Friday, April 20, 2012 10:07:40 AM
Its not a small piece taken from the male! it is just as significant as taking the outer curtain of the woman, its just sometimes they do a lot more to the woman, but a lot of times its just the outside, which is comparable to male circumcision imo. I do think its worse what is being done to women, but the practice to either sex is disgusting and inexcusable. its like someone saying killings dogs is bad but killing cats is okay.
Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:49:43 PM
Male circumcision - removing a very small piece of skin that protects the end of the male part Female circumcision - removing all sexual organs of a woman which can ever bring pleasure or allow painless intercourse. The opening is also often sewn up so that intercourse is incredibly painful when attempted. Both aren't right imo, but one is waaay more wrong than the other.
Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:32:51 PM
So male circumcision is okay because sometimes it a doctor that does the procedure of removing the outside skin with a sharp tool, but when they do the same thing to women its not okay? The premise is the same and it is a purely cultural and/or religious practice that does not have a good excuse to be done without the prior consent of the victim. If there was a possible medical benefit to cutting off your ears at birth, but it affected your hearing slightly or significantly, would you do that to your child?
Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:18:15 PM
its from an artist to protest and raise awareness of genital mutilation. im more worried about the victims of this horrific practice, (male and female circumcision) than of someone shining light on it in a tasteless manner and i wish you were too.