.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (51)
sorted by:
.
That's my point I av no eye dear
Male circumcision:
-only foreskin removed.
-can still achieve erection.
-can still ejaculate.
-nearly fully functional afterwards.
-slightly harder to masturbate (not a bad thing, necessarily).
-glans stays intact (majority of nerve concentration).
-sex is enjoyable and can achieve orgasm.
Female mutilation:
-glans and surrounding skin are sliced and diced and/or removed entirely.
-erections difficult or impossible (healthy females do have erections, so please).
-ejaculation is painful or impossible.
-stimulation is painful or impossible.
-orgasm is painful or impossible.
-sex is not nearly as enjoyable if at all.
-victim becomes an object for sex and otherwise.
Probably some other stuff.
Every society that practices FGM also circumcises their boys. For a given culture, the methods and conditions are the same. Tribes in the middle of nowhere in Africa that cut girls with dirty glass do the same to boy's foreskin. Wealthier Muslim countries such as Egypt and Malaysia have both done in a hospital by doctors. FGM is not always done to prevent women from having sex, nor is it always done in a heinous and barbaric way.
For example, last year a doctor in Michigan was acquitted of cutting several young girls belonging to the Dawoodi Bohra sect. It was the first, and last, case of the 1996 Federal anti-FGM law. Their method (performed in a clinic) is just a tiny nick on the clitoral hood, leaving otherwise fully fuctional genitalia.