• 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.