Is circumcision male genital mutilation?
- Thread starter water
- Start date
Sure it is, and it's fantastic. 
No.
Because you are not damaging the organ or it's function. You are just removing skin.
In female genital mutilation you are actually removing the organ. It literally is the equivalent of cutting of the male penis.
Cutting of male penises and removing clitorises from females is genital mutilation.
Because you are not damaging the organ or it's function. You are just removing skin.
In female genital mutilation you are actually removing the organ. It literally is the equivalent of cutting of the male penis.
Cutting of male penises and removing clitorises from females is genital mutilation.
Yes and men lose sensation in the penis because of it.
& you this how...
When you remove foreskin, you are not damaging the organ or it's function?
really?
Studies. I am circumcised. I wouldn't know first hand. The reason for circumcision has more to do with cultural norms than actual health benefits. Male and female circumcision does differ int hat they cut off the woman's clit or labia, and is done under poor circumstances. I say eliminate both and let men decided if they want to do it when they reach an appropriate age.
No. You are not.
Yes really.
Dude. Are you serious?
Why are you shaking you head? It's a fact.
Last edited:
Why fantastic?
I thought you were a man
Hell yeah, I'm a man, and dont need all that skin when
rubbing one out to Joyce or fat ass Soraya.
Its a "benign" mutilation nonetheless. Ear piercing is mutilation also yet the organ per se is functionally in tact.
Cutting off foreskin is mutilating the male genitalia and it does reduce sensitivity.
FGM may be worse but it doesn't mean MGM is ok.
Not sure....but kinda glad my dick does not look like an elephant trunk......walking around here picking up peanuts and shit...
No. It's not.
Yes really.
Dude. Are you serious?
Do you know the definition of a "fact"
It's so because you said it is a fact
The foreskin does protect the glans from feces in babies, dirt and the urethra. It also enhances the sexual experience of women and men. There is no need to cut it, and cleaning in this day and age is fairly easy. I can see why people were afraid when they had no knowledge of hygiene.
You are not born with anything "extra". Everything one is born with is suppose to be there.
No. No it is not.
Cutting off foreskin is mutilating the male genitalia
This is a myth. Studies have shown that there is either no difference or in sensitivity or an increase in sensitivity.
In some cases there is less sensitivity, but this is not the majority, and of course difference from person to person.
FGM is more than worse. It's totally different. Again Female mutilation is the same as cutting of the male penis. There is a difference.
You're right...
Male genital mutilation would be cutting off the penis.
That would be wrong.
Removing skin is not mutilation.
About these "studies", how many of the subjects were circumcised as infants and can remember what it felt like beforehand to make the comparison?
Cutting off foreskin is mutilating the male genitalia and it does reduce sensitivity.
FGM may be worse but it doesn't mean MGM is ok.
When you ask a question, try to make sure everyone knows you already have your mind made up on the subject so we'll know where you're bias will lie. It makes it more helpful when answering.
Removing foreskin isn't mutilation except by the strictest of definitions but it is a surgical procedure. Comparing to female genitial mutilation is just that.
The foreskin rubs back and forth like a ribbed condom. I guess it doesn't matter if you are strapping up, but if you are in a committed sexual relationship then that is different.
Yes. I know the definition of a fact. But you clearly do not.
It's so because you said it is a fact
Nice try. I never said any such thing.
It's fact because it's true irregardless of what you or I say. That's what facts are.
About these "studies", how many of the subjects were circumcised as infants and can remember what it felt like beforehand to make the comparison?
When you ask a question, try to make sure everyone knows you already have your mind made up on the subject so we'll know where you're bias will lie. It makes it more helpful when answering.
Removing foreskin isn't mutilation except by the strictest of definitions but it is a surgical procedure. Comparing to female genitial mutilation is just that.
The foreskin contains thousands of nerve endings. It also protects the head from rubbing against clothing which causes desensitization.
Interesting.
Not "irregardless". You must be getting tired, TDM. You know that ain't a word
.I'm sure it does but I think the desensitization part is overstated.
Except for the women's pleasure part, I know about how it's moe about custom than necessity.
I got lost in this thread when circumcision was compared to female genital mutilation.
When you remove foreskin, you are not damaging the organ or it's function?
really?
Not sure why im telling BGOL this but i wasn't circumcised and couple of years back and decided to get circumcised mainly do to health and hygienic reasons. No your not damaging the organ as its just the skin thats surrounds the head. The biggest thing i was scared with was losing senstation in the head cuz when being uncircumcised the head is extra extra sensitive when exposed and getting head and shit felt extra good. After the circumcision i didn't loose any senstation and glad i got it done. I do feel i would last a little longer with the extra skin when hittin some pussy but thats all in the mind.
FYI the days after the circumcision were fucking HELL that shit hurt walking and everything but the meds definitely worked. I'd do it again now i can just whip my dick out on bitches and they not looking at that shit funny.
Oh yeah? What's an appendix for?
It's comparable because both serve no real medical purpose. One's for look the other is for religious reasons(actually both), but put babies in unnecessary pain. All you have to do is pose this question to people, if men never could be circumcised before the age of 18, how many would choose circumcision. No think about doing this to a day old infant.
Here's a question, would you subject your child to circumcision or give them the choice you had?
Interesting.
Not "irregardless". You must be getting tired, TDM. You know that ain't a word
Yeah. You got me.Yeah. It's supposed to be regardless.
My English teacher in college used to get on us about that one.
She turned u down cuz she dint like that turtleneck bruh?
It's not too late to handle that.
It's not too late to handle that.
It's good that you had a choice as an adult.
A baby has no choice and is in a world of pain. Picture a baby being in the pain you were in.
You said before it was extra extra sensitive now it is just sensitive which means that you have acknowledged losing some sensitivity but not enough to cause problems.
Considering what you know now about the pain etc would you circumcise your baby son if there is no medical issue?
Similar threads
