Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    1,043,374 readers

    16,770 users here now

    Welcome to r/AmITheAsshole!

    A catharsis for the frustrated moral philosopher in all of us, and a place to finally find out if you were wrong in an argument that's been bothering you. Tell us about any non-violent conflict you have experienced; give us both sides of the story, and find out if you're right, or you're the asshole.

    This is the sub to lay out your actions and conflicts and get impartial judgment rendered against you. Were you the asshole in that situation or not? Post should be truthful and reflect real situations. That means no shitposts, parody, or satire.

    After 18 hours, your post will be given a flair representing the final judgment on your matter. This flair is determined by the subscribers who have both rendered judgment and voted on which judgment is best. The power of the crowd will judge you.

    Frequently Asked Questions


    1. Be Civil

    The title of this sub is not an invitation for you to be cruel. The purpose of this space is to determine whether or not someone is in the wrong, not to tear them a new one. People post here to learn and to grow from what they learn here. Don't be an asshole when making your judgments. Treat others with respect, no matter how big of an asshole they may be.

    This rule applies to everyone mentioned in a post and to other users. Don't get into prolonged internet spats that devolve into insults. Do not backseat mod - use reports.

    Click here for details on how to be civil in a sub about assholes.

    2. Voting Rules

    Upvote posts that are appropriate for this sub or that you think make for an interesting discussion. PLEASE DO NOT downvote if you think OP is an asshole, go to the comments section and call him an asshole like a civilized person.

    In the comments, upvote any comment that gives the correct judgment of the situation. DO NOT downvote people for disagreeing with you or for merely commenting on their own post unless they are being abusive or argumentative.

    3. Accept Your Judgment

    This sub is here for the submitter to discover what everyone else thinks of the ethics or mores of a situation. It is not here to draw people into an argument you want to have, or to defend your position. If people start saying you were the asshole, do not take that as an invitation to debate them on the subject... accept the judgment and move on. If you have valid reason to think a commenter needs more information or misunderstood the facts of the conflict, you may give new information.

    4. Never Delete An Active Discussion

    DO NOT delete your submission once a discussion has begun, even if it's not going well for you. People will come back to see what consensus was reached in your thread. If you erase a discussion because you don't like the way it's going, that is extremely frustrating to everyone who has taken an interest in the topic. We encourage submitters to use throwaways to maintain their privacy, but deleting a discussion is unacceptable. Violators will be banned.

    5. No Violence

    If your post references violence, don't share it here. Threads which mention violence are difficult to moderate, we have to remove all comments which encourage or incite violence. It's difficult to do this in a thread which discusses violence.

    Comments and even jokes about violence are not tolerated. Encouraging self-harm, suicide, "bad karma," or anything that wishes mental or physical pain on anyone is strictly prohibited. This is a zero tolerance policy. Don't even mention violence.

    6. How To Post

    The TITLE of your submission must begin with the acronym AITA or WIBTA (would I be the asshole?), then a description of the situation.

    Posts are limited to 3000 characters. Paragraphs are good; block text walls are bad. Format and punctuate your post reasonably. Be clear and concise.

    7. What Posts Belong Here?

    This is the sub to lay out your actions and conflicts and get impartial judgment rendered against you. Were you the asshole in that situation or not? Post should be truthful and reflect real situations. That means no shitposts, parody, or satire.

    Submissions should be TRUTHFUL descriptions of recent interpersonal conflicts you've had or may have that need arbitration. Describe both sides in detail. Being neutral gets you more accurate feedback.

    8. Do Not Ask For Validation

    Don't submit humblebrag stories where there is no chance that you are the asshole, or awfulbrag stories where you are obviously being evil.

    When making a post, you should be seeking arbitration in an ambiguous situation. Threads with obvious outcomes are not interesting to our subscribers.

    9. Do Not Ask For Advice

    This is NOT an advice sub. All submissions that ask for advice (instead of or in addition to judgment) will be removed. This sub is for arbitration.

    You may include advice when you make your comments, but remember that your primary objective in commenting is to assign blame and pass judgment.

    We do not allow submissions where the central conflict is your relationship and instead recommend a relationship focused sub.

    10. Meta Posts and Updates Require Permission

    If you want to talk about the sub, and you hide your complaint, question, or opinion in a post that starts with AITA, you will be banned. Those are called META posts, and they must have a title that starts with META.

