Okay seriously if your argument on why “Men’s Rights” are important involves circumcision you really need to just sit down and shut up.

First off this is something feminists are most typically against because it violates bodily autonomy. Okay do you get it yet? Most of us are against it in infants and say a man should be able to decide that for himself. So quit acting like we don’t care about it.



Second and this is important, the instant you even try to compare it to female genital mutilation you prove that you have no right to ever speak about issues ever again, you literally know nothing. You are so completely removed from reality I can’t even describe it.



This is not complicated, really, it’s not.



Male circumcision =/= female genital mutilation.



These two things are in no way comparable.



Here let me explain why:



Male circumcision or genital mutilation is the removal of the foreskin. That’s it. That’s all there is to it, nothing else. And what is the foreskin, you may wonder? It is a fold of skin and membrane covering the glans or “head” of the penis. Its function? We don’t know. Theories are typically that it protects the penis during fetal development, keeps the glans moist, and/or possibly enhancing pleasure, as it has quite a few nerves in it.



Now these (theoretical) functions are great. But still, losing them isn’t catastrophic. In utero protection is meaningless once the kid is born, for obvious reasons. Keeping the glans moist is thought to be helpful to the immune system. Yet there’s no widespread penis-disease tormenting circumcised men the world over. There’s no evidence suggesting any real differences in health between penises with and without their foreskin. As far as sexual satisfaction goes, there’s no real proof that it does or does not make sex more pleasurable. Studies are inconclusive. Some suggest sex is more pleasurable, some say less. It may play an important role, but it may not.



Possible complications include: bleeding, infection, and removal or too much or too little foreskin. These occur in less than 1% of cases.



There are supposed benefits to male circumcision, most commonly easier hygiene and reduced chances of HIV, HPV, other STI’s, UTI’s, and certain penile cancers. Supposedly.



Female genital mutilation, on the other hand may be one of many things:

1. Removal of the clitoral hood (rarest and the only one even remotely similar to male circumcision).

2. Removal of the clitoral hood, as well as some or all of the clitoris.

3. Removal of the clitoral hood, some or all of the clitoris, the inner labia, and possibly outer labia.

4. Removal of the clitoral hood, clitoris, the inner labia, and outer labia, followed by the fusing of the wound. (a small hole is left open for urine and menstrual blood.)



But what are all these things they cut away? (scary how little focus female anatomy actually gets in school)

The clitoral hood is homologous, or equivalent, to the foreskin. It has the same basic functions. However, there is no dispute as to the clitoral hood’s importance in protecting the glans of the clitoris and its role in sexual pleasure. (more on this in a moment)

The clitoris is similar to the penis. The “head” is known as the clitoral glans(I will use clitoris for simplicity). Despite their similarities, the clitoris is far more sensitive than the penis, sometimes far too sensitive to be stimulated directly. The clitoral hood takes away that problem, by allowing the clitoris to be stimulated through it. Without it, a woman is more likely to feel pain than pleasure.

The inner labia (labia minora) protects the vagina from infection by releasing chemicals that kill bacteria. When stimulated, they secrete a natural lubricant to aid in vaginal sex and (with the right touch) significantly increase pleasure.

The outer labia (labia majora) is the outermost portion that protects the vagina by keeping foreign bodies out. (once upon a time, pubic hair helped it out, but modern undergarments have typically taken its place)



Not one of these functions is disputed. And unlike the loss of the foreskin, losing these is very much a catastrophe for women. Sex typically becomes painful and when the procedure removes more than the clitoral hood (as in most cases) pleasure becomes very difficult and virtually impossible in cases where the entire clitoris is removed.



Female genital mutilation is often performed in unsafe and unsterilized environments. Bladder infections and incontinence are common. Other issues include vaginal and pelvic infections, painful periods, and infertility. In cases where the wound is fused, there is countless rick of infection and other complications. It is not uncommon for women to develop PTSD afterward. It can and often is fatal.



There is not a single medical benefit to female genital mutilation. Not even one that’s disputed. Why is it done, then? Most often to ensure her “virginity” and “purity”. After all, if sex is painful (or if a vagina is stitched shut) then there’s no chance a woman can become unfaithful. In some cultures this makes it easier for men to take multiple wives. Sometimes it’s done because the clitoris is thought to be too similar to the penis, and keeping it will give the “wrong idea” about “women’s roles”. And other times it’s done because it’s thought to heighten the sexual experience for men, especially when a vagina has been “fused”. Aesthetics and various (debunked) myths about the clitoris are also common reasons. Altogether, the main reason (which fits in just about every instance) is to control them via their sexuality.



But, you may be thinking, the practice of female genital mutilation is most often carried out by the older women! And that’s true. But let’s take a moment to think about why.



Most often, a girl (they’re usually quite young) who refuses the procedure will be ostracized and unable to marry or attend funerals and other important events. Even if she has children, she will often be denied the right to call herself “mother” and be given no support from her community. There are often cultural and religious reasons as well, but I digress.



So, now you know what the difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation is. Hopefully that’s enough to make you understand why comparing them is absurd, but if it’s not, consider this:



Male circumcision is undoubtedly a violation of bodily autonomy, unless carried out on an adult who wishes it. However, it has been performed for thousands of years, but



it has possible benefits and is at times medically recommended.

it is more often than not performed in a safe, sterile environment.

it does not make sexual pleasure almost impossible.

it does not lead to a plethora of (possibly fatal) complications.

it has never been used to prevent a man from having sex.

it is not designed to mark a man as ready for marriage.

it is not, has not ever been, and will not ever be, a procedure meant to keep a man “in his place” and subservient to women.

It is not designed to control men.

It is not designed to control men.

It is not designed to control men.



Do you understand now? Comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation is like comparing a broken hand to an severed arm. It is standard false equivalence.



Do you have every right to fight against it? Absolutely.



You have every right to to fight against male circumcision.



But you cannot use it as an example of men being “oppressed” (once again “it is not designed to control men”) and you absolutely cannot say it is comparable to female genital mutilation.



So next time you find yourself trying to argue “well men’s rights to autonomy are violated as much as women’s, we get circumcised and it’s legal!”, try actually thinking for once and realizing that that is, in fact, a logical fallacy.