I already know what most people here think about this but I still need to get this off my mind.
Why do people support male circumcision while not supporting FGM?
I understand that FGM type III and IV can lead to medical issues, but let's look at the most common types I and II.
They both remove either part or all of the clitoris, clitoral hood and labia minora. How is this completely different from removing the foreskin?
Some people say "It's not comparable. One is removing the clitoros". But why is the clitoris so important while the foreskin is a "useless piece of skin"? The foreskin actually has functions besides pleasure, while the clitoris' sole purpose is for pleasure. I think it's a shitty practice to remove the clitoris, but that's literally a useless organ.
Maybe the clitoris is "more sensitive" than the foreskin, but isn't that like saying "stabbing someone ten times is worse than stabbing them once"? Also, the foreskin protects the glans or someshit, while the clitoris doesn't really protect much.
Also, the link between circumcision and decreased HIV seems to not have reached a consensus. But even if there was say a 60% such as WHO says, that's worse than using a condom 2/3 times. Like why the fuck would you do that? That shit doesn't even matter outside of some African Countries.
Can someone please give a justification for why the two should be treated so differently?
Full Disclosure: I'm a cutfag. I'm too upset about it, as I'm pretty happy with my dick. I'm more worried about the fact that I saw the two so differently without even thinking about it. I could be wrong and someone will tell point out a couple of differences between the two, but if not this just makes no sense.
