• slevinkelevra@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yeah the world could definitely do without unnecessary genital mutilation on anybody, male or female. Even though it is clear that their motivation comes from the wrong place, but still

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yep. The ethical dilemma here is whethe-hh^h how best to use their ignorance and spotlight-stealing for the good of humanity for once.

      • Probius@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Why does someone always butt in with “they’re not the same!!!1!” when people are just saying they’re both bad?

        • andros_rex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Because they aren’t comparable and don’t belong in the same sentence honestly. The name is the same, genitals are getting mutilated, but one usually means a lifetime of pain and discomfort while the other usually means some loss of sensitivity.

          Female circumcision is done explicitly so that the girl will never experience sexual pleasure. No anesthesia, sometimes they rub animal shit in, sometimes they sew the vagina close to get forced open on the wedding night.

          Male circumcision is usually done in a hospital, and usually the intent is more something like thinking it prevents phimosis - which it might actually even be medically necessary in that case. It’s not done in a way to deliberately destroy function.