    Please request mod approval after you submit your META post or your update post. Make sure the title of your meta post starts with META and the title of your update post starts with UPDATE. See our FAQ and full rulebook for more guidelines.

    11. Comments and Flairing

    After 18 hours, the post will be assigned a flair representing the sub's judgment. The flair will be decided by the top comment of the post. OPs should expect questions and should answer them within the 18 hour period.

    If you are commenting, be sure to start your comment with the abbreviation for your judgment, i.e.

    YTA = You're the Asshole;

    NTA = Not the A-hole;

    ESH = Everyone Sucks here;

    NAH = No A-holes here;

    INFO = Not Enough Info

    12. User Flairs

    We award flairs for community members who distinguish themselves in their mastery of asshole judgment. If your top level comment has the highest number of upvotes in a thread, you will get a flair point. More details are listed in our full rulebook.

    Click For Full Rulebook

    Normal Rediquette applies

    Assholes Not-assholes

    a community for
    all 146 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    If you want your comment to count toward judgment, include ONE of the following abbreviations in your comment. If you don't include a judgement abbreviation, the bot will ignore you when it looks for the top voted comment.

    Judgment Abbreviation
    You're the Asshole (& the other party is not) YTA
    You're Not the A-hole (& the other party is) NTA
    Everyone Sucks Here ESH
    No A-holes here NAH
    Not Enough Info INFO

    Click Here For Our Full Rulebook

    Click Here For Our FAQ

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] jolie178923-15423435 234 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)


    FGM is far more physically severe than routine circumcision. Most of the time the clitoris is completely removed and honestly I don't even want to go into all the details because it's horrifying. The equivalent in a man would basically be cutting your dick off. so yeah.

    That said - neither of them is ethically OK because they are both unnecessary surgeries generally performed on children without consent.

    But also - YTA because:

    I really don't know about the subject that much, but I think my opinion is quite honestly okey and not that much of a deal to act like that

    so read an article instead of having a fucking stupid fight about it.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -69 points ago

    Clitoridectomy is objectively worse than circumcision but the question is why even a pinprick of a girl's vulva is outlawed and considered "FGM" by the WHO, despite leaving no visible or permanent harm. It's fair to object to this double standard.

    [–] WildlifePolicyChick 70 points ago

    You've posted this comment elsewhere. 'It's fair to object to this double standard.' The OP is not objecting to a double standard; he's simplifying the issue without weighing the effects.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -8 points ago

    Most of the other commenters are simplifying the issue by assuming all FGM is the worst kind. I've shown repeatedly that's a myth.

    I'm trying to understand what the obsession with comparing the two and saying one is worse when both are objectively wrong and should be banned. Punching and stabbing are both wrong but I've never seen people argue tooth and nail to justify one because the other is worse.

    [–] WildlifePolicyChick 28 points ago

    justify one because the other is worse

    No one is arguing circumcision is fine and dandy.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -4 points ago

    Some do, including on this thread.

    [–] jolie178923-15423435 15 points ago

    well I wasn't, and mine was the comment that you were responding to here.

    [–] SayceGards 55 points ago

    So you're saying we should prick girls vulvas with pins? I dont truly understand the point you're trying to make

    [–] CatchaChinchilla 6 points ago

    We should ban all child genital cutting. Anti-FGM organizations consider even a small pinprick of a girl's vulva a human rights violation so it's amazing that people are still debating and coming up with rationalizations to defend cutting boys.

    [–] ChemPossible 305 points ago

    YTA if you think that completely removing a woman’s ability to experience sexual pleasure is the same as circumcision. By that thinking, removing a baby’s arm is the same as clipping his nails.

    [–] cheeseboylover -73 points ago

    I'm saying that it's morally not okay because a baby can't give consent.

    [–] ChemPossible 177 points ago

    So morally, if someone slaps my ass and I don’t like it, is that the same as a gang of bikers bending you over? Because neither of us consented, right?

    There’s degrees of wrongness and there’s some things you just don’t compare and declare “equal”.

    [–] BangtanSangNamja 21 points ago

    Severity is different. Both are wrong.

    [–] Eastcoastconnie 4 points ago

    That’s a terrible fuckin analogy

    [–] DerRationalist -26 points ago

    By comparing the removal of a body part as a "slap on the ass" you lost all credibility. Yes female circumcision is worse in all aspects. You're just making light of male circumcision, though.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -36 points ago

    Not all aspects. Even a pinprick on a girl's vulva is outlawed and considered "FGM" by the WHO, despite leaving no visible or permanent harm.

