It’s GENITAL MUTILATION, not FEMALE CIRCUMCISION
Today’s Editorial based on news articles reprinted in Sallie’s paper.li publication, “Sexually Significant News and Views”
“Female circumcision” is an inaccurate and misleading term that downplays the far greater scope of what is done to females, compared to removal of a male’s foreskin.
Male circumcision is NOT comparable to the complete removal of a woman’s clitoris and often also her labia (sometimes scraped out with a broken bottle) possibly followed by sewing up her vagina.
To be equivalent to female genital mutilation, male circumcision would have to involve removal of the penis.
If one must use a male-centric noun to describe what happens to women, it would be female castration.
I am opposed to both female genital mutilation and male circumcision.
Male circumcision has negative physical impacts including: A decrease of penile sensitivity, callousing and shininess on the penis head. And its social costs might be horrific: Some suspect it is a huge reason for violence against women, as it creates an unconscious sexual wound.
But here’s a comparison of impacts on the individual:
Complete removal of a girl’s exterior sexual parts, obliteration of her ability to experience sexual pleasure like other women, frequent infection, physical pain, emotional trauma.
Versus: Removal of a foreskin.
Got it?
