Uproars Entertainment - Why does society go into uproar over female circumcision yet turn a blind eye towards male circumcision?

Why does society go into uproar over female circumcision yet turn a blind eye towards male circumcision?

it's already been proven that there's no medical need for helpless young male infants to have their gentiles mutilated.

Public Comments

Feminists love to see males suffer, no matter how innocent they are. Besides those infants are potential rapists so they deserve to suffer needlessly for the hundreds of rapes they will surely commit in their lifetimes...
There are several variations of male circumcision just as there are different types of female circumcision. However, most people - understandably - only think of a baby boy in a nice, sterile hospital in a western country when they think of male circumcision. Mention female circumcision and because of feminist propaganda, they think of a young woman in a dirty, hazardous environment in some third world country. Feminists have intentionally skewed the reality to ignore that in those same dirty third world conditions, young adult males are also mutilated in the same way as the girls are. Just as feminists mention that it (FGM) is done for men's benefits, they ignore that it (MGM) is done for women's benefits. Just as feminists mention that it is done in filthy and hazardous conditions with unclean utilities, they ignore that the same tools and conditions are used for boys. Just as feminist mention that there are several types of circumcision for girls, they ignore that there are several forms of circumcision for boys too - differing in severity. They want you to think that the whole world wide, boys are cut in a lovely, clean hospital with a loving nurse at the side of the baby cooing and wooing the poor little lad... awww - they also want you think that world wide, girls are being beaten senseless and mutilated for evil men's sexual pleasures. There have been some junk science claims that mutilating a man's penis will help curb the spread of HIV in women (the study didn't care about men suffering from HIV, only women). However, these have been largely debunked due to their faulty methodology and sample. In short, there is no actual verifiable evidence that mutilating a man's penis will do anything except cause sexual dysfunction at an early age.
Because female circumcision often takes place with older girls (4-10), and also often involves removal of the clitoris with no anesthetic and unsafe tools. Female circumcision removes the possibility of clitoral orgasm, and probably all sexual pleasure. Sex will become a duty to these girls once they are women rather than a desire. Yes, males are also subject to genital mutation in third world countries. In most U.S. cases circumcision is done in hospitals with clean tools by experienced physicians. The side effect rate is low. Many Westerners choose to circumcise their male babies because of religious reasons or because it is very common and uncircumcised males may be scrutinized by other boys in the locker room or by sexual partners for being different.
you know, both HIV and Papilloma are positively correlated the uncircumcised male
you are correct, male circumcission is horrible and unnecessary. It is just as clean to have a foreskin as long as his parents teach the child to clean properly. Circumcision should not be done to males without theri concent because they are babies. However, female circumcision takes place in thirdworld countries, without even putting the patient under. The 'doctor' remove the clitoris with a rusty rasor, leaving only a small hole for urination. The goal of the surgery is to remove all sense of sexual stimulation since, in the cultures in which female circucision is done, female sexuality is dirty and wrong. So yah I think that female circumcision is a bit more horrible than male curcumcision. Sorry. Howerver as a feminist, I also think that male curcumcision should be illegal cause its genital mutilation.
Tradition, I'm afraid. I agree - it's unnecessary. Why feminists - it's got nothing to do with feminists and everything to do with religion. Fathers should stand up and insist that their sons not be mutilated. Edit: Oh give over, Caveman! I keep hearing women saying: I have my son circumcised because his father was done. In the West it IS up to men to stop following the rubbish spouted by well meaning people and say: I don't want it done to my son. I'd fight tooth and nail for my my kids, but I am not a man. I'm in no way blaming men - it comes from a religious background - but men can stop it much easier than women can.
It could have to do with the degree of violence involved, the fact that girls are forced down onto the ground in unsterile conditions and sliced up with dirty glass shards, knives or rocks, that no anaesthetic is used, that there is extrememe blood loss and high incidence of death due to blood loss, shock and infection. It might be due to the fact that it results in lifelong, debilitating cases posttraumatic stress disorder (for which the victims will never receive any treatment). It could be due to the fact that female genital mutilation is responsible for the countless utterly avoidable deaths of women in childbird all over the world. That for the entire life of the woman she is prone to infections, and pain. That it makes sexual intercourse painful. It might be due to the fact that it is illegal everywhere on earth.
I would never dream of mutilating a gentile. I wouldn't mutilate anyone else either, but if a bris is part of their tradition, I'm not saying anything.