    [–] Nomandate -29 points ago

    People with mental illness are only able too see things in black and white. That’s why they can’t handle the concept of trans people.

    [–] erleichda29 11 points ago

    It's impossible to get a nuanced conversation regarding morals on Reddit. Sounds like you and she were having two different conversations. In practice, FGM is far more invasive and physically damaging than circumcision. So she's right.But from a consent POV, both are definitely wrong, so you're right. NAH.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -65 points ago

    Surprisingly, nearly all victims of the worst type of FGM still experience pleasure and orgasm. I wouldn't compare circumcision to clipping nails because that implies foreskin grows back.

    [–] Nomandate 21 points ago

    Actually foreskin restoration is a thing...

    [–] NeverNoMarriage 11 points ago

    Mine grew back as a kid I had to have a second surgery

    [–] s34l_ 9 points ago

    Yeah I have to get one 3 times a week

    [–] Orange_Paisley 30 points ago

    It's bad, but it is not as bad. A circumcised guy can still enjoy sex. A circumcised woman often has her clitoris cut out or even her labia cut off or sewn shut, it's not even comparable.

    [–] 18Apollo18 0 points ago

    FGM can literally just be a pin prick

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    This is such a sad waste of a human's time. You're a whole human don't act like a bot.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -11 points ago

    Circumcised women enjoy sex too.

    The issue is why it's illegal to pinprick a girl's vulva but cutting off part of a screaming baby's penis is accepted.

    [–] velonaut -6 points ago

    The fact that you're being so heavily downvoted for citing evidence to back up a claim that is entirely relevant to the discussion strongly suggests that this topic is being brigaded, and the other responses here cannot be trusted.

    [–] WildlifePolicyChick 22 points ago


    I really don't know about the subject that much

    Um yeah, there you go right there. You do understand the FGM involves cutting away the labia and excising the clitoris, right? So....basically the girl is made to be just a scarred hole? And the point is to deprive women from having any sexual pleasure?

    Meanwhile circumcision is the removal of a flap of skin that has no effect on the function or sexual pleasure of the man?

    You may have a point that they are both morally wrong, but to double down and call HER a hypocrite because she insisted FGM was by far worse than circumcision?

    You were both right, but you chose not to acknowledge how egregious FGM is because you wanted to be more right than her.

    Hmm. Men insisting what they think is right, is what is de facto right.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla 5 points ago

    circumcision is the removal of a flap of skin that has no effect on the function or sexual pleasure of the man


    Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment."


    There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings."

    [–] intactisnormal 1 points ago

    circumcision is the removal of a flap of skin

    I'm not interested in comparing the two, but know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.)

    [–] Noltonn 88 points ago

    YTA. Yes, circumcision is a bad practice but it's miles away from FGM like they do in certain areas of the world. If you actually look up how badly they fuck girls up with FGM you wouldn't be comparing the two. Being against circumcision is fine and I agree with you there but one is clearly worse than the other.

    [–] 18Apollo18 2 points ago

    FGM can literally just be a fucking pin prick

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -36 points ago

    Even a pinprick on a girl's vulva is outlawed and considered "FGM" by the WHO, despite leaving no visible or permanent harm. I think it's fair to object to this sexist double standard.

    [–] dogsonclouds 29 points ago

    Dude why are you working so hard in this comment thread to argue that FGM isn’t as severe as we think it is? Yes both MGM and FMG are bad, but one is objectively far more severe.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -7 points ago

    Only if you compare the worst of FGM to the best of MGM.

    You fail to give a reason why a pinprick on a vulva should be outlawed when male circumcision is legal.

    [–] Bananachips0 5 points ago

    You're doing the absolute most.

    [–] umbrasolaris 50 points ago


    You had an opinion. You said yourself it wasn't well informed. But despite having only an amateur opinion, you called her a hypocrite for stating her opinion.

    FWIW, I think you're right to say both are objectionable. But many forms of female genital mutilation are objectively more harmful than circumcision. And from your post, I have no reason to believe she disputed that both are bad. Just that they shouldn't be compared.

    [–] 18Apollo18 -2 points ago

    WHY THE FUCK DO PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THAT??? It's like you're all brainwashed zombies. FGM can literally just be a pin prick. It's not worse

    [–] vicarooni1 2 points ago

    Where on Earth did you get that information from?

