female genital mutilation.

Second, in the countries where female genital mutilation is practiced, it is done to young girls whether or not it is against the law and they get no say about it. And what is traditionally done to girls is far more extensive and life-damaging than the removal of the foreskin is to boys.

Third, if women over the age of 21 want elective surgery to their genitals, I think that is sick and disgusting but it is none of my business until it starts to look like these practices are getting so heavily promoted that there is social pressure to do them. It is starting to look like a form of genital mutilation for tightening the vagina is getting acceptance, so it won’t be long before I will feel like I have a dog in this fight. And what I would suggest to men whose penises are too small to give pleasure to their female partners is that they stock up on a variety of silicone dildoes and brush up their technique in providing oral sex, rather than urging their partner to make her vagina smaller.

Stop trivializing female genital mutilation. Fight against male circumcision, if that’s your cause, without implying or outright asserting equivalency to what is perpetrated against girls and do not imply that your fight is more important or must be won first.

I will not be approving any more comments that trivialize female genital mutilation or claim equivalency of any kind with male circumcision. People who object to that are welcome to start their own blogs.

Cynthia

Why is this a competition in your mind? Do you think you will stop male circumcision by trivializing female genital mutilation? Because that’s what it looks like you believe.

In what societies do 95 percent of the men have their penises fileted, as you describe, or have their foreskin is removed and the area from the naval to the groin is skinned? How much skin area, in square inches or centimeters, are we talking about here? Does this mean the shaft of the penis itself is not skinned?

I will not be approving any more comments that trivialize female genital mutilation for any reason.

If you oppose male circumcision, fine, but make your own movement on its own merits and do not trivialize female genital mutilation as part of your pitch or imply that stopping female genital mutilation has to wait until the practice of male circumcision is halted.

Cynthia

How about subcision in which the penis is slit open the whole length? or

The “Yemen” circumcision where the foreskin is amputated AND the area from the naval to the groin is SKINNED!

It is sex only with consent. Without, it is rape. It is tattooing only with consent. Without, it is branding. It is circumcision only with consent. Without, it is mutilation.

Two things are really bothering me about the male commenters who oppose male circumcision: first, their assertion that there is an equivalency between removing the foreskin for men and even the most minimal mutilation of female genitalia — because there isn’t until you start chopping off more than skin AND you remove from the male genitalia an amount of skin and/or flesh proportional to the amount cut from women; and second, they appear to be saying that stopping female genital mutilation is not really an important cause and can wait until male circumcision is stopped everywhere for all time.

I don’t have a problem with anyone opposing male circumcision. Just stop trying to get pity by hijacking it from the movement fighting female genital mutilation. Create your own movement and make it independent of anything else. And stop trying to put your cause ahead of the movement opposing female genital mutilation and trying to appropriate its money and workers.

Cynthia

I want to try my best to emphasize that at least when I make comparisons between the two practices, my intention is not to equate them to one another. Clearly there is a difference between the most extreme forms of female genital cutting and the practice we have done to young boys in North America.

Nevertheless, there are a number of undeniable similarities between the two – but again, that isn’t to say they are the same thing.

Firstly, the foreskin protects the head of the penis the same way the clitoral hood protects the head of the clitoris. The foreskin also protects the urethra, which in males is the urinary and reproductive tract. The inner labia serve this same function in females. There is no denying that the foreskin serves this role, just as there is no denying the clitoral hood (also known as a prepuce or foreskin) and inner labia serve these roles. In utero these genital structures develop from the very same tissue in both males and females, so it makes sense that they have similar function.

Also, I know this is not your intention, but when you speak of female genital cutting as though it only consists of the most violent, extreme form, you actually serve to devalue the victimization of those who suffer from the less extreme forms. Some forms of genital cutting only remove the clitoral hood, others prick the clitoris with a sharp needle. Our criminal code makes it clear that all of these forms of cutting are illegal! I hope that you would agree that even if female genital cutting was done in a sanitary hospital by trained doctors, you would still not feel it was okay to do to young girls who couldn’t say no! right?

Also worth noting, the amputation of the clitoris was covered by medical insurance in the United States until the 1970s. America has participated in these practices before, and the same doctors who first advocated male circumcision be performed were also advocating damaging practices on young girl’s privates.

Also, if you go to a culture that practices genital cutting on young girls, you’ll find that its actually a much more complex issue than simply one done to control and harm women. It is often cut women who will be most adamant about the cutting of their daughters and grand daughters. (sound familiar?). There are large concerns about whether a non-cut girl would be accepted by men. Many doctors in Egypt actually recommend girls be genitally cut in order to help with ‘cleanliness’. They believe it is more ‘aesthetically pleasing’ for a girl to have it done. They severely misrepresent and misunderstand how sensitive these parts of the genitals are. There is a huge focus on tradition, and many do it for ‘religious’ reasons. If you reverse the genders, you’ll see that these motivations are very often the same ones that parent’s in North America use to explain why they have it done to their children.

Does that mean they are equally as damaging? no. But that doesn’t mean male circumcision ISN’T damaging. It is so easy for us to see that those ‘motivations’ are not good enough for even the least severe forms of female genital cutting, so why are they good enough to cut healthy, sensitive, functional, erogenous genital tissue permanently and painfully from boys who can’t say no?

Masters and Johnson’s research proved there’s no such thing as the vaginal orgasm. Men used to claim that women could have clitoral or vaginal orgasms and the clitoral orgasm as weak and a sign of immaturity, while the vaginal orgasm produced by penetration was good and mature. It was a scam as an excuse for penetration!

Also, you cannot argue that female genital mutilation cuts off the external sex organs and somehow sex is still as good as it is for an intact woman, while taking the sensitive foreskin from a man reduces his sensitivity. The argument has to be that both surgeries reduce sensation because they take the nerves and tissue capable of feeling.

Cynthia