Actually I once read about his and changed my whole perception. Honest to god I went through life thinking circumcision was normal, all of my friends were circumcised and so was I, I thought it was necessary for hygiene, but apparently its not really. So I'm kind of angry that this is pervaded throughout our society, it is nothing more than torture for the benefit of religion.
Dude! The World Health Organization and now the CDC are both coming out in favor of males being circumcised. What the problem with females is it is not circumcision they remove the entire clitoris (thats like removing the entire penis). I was circumcised at 18 and can assure you it is far superior to being uncut. There is no loss of sensitivity and it is not mutilation. Be happy you are circumcised. It is cleaner (uncircumcised can wash 3x a day and still have odor), it is healthier (one reason the World Health Organization and the Center of Disease Control want all males circumcised), it is better looking (do you really want an anteater between your legs) and it improves sexual function. Uncircumcised guys have no clue what they are missing! I had no hesistation to have my boys (5,3, 8mo) circumcised, because I know there is no downside, but there is a lifetime of benefits to be had.
Because there's a long-standing entanglement between our society and male circumcision. Because there are so many men in our society who experienced it (and don't remember it, and don't know what they are missing), they think it must be acceptable, and they want it to be done to the next generation. It's cultural blindness, socities tend not to notice what's wrong in their own culture, though they can see it in others. Slowly though it is becoming less popular in the USA, and most other Western nations have given it up/never popularised it and are quite against it.
Yes, it has been proven that mutilating males by circumcision has no benefits, but the old wives' tales, propaganda and lies are still parroted by the ignorant and uninformed. And the medical profession still continues to try to come up with new excuses to justify the unjustifiable, as they make money from mutilating male babies, and many in medicine are members of the religions that try to impose circumcision on all males. Obviously, circumcision doesn't prevent HIV, as at the height of the HIV epidemic more than 85% of males in the USA were circumcised. The rates of HIV were, and still are much lower in Europe, Scandinavia, South America and most of Asia---where males are rarely mutilated by circumcision. But they conveniently ignore this fact. It would skew their false statistics more toward the truth if they took this simple fact into account------they're biased. At least more and more American parents are finally waking up to the fact that circumcision is mutilation, and is damage to the penis. Most of the rest of the world weren't gullible in believing the lies about the so-called "benefits" of circumcision. But it never fails to amaze me that some people don't understand that it's wrong to mutilate babies. Some American women seem to think that it's all right to mutilate the penis of a male infant, and yet they are horrified and disgusted at the thought of female circumcision. These women are hypocrites, and it's apparent that they think that genital mutilation is okay if it's done to someone else. Male circumcision should be as illegal to perpetrate on minors as female circumcision; it's sexist, and unconstitutional as such to allow genital mutilation of one sex while prohibiting mutilation of the other. It's child abuse, and a violation of human rights to circumcise either males or females. More males need to learn just what circumcision is, and how it damages their bodies. And they also need to know that in many areas it's possible to bring suit against the doctors/hospitals that mutilated them. Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax. A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright. ERIC
Look, I don't think it's necessary or right to have males circumcised either (unless they want it)....but male circumcision (unless it goes horribly wrong) CANNOT be compared to female 'circumcision'. Why? A man gets circumcised---he can still experience sexual pleasure, there is no lasting pain, no infection.... A woman gets cirumcised---and she cannot experience sexual pleasure and sex is no doubt painful, she can be in pain and traumatised for the rest of her life and etc... It's like comparing getting skin scraped off your finger and losing your finger entirely. Plus, most boys get it done when they are very, very young---whereas most of these girls have it done to them when they are adolescents. I agree that boys shouldn't be forced to have circumsions...but don't think it's as much as an issue---if men's circumcision involved them getting their penises cut off---then absolutely I as a feminist would be in an uproar about it just as much as I am about female 'circumcision'. Surely you don't think it's only because the women are female that feminists are upset and that we are ignoring men's issues with circumcision because they are male? Come on now--it's because of what happens to the women--if the situation was reversed we would be in an uproar over the men.
The reason why male circumcision is not only tolerated but supported in the west is because a circumcised male is healthier for a female and many females like the aesthetics of a circumcised genitalia over a non circumcised. Basically because of tradition and the matriarchy.
Guys don't need their foreskin for pleasure. Women need the clitoris for pleasure. I personally want my inner labia removed, no need for that either, just like the foreskin on a penis.
Male circumcision is sick. It takes away loads of the mans physical sensation, looks awful and is pointless.
