*Disclaimer: I am not a proponent of genital mutilation of any kind, I am merely pointing out the similarities in how cultures that promote ‘circumcision’ justify it for both men and women.*

Belief # 2 — Female Genital Mutilation is like cutting off a man’s penis:

All of the erectile structures of the clitoris are internal and unharmed in most FGM. The clitoral glans is not an erectile structure, and it’s the only external structure of the clitoris. (O’Connell HE, Sanjeevan KV, Hutson JM., “Anatomy of the clitoris”, J Urol. 2005 Oct;174(4 Pt 1):1189-95.) The clitoris is as big as the penis, btw, it’s just INTERNAL. This is a common anatomical misconception. During development, both male and female genitals form from a ‘genital tubercle’. The erectile structures of the genital tubercle that become the penis in a male are internalized in a female and become the internal erectile structures of the clitoris.

Most forms of FGM remove no erectile tissue. Therefore none of them can be equivalent to removing _all_ of men’s erectile tissue. The glans clitoris is likely correlated to the frenulum of an intact male (they are both non-erectile and able to be stimulated to orgasm in similar ways for example, by a vibrator). Therefore the average infant circumcision in the west is equivalent to removing the clitoral hood, the clitoris and the inner labia of a female. Both forms of GM remove the non-erectile sexual structures of both men and women. (The average adult male circumcision may not be equivalent as the frenulum may be left intact.) This makes MGM and FGM very comparable, with the caveat that MGM also permanently exteriorizes a sexual structure (the glans of the penis) that then becomes less sensitive–like the effect of removing the lips and cheeks on the tongue.

Belief # 3 — FGM removes all sexual pleasure for women:

Studies don’t show this. FGM impairs female sexual function, just like MGM impairs male sexual function. However women who have undergone FGM do not loose all sexual function.

“Many who undergo FGM/C view it as a time-honoured rite of passage that cleanses, beautifies, and initiates girls into womanhood. They are proud to have FGM/C, and are grateful to parents for arranging and paying for it, and–in contrast to medical assumption–continue to experience sexual pleasure. It is difficult to reconcile these positive reports with medical accounts of genital pain and reproductive difficulty–yet we cannot disregard women’s own account of their lives.”

“Vagal innervation of the clitoral body and uterus may continue to carry excitatory input to the brain, mediating orgasm by vaginal stimulation–explaining why, in spite of extensive vulvar cutting, numerous women with Type III FGM/C report experiencing orgasm.”

Einstein, Gillian, “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Neurological Perspective”–Presentation made at Forum 10, Cairo, Egypt, 29 October- 2 November 2006

“The group of 57 infibulated women investigated with the FSFI questionnaire showed significant differences between group of study and an equivalent group of control in desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction with mean scores higher in the group of mutilated women. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in lubrication and pain.”

Catania, Lucrezia, Omar Abdulcadir, Vincenzo Puppo, Jole Baldaro Verde, Jasmine Abdulcadir, and Dalmar Abdulcadir, “Pleasure and Orgasm in Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C)”, J Sex Med 2007;4:1666–1678

“No significant differences between cut and uncut women were observed in the frequency of reports of sexual intercourse in the preceding week or month, the frequency of reports of early arousal during intercourse and the proportions reporting experience of orgasm during intercourse. ”

F.E. Okonofuaa, U. Larsenc, F. Oronsayea, R.C. Snowd, T.E. Slangerd, “The association between female genital cutting and correlates of sexual and gynaecological morbidity in Edo State, Nigeria”, BJOG,October 2002, Vol. 109, pp. 1089–1096

Belief # 5 – Male Genital Mutilation is Safer!

Those societies that practice FGM also practice MGM in exactly the same unsanitary conditions. Compare like to like. Also, infant male genital mutilation is not without its risks either. Some boys have had their penises cut off during the procedure, among other complications including excessive bleeding, skin bridges, and death!

Belief # 4 – Do it While He’s an Infant, It’s Better!

One in one hundred natural men will decide to get circumcised. You would have to circumcise one hundred infants to prevent the problems of one adult male circumcision. And of those one hundred infants 3 or 4 of them would have serious complications from their procedures.

The real reason why you do it when he’s an infant? Because he won’t choose the procedure for himself if he was given the choice. Which, right there, should be the biggest reason _not_ to do it.