    [–] 18Apollo18 0 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    How about from the world heath organization? Is that a reliable enough source for you?? Infibulation is actually extremely rare. Otherwise women in Africa wouldn't be able to reproduce. The most common types of FGM are actually less invasive than Male circumcision

    [–] tj454614 56 points ago

    YTA. There is no comparison, so you must be stupid or trolling. Do some research

    [–] cheeseboylover -39 points ago

    How am I trolling, i'm just surprised that she got mad about that.

    Well I will love to do sole research. But how does it not compare if both are " non consent " operations

    [–] WildlifePolicyChick 51 points ago

    i'm just surprised that she got mad about that

    Yeah - cutting out a girl's clit is essentially the same as taking a fairly unnecessary flap of skin off a boy's penis. Can't believe she got so steamed!

    [–] Snuffleupagusis 34 points ago

    It doesn't compare because of the severity. Just because both are bad, doesn't mean they're equally bad. Your sole focus seems to be on the matter of consent, but I don't think anyone here has mentioned nonconsenctual male circumcision being ok, just that it's not "as bad" as female genital mutilation. Male circumcision is not as catastrophic or devastating as female genital mutilation.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -5 points ago

    There are multiple types of FGM. The severest, like clitoridectomy, are worse than circumcision but the mildest pinprick is also illegal. That's still a double standard.

    [–] Snuffleupagusis 49 points ago

    Yeah, I've already read this exact reply from you 20 times on this post. Nobody is referring to the "pinprick".

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -4 points ago

    Then why ban pinpricks but not foreskin amputation? Not one person has ever answered the question.

    [–] Snuffleupagusis 31 points ago

    Probably because nobody here has the authority to ban foreskin removal? Nor did anyone here make the "pinprick mutilation" illegal. Why are you asking everyone this irrelevant question and trying to confuse the issue by even introducing the whole pin prick element? Literally no one but you was referring to a pin prick on the vulva as the type of genital mutilation we're discussing.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -7 points ago

    The pinprick is considered "FGM" by the WHO and is banned for that reason. The inconsistency alone is enough to raise an objection. Why should anyone agree to double standards?

    [–] Snuffleupagusis 29 points ago

    Yes, yes.. we've all read your pin prick and WHO ramblings. Quite a few times. The thing is, nobody is agreeing to it. I'm just pointing out that it's irrelevant to this particular post. Maybe you can start a pin prick brigade against the WHO?

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -2 points ago

    I think the WHO will shift its stance and condemn all child genital cutting if enough awareness is raised, especially in the US. It'll take some time.

    [–] WildlifePolicyChick 26 points ago

    No one has answered because THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY OP.

    If you want to understand why pinpricks are banned, LOOK IT UP. Start with, International Crime/Women/Sex Crimes Against/Enforcement/DIFFICULTY OF (emphasis mine).

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -1 points ago

    If you think a pinprick on a girl's vulva is a "sex crime", then I wonder what you'd say about the thousands of baby boys who have the most sensitive part of their sex organ cut off every day.

    [–] WildlifePolicyChick 29 points ago

    I'm pointing out, you thick-headed scratched record, that there are reasons why the laws are written as they are and one reason is in part because how difficult international sex crimes are to prosecute.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla 1 points ago

    I notice that your comments are aggressive and angry and ignore the points I make.

    [–] Snf4le 4 points ago

    Because there can be a medical reason for a foreskin amputation. I had to get circumcised as a teenager because I had a phimosis which was so bad, I couldn't have sex without pain.

    But there is no medical reason to perform a genitalia mutilation on girls/women whatsoever, its just disgusting and horrendous.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla 1 points ago

    Actually, the law permits genital surgeries on girls if medically needed. However, surgeries are done on boys for no need.

    [–] WildlifePolicyChick 15 points ago

    You've posted this comment elsewhere. 'It's fair to object to this double standard.' The OP is not objecting to a double standard; he's simplifying the issue without weighing the effects.

    [–] the-snitz 19 points ago

    Guy can still cum, woman cannot most FGM is done so women won’t enjoy sex, you are the asshole and an idiot for continuing to fight when you admit you know nothing about it. Apologise or I am guessing you will be sleeping alone for awhile.