Well, probably the way the pro-circumcision lobby targeted females in it's original propaganda. Many ppl do not realise that infant circumcision was not performed in USA much before 1941. Prior to that date it was mostly medical emergencies where penis malformed at birth. Dr Alan Guttmacher, an Obstretrician, took over as Editor of Planned Parenthood Magazine in 1941 until 1983, and conducted a long campaign to persuade MOTHERS to circumcise their sons. The arguments rehearsed were the familiar ones of "Hygiene", supposed cleanliness,and the familiar scare stories of Diseases. All backed up by the junk science quoted above. Guttmacher's doctor pals, mostly Jewish, wrote "learned papers" largely theory, no proof, to scientific magazines, which were then requoted out of context by Planned Parenthood. The same technique exactly is used by the CDC today, to persuade WHO to promote circumcision in Third World. Guttmacher knew he had little chance of persuading Mothers to mutilate their daughters. Besides it was not part of the Jewish tradition. His success in pushing male circumcision was because he cleverly climbed on the back of John Harvey Kellogg's religious campaign to stop masturbation in boys. Kellogg didn't realise girls masturbated too. In 1976 the Feminist Movement successfully steered through a bill to make female mutilation illegal. An attempt to include boys was heavily resisted by the Jewish lobby in Congress. M.
Because they haven't been conditioned to think that it's okay to do that to a female. Most don't care about male circumcision because they grew up with it and are conditioned to think it's okay, same reason why those in other countries think female circumcision is okay. They just get conditioned (brainwashed) into thinking it's not a problem. However male circumcision does as much damage to a males sexual exsperience as female circumcision does to a females. People who circumcised females have the same exact reasons for doing it as we do for males. They do say it's cleaner and healthier and prevents STD's. No one in America buys into that but will when it comes to males. It's sexism that has been conditioned into people. It's not really their fault it's just about time we start waking people up to reality. -Connor
In the Western World (EU) and in most of Asia (JP) both are considered outrageous forms of mutilation. The US has done the male mutilation so much that there are so many people trying to justify the practice. Male and female circ are pushed for the same reasons -- hygiene and looks. Looks is not ra reasonable basis, particularly changing the body of another for your ideas of looks. The Hygiene basis is BS. Circ pushers occasionally do studies and try to say there is a health advantage. A Tanzania study said the FGM (labia and clitoral hood cutting) lowered HIV risk to the cut women. This was also claimed for MGM. I think these are both bogus and rely on other factors to change the risk (secual pratices and number of partners and condom use) from about 3.2% risk to 1.8% risk. The theory is that moist places and/or the type of tissue raises HIV risk. In reality STD and HIV sttudies in 1st world countries do not show this risk change with male circumcision so it is doubtful there is a risk change for female circumcision. With male circumcision it was found that it raises the risk of HIV to the partners of the circumcised men -- this could also be true of female circumcision. A fact that is certain is that all of these genital cutting practices remove capicity for pleasure of the circumcised. For men the loss is drastic with thousands of fine touch nerve endings cut off. For females the loss is a bit less severe for the most common FGM (labia and clitoral hood removal) and is sexually devastating for the extreme form. BTW, DUTCH is wrong as most female circumcision involves the removal of the labia and clitoral hood and not the clitoris. Many women that have this done to them say the sex is great. It is often the women that force it onb their daughters for looks and hyiene. It is also myth and wrong that HIV and Papilloma (HPV) are correlated with the natural male. That may be what biased studies claim in Africa, but that is not seen in US and other 1st world countires. IIn the US HPV was found not correlated to circumcision status (only number of sexual partners was an HPV factor, not genital; mutilation) and the huge New Zealand study (most recent) found NO difference in STDs. EU has much lower HIV and virtualluy no circumision. Also other studies do not find an HIV risk change with circumcision. The BOGUS Africa studies had a 1.79% risk change. Of course as the tissue and moist places are the same, any claim that circumcision is good for males would also apply to females. Let the human have the chance to experience their natural body. PLEASE Stop all circumcsion of minors. Stop harming baby boys in the U.S. It is his right to the full pleasure of his natural body.
Hypocrisy because people don't want to say their own behaviour is wrong but they will condemn the behaviour of others. Male circumcision is so gross and wrong and I hate the very idea of it. None of the 3 guys I've been with are circumcised and I'm so glad of that (so are they). In porn it looks awful and I don't see how it can possibly feel as nice because I know guys find the foreskin very sensitive.
Sadly, love does not make the world go round. Money does. If the medical establishment weren't so effing greedy this would have stopped a long time ago.
because nobody gives a shit about men's genitals - hell, we laugh when a man gets smacked in them, yet we rally around a woman when someone makes a disparaging comment about hers.
Because uncircumcised penises are icky