01-19-2016, 11:15 AM
(01-19-2016, 10:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was intrigued by a topic brought up in the Kansas Planned Parenthood thread. Vlad called out the disgusting practice of female circumcision (genital mutilation). He mentioned the fact that it is still prevalent in a number of nations in West and Saharan Africa and a few in the MIddle East. They range from 1% prevalence to about 96%.
Many African nations have now banned the practice and the UN decided a few years ago that this is a human rights issue.
These are good first steps but it makes me wonder something. Why are we ok with the prevalence of male circumcision? It certainly is a safer practice and is done either for presumed health reasons or religion, not to make sex less pleasurable.
But is it still not mutilation? My friends' pediatrician told them that he couldn't give them a reason to do it or not to do it when they asked about their son a year ago. Besides the Middle East and much of the Northern half of Africa, America and Australia are alone in their high rates of male circumcision.
Where do we stand on this practice?
There are glaring differences between the two...for men it was about cleanliness, stopping spread of disease.
Does not affect pleasure.
For women...they are not allowed to feel pleasure during sex...zero health benefits.
For men, although painful, done as an infant. I don't remember mine. No long term health issues from being circumcised.
For women, done as children or pre-teen. Extremely painful. Women suffer long term health issues as a result.
Far more deaths from female circumcision than male.
I am glad I am circumcised because I know women who wouldn't touch an uncircumcised dick. Think its disgusting.
