Inaccurate female circumcision analogy (simile?)

[BrianBrian]

While pointing out the absurdity of male circumcision Stef has likened it to cutting off a woman's clitoris, which isn't a fair trade, as the clitoris is parallel to the head of the penis. The correct parallel to male circumcision would be the removal of the clitoral hood, the foreskin of the clitoris.I think it's important to be precise in this analogy and that it still holds weight. I think woman can relate to the endless discomfort and irritation that would arise from having their anatomy exposed all the time as a result of the removal of clitoral foreskin. To liken male circumcision to the removal of the clitoris is a distraction from the true subtle and simultaneously overt torture of being forever exposed due to circumcision.I was "half" circumcised where they didn't take quite as much as usual, so I was able to experience the comfort of having foreskin until around 4th grade when my penis grew too big for my foreskin to cover it without having to kind of force it around the head and hope it would stay. It was a wretched and humiliating thing to manage, I've only learned that it wasn't something bad or weird about me in the past year and a half. I am no longer able to pull off (no pun intended) the faux natural as an adult.I anticipated some questions as to why I would care or split hairs so I thought to add that in.

[mick_towe]

Chop any part off the body of an adult without thier permission. You will go to jail. Mutilation is mutilation.

 

The point isn't that they are equivalent, the point is that in the west mutilating girls is seen as inhuman, and mutilating boys is accepted as relgious freedom.

[BrianBrian]

Mutilation is mutilation, but removing male foreskin is not removing the head of a male penis. There are degrees of mutilation and to illustrate that removing a man's finger is the equivalent of removing a woman's hand in an attempt to illustrate that removing the man's finger is immoral is not accurate and serves to distract and potentially dissociate someone from connecting with the analogy as it offers an immediate intellectual opportunity for contention.Stef recently referenced the labia along side clitoris in his analogy, and I think the labia is much more appropriate for the analogy than the clitoris.Mutilation is mutilation and I'm clearly not arguing against that. I am arguing the efficacy of the analogy and how it can be improved to be more accurate and easily absorbed by a listener who hasn't already made the connection. The point of the analogy is to make the unaware listener aware that circumcision is mutilation, and the quickest way to do that is to illustrate the female parallel. My suggestion does not change the message that the west mutilating girls is seen as inhuman and mutilating boys is seen as religious freedom.

[mick_towe]

I hear what you are saying, it is a technical critique, and it is not without merit. But for me the details are irrelevant. Mutilating babies = bad.

 

Splitting hairs about whether female or male mutilation is worse is just an attempt to distract from the issue. If I am discussing this topic and someone happens to say "Well male circumcision is not quite the same as female circumcision ..." then I know I am talking to a person that would rather distract from the issue, than condemn a crime against babies.

 

I am NOT accusing you of that, I can tell you are just trying to work on the arguement. But I am making the suggestion that if you are dealing with someone who needs these details clarified, you're probably wasting your breath.

[BrianBrian]

I'm not dealing with anyone that needs these details clarified. I said explicitly it's for people who hear the analogy for the first time. And I'm not splitting hairs on whether female or male mutilation is worse. My suggestion argues for a parallel in terms of human anatomy for reasons already specified.I could be wrong but I'm not finding your feedback remotely relevant to my arguments.

[mick_towe]

Ahhh. My apologies. It seems I am wasting my breath.

 

Split on with yer bad self

[Kevin Beal]

Yes, the analogy you referenced is inaccurate for exactly the reasons you described. 

 

The comparison between a hoodectomy and the average male circumcision is still bad though. Anatomically it's analogous, but not with regard to function or pain.

 

I can't find the link right now, but the pain scales I've seen between the different forms of male and female genital mutilation put the hoodectomy way below the typical male circumcision. Probably due to the larger amount of skin taken and because the foreskin serves more functions than the clitoral hood. Also, the greatest source of stimulation is the foreskin on men, which is not the case for women.

 

Without going into too much detail, I was circumcised as an infant and it's not uncommon for the head of my penis to feel irritated like you described, especially after ejaculation. Also, gauging how close I am to climax is difficult because of the decreased gradation of feeling. I also occasionally have a weird moment where I don't know if something is painful or pleasurable (nerve mappings are rewired when circumcisions are performed on infants).

 

I've never had a clitoral hood, much less had it removed, but I'm inclined to think that what happened to me is a lot worse than a hoodectomy since they are performed regularly on adult women so that they can have their clitorises exposed to greater stimulation, and what I have is decreased stimulation and the other problems I already mentioned.

 

I will never feel what it is like to be intact. I deeply resent that.

 

The only apology I ever remember getting from my mother was for having me circumcised. I don't know what that means exactly, but I felt like sharing that.