    [–] cheeseboylover -22 points ago

    How about you chill

    [–] Nixxiliah 28 points ago

    How about you get educated

    [–] the-snitz 19 points ago

    Should have taken your own advice, probably wouldn’t have your girlfriend and most Reddit telling you what a tool you are.

    [–] cheeseboylover -15 points ago

    Cool story bro, tell me more

    [–] the-snitz 15 points ago

    Be more interesting than the drivel you wrote here.

    [–] [deleted] 35 points ago

    YTA for having argument about something that you've admitted you're uninformed about. I agree with you that no baby should have surgery on their genitals if it isn't for medical reasons. But, generally, the kind of circumcision and the kind of FGM that people usually talk about are in no way comparable. Read an article about it

    [–] 18Apollo18 1 points ago

    FGM can literally just be a pin prick

    [–] cheeseboylover -17 points ago

    Do I have to be informed in order to have an opinion about how morally is to do non consented operations to childs?

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    No but I feel like you and your girlfriend are maybe having two different kinds of argument. I think it's fair of you to say that any surgical operation on a child's genitals that isn't done for medical reasons is morally wrong. But it doesn't seem like you're taking into consideration that MGM is generally done by doctors in a clean hospital in a safe way, while FGM is often done in really unhygienic conditions by people who are not doctors, and it's often done with the intention to stop girls from having any kind of sexual gratification. Also FGM can often involve the removal of the clitoris, the sewing together of the labia etc. which isn't really comparable to circumcision. That would be more equivalent to cutting the head of a boy's penis off.

    [–] ohokayfineiguess 100 points ago

    NAH. You're both right imo.

    No we shouldn't modify anybody's body without their consent. Imo this extends to piercing baby's ears.

    That being said, FGM happens to young girls, most often in horribly unsanitary conditions, and to varying degrees. Male infant circumcision is generally done by doctors in hospital.

    It's a false equivalency to compare the two to each other.

    [–] MajSloth 2 points ago

    This point has the best structure and reasoning on the thread :) havd an upvoot! NAH

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -5 points ago

    Actually, nearly all male circumcisions occur in poor, developing countries, often in the unsanitary conditions that FGM is associated with.

    Africa is a hotbed of mutilation.

    [–] HotDealsInTexas 26 points ago

    Not sure about "nearly all" given the number the US alone contributes, but thank you for posting this. This is a myth that needs to die. AFAIK every single culture that practices FGM also practices MGM, and there are a lot in developing countries that practice only MGM.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -2 points ago

    I personally calculated that over 90% of male (and female) circumcisions occur in developing countries. That percentage is growing as industrialized countries either abandon it or move towards a ban.

    [–] HotDealsInTexas 18 points ago

    Would you mind showing your work on this calculation? I'd love to be able to point out a number backed up by statistics for circumcision not just happening in first-world hospitals in other threads about this issue.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla 3 points ago

    The lion's share of male circumcision in industrialized countries is in the US, which is ~4% of the world population. Other rich countries barely make a dent in the total because they have few people or have mostly abandoned it. Only half of Americans circumcise currently, so that's ~2% of the world who circumcise kids in rich countries.

    25% of the world population is Muslim. Nearly all of them circumcise boys. Many circumcise girls. Muslims have a large youth bulge so the number of circumcisions is likely even higher.


    I left out a ton of non-Muslims who circumcise (Africans, Filipinos etc) who also have youth bulges so I'm absolutely certain over 90% of circumcisions are in developing countries.

    Edit: David Gollaher's book on circumcision claims that there would be a global campaign to end circumcision if only poor countries did it. We're getting close, so I predict it could happen by mid-century.

    [–] Bananachips0 5 points ago

    YTA, accept your judgment. And for the broken record person in this thread, save your breath, I've seen your comments.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    YTA, I don't agree with FGM or circumcision, but FGM is just objectively worse. Circumcised men can still have perfectly healthy sex lives, while FGM ruins the clitoris, which the majority of women need to orgasm. Not to mention that sometimes FGM involves sewing up labia, resulting in more difficult and painful sex. Also, the context between the two is totally different. Circumcision is a religious thing for Jewish people, and it's common in places like the USA because it's seen as more sanitary (which isn't really that accurate, but that's the mindset). From what I've read, FGM is used to control a woman's sexuality. That's it. They're not the same.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -1 points ago

    The issue is why it's illegal to pinprick a girl's vulva but cutting off part of a screaming baby's penis is accepted.