Conclusion:

IMHO, FGM and MGM are very comparable. The only difference is our cultural attitudes. Read the comments of women who are circumcised and proud of it. Their rationales sound identical to circumcised men in the west–they deny any effect on their sexuality, they call the clitoris a ‘filthy piece of worthless flesh’ that they would cut off again if it ever grew back–and their societies make the same arguments for it as well: hygiene, protection against disease, sexual attractiveness to the opposite gender and sexual control(it’s only been since the seventies that the argument that MGM controls boys sexual appetites and reduces their sexual pleasure has been dropped from our rationales for promoting it.)
Finally, I don’t think you can understand FGM without also understanding MGM, and vice versa. The two phenomena are so similar, society deciding that sexuality exists only to serve society’s aims, and not for individual expression and enjoyment.

*Disclaimer: I am not a proponent of genital mutilation of any kind, I am merely pointing out the similarities in how cultures that promote ‘circumcision’ justify it for both men and women.*
Belief # 1 — Female Genital Mutilation has no protective effect against STDs unlike Male Genital Mutilation:
“[A] large survey of Tanzanian women netted the vexing conclusion that female circumcision halved their risk of HIV infection. Rebecca Stallings (ORC Macro, Calverton, Maryland) set out to see whether variables influencing circumcision or HIV risk could solve this apparent riddle [abstract TuOa0402]. But session attendees guessed Stallings had no good news when she started her talk with a terse avowal of opposition to female circumcision and to government intrusion in women’s lives. […] None of the variables Stallings weighed explained why circumcision apparently protected women from HIV in the primary analysis — and she weighed a lot of them: region, years living there, household wealth, age, education, religion, years sexually active, union status, polygamy, number of recent and lifetime sex partners, recent infection or abnormal discharge, use of alcohol, and ability to say no to sex. […] In the final model, circumcision whittled the risk of HIV infection by 40% (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 0.88).”
From http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
The article above discusses the benefits of circumcision on both men and women. It mentions the work of an anti-FGM researcher in trying to discredit findings that show FGM has a protective affect against HIV. She could not. So, in conclusion, FGM has been found to have a protective effect against HIV infection.
Additional Reference:
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
Also, the Africa results on MGM being protective against STDs haven’t transfered over to US cohorts. Here’s one study that indicates a reduction in genital warts for non-amputated men:
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-co…..eep-around
Additional studies have found no protective benefit for foreskin amputation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…..t=Abstract
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(07)00707-X/abstract
Also, the US leads western nations in both STD infections AND MGM.
According to our own western research, both FGM and MGM can protect against HIV infection. But only one form of GM is acceptable to our culture, so we only promote one. In my opinion, none of this conflicted evidence provides an excuse to remove erogenous tissue from either men or women.

Comparing MGC and FGC is a bit of minefield, and perhaps the biggest thing that alienates feminism from Intactivism, but it’s safe to say that *as human rights abuses* they are the same, especially when you factor in the much milder and more surgical FGC of Indonesia and Malaysia.

I have researched the issue extensively and MGC and FGC are basically identical. If you just cut off the foreskin, MGC might be comparable to ‘milder forms of FGC’ but another sexual structure, the frenulum, which _itself_ can be stimulated to orgasm like the clitoris, is also cut off in infant circumcision.

If there is a sexual structure on men, the frenulum, that can be stimulated to orgasm just like a clitoris and it is removed in circumcision, how is it different?

Good to see the badges. Great minds think alike and someone is a much better artist than me. See http://www.cafepress.com/intactivism/5691045

Comparing MGC and FGC is a bit of minefield, and perhaps the biggest thing that alienates feminism from Intactivism, but it’s safe to say that *as human rights abuses* they are the same, especially when you factor in the much milder and more surgical FGC of Indonesia and Malaysia. The Intactivism Pages have a tabular comparison of FGC and MGC at http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

“A man has to pump harder” not just because it’s dry and keratinised, but because ~20,000 specialised nerves have been removed and he has to stimulate the remaining ones much more to get the same effect (requiring all his attention, so he doesn’t enjoy the journey as much). Some circumcised men masturbate by rubbing against a towel; I doubt that many intact man to stand to do that.

I thought I would post it here so that the commentators and bloggers can take a look and use it, or whatever parts of it, you think will help you argue your case!

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(07)00707-X/abstract

I think I have identified the reason why formally-educated feminists are immediately hostile to intactivism, even though it dovetails with their movement so neatly. The problem, as usual, is misinformation. When feminists hear about intactivism, they think of the movement against FGM. I have yet to get a women’s studies student or graduate to explain to me exactly what they are taught, but the materials seem to contain a lot of incorrect ‘facts’, because what they tell me usually has an eerie disconnection with the information I have read in reputable journals and books.

I get very frustrated with people when I need to talk about genital cutting because I can’t just talk about it, I have to address all of the misinformation to which they try to cling.

It would be really nice if there was a pamphlet: “So you think FGM and MGM aren’t the same thing?”
I really can’t handle trying to explain it to one more person, only to find that they were never listening.