No argument on that point, but it should be the guy’s choice, not done when they’re infants or young boys incapable of fully understanding why or consenting.
If we oppose #FGM, we should oppose circumcision too. Religious reasons shouldn’t get preference.
-
-
I’m not denying FGM is a thing, and is more extreme. You’re mutilating someone’s body either way, regardless of the extent. If you’re cutting the foreskin of a boy’s penis off, you are mutilating his genitals. Why can’t you just trust men to clean themselves if that’s the concern
-
Because studies show most of their ‘cleaning’ is ineffective. Partner infection rates are high in uncircumcised men. UTIs mainly but STDs also. Untreated UTIs can KILL a woman. Civilized countries with antibiotics it’s a discomfort but for women without access to drs? Death.
-
Well, women are smart. Educate them to spot a dirty penis and not allow it to be stuck into them. In the meantime, it’s a man’s right to be considered a clean dick unless proven otherwise. Leave our foreskins alone.
#MGM -
Oh my. You can’t see bacteria but ok.
-
Can’t see it in a woman’s vagina either. Does every woman clean herself properly?
-
Lol. If you’re uncircumcised you’ll find out sooner than an circumcised guy...kind of the point.
-
Find out what?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
why not?
-
FGM is done specifically to stop the pleasure of women. There is no hygienic reason behind it. Circumcision does not stop men’s pleasure and does drastically lower female infection rates.
-
also circumcision removes half or more the specialized skin system meant to be on the penis. is most certainly has a significant effect on pleasure
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