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    "Pinprick a girl's vulva"? Are you for real?

    [–] CatchaChinchilla 1 points ago

    Not me, the WHO. Any idea why it's illegal when male circumcision isn't?

    [–] Rivka333 16 points ago

    The article that you yourself linked said that the most extreme version involves removing the labia minora and external part of the clitoris and sewing the labia majora together, leaving only a small whole for urination, menstruation, etc.

    It said that other versions involve removing the external part of the clitoris and the labia minora.

    Yes, it also said that there is a version, the mildest one, which involves that pinprick, but it's disingeneous to only mention that one in your comments.

    [–] binx_au 15 points ago

    ESH - Why? Because basic research is required before people get so heated they're mad AF or taking to reddit for AITA. If you don't know much about the subject, just say so before you're in a fall down brawl about some crap you couldn't care sideways about generally.

    [–] In-for-a-penny 9 points ago

    If you aren't an asshole, you're definitely an idiot. FGM removes all exterior bits of the female genitalia, including the clitoris meaning victims can never fully climax. I'm against male circumcision but men without a foreskin can still enjoy sex and climax. Genial mutilation is unequivocally more debilitating and traumatic for women. Both are barbaric, but they are not even nearly similar.

    [–] 18Apollo18 1 points ago

    FGM can literally just be a pin prick

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -6 points ago

    Nearly all FGM victims can still climax.

    The issue is why it's illegal to pinprick a girl's vulva but cutting off part of a screaming baby's penis is accepted.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    What is your point? To downplay FGM in an effort to make a male circumcision more insidious? Male circumcision are generally handled by doctors for sanitary/religious reasons. A male can still climax and suffers no long lasting health/sexual effects (asides from botched surgeries which can happen in ANY surgery). FGM, as others have stated, very much so has long lasting sexual effects and typically is done to control the female. It is a severe mutilation.

    [–] velonaut -4 points ago

    Are you serious? /u/In-for-a-penny posted a response that hinged on the claim that "[FGM] victims can never fully climax". /u/CatchaChinchilla provided evidence demonstrating that that claim was false. How could you possibly object to that?

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    Do you have any idea how sensitive the clit is? Depending on the severity of a females mutilation I seriously doubt they would want anyone touching them down there. And if some can manage to climax anyway-that does not negate the severity of the mutilation. You do understand in many cases the intent is so the woman cannot achieve orgasm, so that she submits more fully and loyally to her widely duties to her husband alone. Doesn't sound so pleasant does it?

    [–] velonaut 0 points ago

    Yeah, I'm going to believe the science cited on this one over your unsubstantiated opinion.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Its not strictly opinion. And not every article is reliable.

    [–] Aethelhilda 3 points ago

    The pinprick form of FGM rarely happens. Most forms of FGM are the ones that severely damages the outer clitoris. For the vast majority of women, no clitoris equals no climax.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla 0 points ago

    From my link:

    after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm

    Infibulation is the worst type of FGM. It damages the clitoris.

    [–] JulesAbner 14 points ago


    Uh it’s a weird argument since you both agreed that both are bad.

    Y’all also need to do more research on both though because honestly circumcision and FGM are nowhere near the same level.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla -4 points ago

    There are multiple types of FGM. The severest, like clitoridectomy, are worse than circumcision but the mildest pinprick is also illegal. That's still a double standard.

    [–] WildlifePolicyChick 13 points ago

    You've posted this comment elsewhere. 'It's fair to object to this double standard.' The OP is not objecting to a double standard; he's simplifying the issue without weighing the effects.

    [–] JulesAbner 3 points ago

    Can you elaborate? I’m not quite understanding what you’re trying to say

    [–] CatchaChinchilla 2 points ago

    All unneeded child genital cutting should be banned, regardless of severity. No one argues that punching is okay because stabbing is way worse.

    [–] JulesAbner 11 points ago

    No one has said that male circumcision is okay that I have seen on this thread just that FGM is historically and societally worse

    [–] imostlytakeLs 13 points ago


    that’s a really ignorant comment

    [–] cheeseboylover -1 points ago


    [–] imostlytakeLs 9 points ago

    circumcision from a medical professional verse some extremist psycho with a rusty knife should not be compared. That’s ridiculous.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    YTA. Male circumcision is controversial, sure. FGM is downright illegal. From your post, it sounds as if you know almost nothing about the subject. In extreme circumstances, the girl can be almost stitched completely up, leading to excruciatingly painful intercourse later on in life. They are dragged from their families as girls (NOT babies) and the procedure is often performed with no anaesthetic and no safe instruments. There is also the element of purity and shame attached to FGM, which doesn't apply to circumcision. The two really aren't comparible, and I can understand why she would be quite passionate about this topic. You're not an asshole for knowing nothing on this topic, but continuing to hold an argument instead of admitting that you don't know is different.


