Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum

I have read and heard several people opine that male circumcision removes the foreskin, the most sensitive part of male genitalia, and therefore leads to loss or reduction of pleasure. If this (loss/reduction of pleasure) is bad in females, it is equally bad in males.

Can male circumcision be talked about the same way as female circumcision?

Have also been pondering this issue.  I think that while the issue may seem similar on the surface, it is defined significantly by the difference in both how it is practiced between the two and the outcome.  Males are still left with the ability to enjoy sexual activities without being overly impeded by the act of circumcision because so little of the male sexual organ is removed.  In male circumcision, the male foreskin only is removed.  Sexual reproduction in a male after such a procedure is also not adversely affected.  Females on the other hand are more negatively impacted because so much more of the female sexual organ is targeted for removal.  According to Wikipedia -

"Procedures include removal of the clitoris and clitoral hood, and removal of the clitoris and inner labia. In its most severe form (infibulation), the inner and outer labia are removed and the vulva is closed. In this last procedure, which the WHO calls Type III FGM, a small hole is left for the passage of urine and menstrual blood, and the vagina is opened for intercourse and childbirth. The health effects depend on the procedure, but can include recurrent infections, chronic pain, cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth and fatal bleeding."

I don't believe that it is the same.

I think although both(actually there are various) these procedures may involve cutting and bloodletting I think to get a better picture of their similarities and differences it would be useful to look at the purpose(s) they serve or served in their particular cultural context. I do not think the physical act by itself is enough basis to equate them. I think it can be useful to discuss them both in the context of their significance beyond simply the physical procedure. To acts that are physically similar or the same can resonate in very different ways depending on who is carrying them out, on whom they are being carried out and the context in which it is being carried out.

I came across this article from 2013 - Is Male Circumcision a Form of Genital Mutilation?
http://www.vice.com/read/is-male-circumcision-a-form-of-genital-mutilation (http://www.vice.com/read/is-male-circumcision-a-form-of-genital-mutilation)

Iniko Ujaama, I agree with you there at looking at "the purpose(s) they serve or served in their particular cultural context".

Very interesting thread as I can recall not to long ago on the "The Bridge of Spirits"(http://www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/index.php?topic=8970.0 (http://www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/index.php?topic=8970.0))  we were talking of the negative definition that FGM gives, especially when it pertains to female circumcision.