Posts
This scientific study shows pretty clearly that, whatever else it might accomplish, male circumcision achieves precisely the effect commonly charged against female circumcision—or, as the politically correct insist it be called, “female genital mutilation.” It reduces one’s sensitivity during the sex act. As far as we can tell, the parallel is exact.
And this illustrates the extreme sexism of our society. For female “genital mutilation” is extremely rare, and considered a violation of human rights so basic that no concept of cultural differences can allow it. Male “circumcision,” by contrast, is extremely common—more than 60% of all North American males have been circumcised. It is not considered a violation of anyone’s rights; it is not considered morally wrong.
The very same act that is intolerable when done to a woman is perfectly okay when done to a man. How could discrimination become more extreme?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ummm...I think we are comparing apples to oranges here.
Male circumcision is simply removing extra skin from the head of the penis...which yes, does have the effect of reducing sensitivity. This does not hinder a man from enjoying sex however, and the purpose is not to prevent sexual activity outside marriage.
However female circumcision is a brutal destruction of the female's vagina, including the clitoris (to prevent enjoyment of sex) and labia.
The intended rationale for one is quite different from the other.
Female circumcision (well let's call it what it is...mutilation) is based on the idea that sin resides with women, and that by making sex less enjoyable, the woman will not stray. This is upheld in both Christian and Muslim faiths as well as western and middle-eastern cultures.
To make a point that there is some inequality in males vs females being circumcised is pretty callous. No female should be mutilated...period. The rationale for male circumcision is long past it's expiry date...there is a wonderful thing called soap, to keep it clean.
I am by no means advocating male circumcision, but we can hardly compare the two.
Apples and Oranges are both fruit. Od can compare male and female circumcision all he wants. The only difference is severity.
Yes, a man's equipment still works when he's missing that "extra skin" (which contains 10,000+ nerve endings) and yes, current parents do it for the purpose of health, but the original non-religious circumcision craze in the US was to punish boys for and prevent masturbating. How is that different from female circumcisers cutting with the intent to keep women from straying?
Calling female and male circumcision incomparable is like saying stealing money and stealing cars incomparible, both are theft.
Vaginas and Penises are both genitals, so comparing cutting them is valid. Again, the only difference is severity. Any cut on a minor's vagina is illegal here, not even the extra skin. Why is it not illegal to make any cut on a minor's penis? What's the harm in protecting him till he's 18 so he can choose how much skin his penis has?
Post a Comment