[AustinBill]

Interesting that the same practice when performed on males is never referred to as "male genital mutilation" but simply "circumcision".

This whole area is a 1st Amendment minefield.

[ConservativeWarrior]

Are circumcisions performed with the intent of denying the recipient the ability to experience sexual pleasure?

Oh.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Years ago, my husband and I decided not to have our son circumcised (medically) as a newborn, because it has no religious significance to us as gentile Christians and we did not think it medically necessary.

However, I would say that male circumcision is not morally reprehensible as FGM, because it does not destroy male pleasuring or procreative function. Circumcised males still freely enjoy sexual pleasure --- arousal, erection, orgasm --- and face no heightened risks to sexual/reproductive success.

On the contrary, I'm told there also exists a (perhaps slight) health/hygiene advantage, i.e. reduced transmission of infections. That's why it's still widely done in a totally secular setting.

That's why I think suggesting a direct moral equation between male circumcision with FGM is misdirected.

[BarbM]

“Interesting that the same practice when performed on males is never referred to as “male genital mutilation” but simply “circumcision”.
_____________________________________________________

you dork, it’s not the same thing. rather than just cutting the top layer of skin off, with FGM they cut the whole thing off. Let’s see you get the same practice that the little girls get.

[ifinnegan]

Sorry, but you are an ignorant moron.