Female Genital Mutilation?

Question

Hey guys and gals. Yesterday I got into a heavy debate about Female Genital Mutilation versus Male Circumcision. I did some research and was pretty disturbed. I wanted to know if you think that these two types of mutilation are comparable?

Oh, and don't bite my head off for this (I'm not saying I support the following, just curious), but do you think that FGM should be legalized in Canada and the US? I'm only suggesting this because I was thinking about what would happen if a family who lived in Canada wanted to have their child go through this process. They wouldn't be able to go to a doctor...and I was worried that maybe some of these families would still do them, but in their own homes! That's a horrifying thought. If we legalized it, though, would that mean that doctors would be able to decrease the chances of something going wrong (like death or infection)? What do you think?

Answer 1

There are different forms of female genital mutilation, most of which are horrendous.

However, removing the small amount of skin around the clitoris, which is one option, has exactly the same medical, cosmetic, health and long term affects on baby girls as it does removing the f******n on baby boys. Nothing else is damaged or removed. Yet its called mutilation for girls, and an accetable procedure for boys.

Answer 2

I think the whole thing is absurd. Many times these things take place as a coming of age thing when a girl is getting older which makes it even worse. Although I see what you are saying about comparing it to circumcision. When you take your infant to get circumcised they numb the area and do it as quickly as possible in a doctors office setting anyways. This FGM is done a religious or cultural ritual often by people who aren't skilled or schooled on it. Also, circumcision can be for medical purposes. What purpose do these FGM's serve? I can see how you would feel legalizing it could save lives though. I guess I just can't wrap my brain around the thought of putting my teen daughter through such pain and possible infection

Answer 3

After hearing my grandmother-in law's genital mutilation story (she is originally from Africa) and doing my own research, I'm convinced that FGM is far more barbaric than male circumcision, at least in the western world. I can't pretend to have a lot of knowledge of male circumcision in eastern civilizations.

However I vehemently disagree with male circumcision as well. I don't believe a parent has the right to damage their child's s*x organs.

Circumcision of any kind should only be permitted when a person is of age of consent to knowledgably make the decision of whether or not they would like to be circumcized.

Answer 4

I think female Genital mutilation is bad in all aspects.I suggest that you don't even try because most countries are trying to curb it.

Then the issue of doing it by themselves at home is not very good idea.Because you may not be a medical doctor to do what is wright fully required of the process hence things may go wrong and by the time you reach hospital, the person may have  lost a lot of blood.

About circumcision, i think it would be OK, if done by a medical practitioner.

Thanks for asking.

Answer 5

I dont' think they are the same at all because with FGM the clitoris is removed, this would only be comparable if the boys p***s was entirely removed. if a male has his f******n removed it doesn't affect his s*x life, but cutting the woman's clitoris out wuold mean that she would never, well have it!

It's sadistic to ruin someone's s*x life.

Answer 6

I don't think it should be legalized in the US, or any where else, and good luck finding a "good" doctor to do it.  As for the argument about being done in better conditions, there is an example forming right now.  In Egypt, 85-90% of adult women are circumcised, in very resent times Egypt has made female circumcision illegal.  With out a doubt this is going to drive those who want it done to quacks in poor conditions.  But in the long run, it will have a greater effect on ending the practice.

Like mother like daughter.  The majority of women that have been circumcised are glad they were circumcised and see it as important to their tradition and health.  Most circumcised women have every intention of circumcising their daughters.  

As for destroying a womens s*x life, that could be argued, although I personally think messing with male or female genitals will not make it better.   Here is a clip on Wikipedia's page on FGC:

A five-year study of 300 women and 100 men in Sudan found that "sexual desire, pleasure, and o****m are experienced by the majority of women who have been subjected to this extreme sexual mutilation, in spite of their being culturally bound to hide these experiences."

And this is referring to women that have undergone FGM type 3 or infibulation where the C**t, hood and labia are removed and then sewn shut.

As for comparison to male circumcision, I would say there are things to compare with, while female circumcision is usually much worse.

They are both forced upon a minor.

They are both cutting away healthy skin.

They are both extremely painful

They are both removing erogenous tissue

They are both justified by aesthetics

They are both justified by health benefits

They are both justified by religion

They are both done with out need

I hope you get the idea.

Answer 7

I do not think removing clitoris is same as removing p***s.

If the true meaning of sexual organs is to reproduce, then

Removing clitoris would still allow women to reproduce while removing p***s will stop men from reproducing.

Answer 8

Male circumcision isn't done to make s*x not pleasurable as female genital mutilation is. Whether it's done in a clean way or not it's for completely different reasons. So no, I don't think it's comparable. Circumcision doesn't make s*x worse, in fact some would argue it makes it better. More comparable would be cutting the head of your d**k off, as it's the most sensitive part of the p***s.

Answer 9

male circumcision is wrong, no doubt.  i do not think parents should be able to get what is basically a cosmetic procedure performed on their newborn.  it isn't right.  like fgm, male circumcision is performed strictly because of "tradition" and "aesthetics."  the two procedures are certainly comparable.  BUT, i must point out, fgms cause lifetime pain, discomfort, and inability to enjoy s*x.  the clitoris is REMOVED.  the fgm procedure is much more complex and painful.  fgm is a more serious procedure, and women bleed to death having it performed.  this makes fgm a larger health concern, and also a larger human rights issue, than male circumcision.  while i believe both should be banned, i am more angry about fgm, simply because the procedure can be life-threatening.  i do not think fgm should be legal any place, anywhere.  it is illegal to mutilate your daughter's genitals beyond recognition in any free country that gives a d**n about human rights.  legalizing it condones it, and americans and canadians CANNOT condone such a hideous practice.  i wish male circumcision would be banned too, at least while a male is under 18.  if he wants to have the procedure later, fine, but otherwise, his p***s should be left alone until he can make the choice.  parents shouldn't be allowed to push their ridiculous, harmful beliefs on their children.