• ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    11 months ago

    What’s even funnier to me is how people will full on rage when someone brings up female genital mutilation while in the same breath saying circumcision is fine

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      People will defend the most batshit insane things just because they’re used to it.

      But I also think there’s an element of (understandable) insecurity to it.

      If they concluded that mutilating the penises of babies is wrong, then that makes their penis “wrong”, and society is really weird and judgemental about penises. There’s a huge amount of pressure applied to men about their genitals.

      We constantly talk about big dicks and “big dick” energy. Casually saying someone has a small, soft, or ugly dick is seen as a scathing insult, we constantly mock people for it, both in life and in media. Comments about their penises is something used to build up or knock down men. It’s used to make them feel powerful and manly, or weak and emasculated.

      It’s no wonder people rally so hard against those who want to see an end to male genital mutilation. The very victims of it typically don’t want to feel like their dick is “wrong”, because society at large has told them that if their dick is bad, they aren’t real men.

      • Emerald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think it’s important that circumcised people realize that their body isn’t wrong, but rather the procedure is wrong (without a medically necessary reason).

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      The main problem is that people tend to intuitively think of the least invasive form of male circumcision and the most horrific form of female genital mutilation.

      For both genders, all kinds of forms exist

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        the least invasive form of male circumcision

        Is what’s in these discussions.

        the most horrific form of female genital mutilation.

        Is there any other kind in regular discussion? When people refer to FGM, they’re not talking about labiaplasty (which would be a more appropriate comparison).

        • Cockmaster6000@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          A labiaplasty is not equivalent to removal of the foreskin. It would be like removing the clitoral hood. Educate yourself before sharing your thoughts please.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          labiaplasty (which would be a more appropriate comparison).

          How are you coming to this conclusion?

          The foreskin has more nerve endings than the glans, and double that of the clitoris. The labia in contrast has much fewer nerve endings, which is why sexual stimulation is not easily accomplished with simply stimulating the labia. Possible? Yes. But not nearly to the same degree as clitoral stimulation.

          Edit: Given the lack of elaboration, I’ll have to assume the conclusions reached by a gut reaction of “skin is skin” which is not at all how this works.