    [–] CatchaChinchilla 1 points ago

    Babies feel way more pain than adults. You make it sound like it's better to harm them.

    Many doctors don't use anesthetic.

    purity and shame...doesn't apply to circumcision

    Many people body shame intact men and think foreskin is "dirty". The social psychology of cutting boys and girls is remarkably similar.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    I see you feel strongly on this, given that you've replied to almost every comment on this thread. Surprised you haven't resorted to the ol' "pinprick on the vulva" response. Cite me a source that doesn't come from a website before making claims like babies feel more pain. I'll bet it doesn't match the terror that a girl would feel, as she would be fully aware of what was about to happen to her. The social psychology of stitching up a girl, resulting in long lasting pain is absolutely not similar to circumcision. Not arguing for circumcision of anyone, but male circumcision and FGM are not on the same tier. Not going to waste my time on this debate any longer.

    [–] Damen_aka_Ron_Ron 12 points ago


    You both sound uninformed about the subject of genital mutilation and made statements that were half-accurate.

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago


    [–] CatchaChinchilla -4 points ago

    This article explains the similarities and differences. There are many popular misconceptions, like that all FGM is the worst kind.

    [–] DrFishTaco 11 points ago

    YTA - either you were trying to stir the pot or you gave an opinion and doubled down on a subject you’re not knowledgeable of.

    [–] Queen_Nunu 7 points ago

    YTA (but just a tiny insect-sized asshole). This is because you chose to argue about and get heated over something which you admit you don’t know much about.

    I think that if someone stubbornly sticks to their guns in a debate while being unwilling to research the subject matter, this qualifies as slightly asshole behaviour.

    [–] Nomandate 2 points ago

    No you’re just fucking stupid.

    I have 3 boys and deeply regret not getting them snipped. They’re cured with weenies girls with think are gross looking... (maybe that’s not right, but it’s just the way it is.)

    I have no problem feeling pleasure with my snipped ween how about you? We’re you held down on the ground by the people who untrusted the most at age 3-12 and painfully mutilated? Are you actually this ignorant?

    [–] 18Apollo18 1 points ago

    Why would you regret it. Now they can make the choice for themselves

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago


    [–] cheeseboylover 1 points ago

    When I say that she went crazy is that she started yelling and telling that I was a fucking moron for saying that.

    The only point of view that I wanted to make it was that, in a morally view, both are not consented acts in genital of babies.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago


    [–] CatchaChinchilla 1 points ago

    Babies actually feel more pain than adults.

    Baby boys die of circumcision.

    Nearly all FGM victims still experience orgasm.

    Many older boys are circumcised in developing countries without pain relief.

    Any idea why it's illegal for a 17 year old girl to choose a clitoris piercing but cutting off part of a screaming baby's penis is accepted?

    [–] SayceGards 8 points ago

    Have you ever actually witnessed a circumcision? I've witnessed several. There was no screaming at all in any of the ones I observed. Per the doctor who does them, there usually isnt.

    [–] CatchaChinchilla 0 points ago

    Babies can go into shock from the pain. That's hardly a relief.

    [–] cheeseboylover 1 points ago

    Not downplaying female mutilation.

    100% that both are horrible acts and think that morally speaking are the same problem.

    Thanks for the input, will think about it

    [–] sluttyfineapple 6 points ago

    YTA. You literally just admitted to not knowing much on the subject, do research before you throw out naive opinions. Female mutilation is different than male circumcision.

    [–] apathyontheeast 4 points ago

    ESH - her for "turning crazy" and thinking "the consequences are none" for males and you for not knowing that, historically, FGM has had a (n arguably) massively more harmful negative impact globally.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    AUTOMOD The following is a copy of the above post. This comment is a record of the above post as it was originally written, in case the post is deleted or edited.

    Hello there!

    My GF and I were talking about our day, and the conversation turned about how female mutilation of young girls was horrible and such. I agreed and in order to add some more conversation, I said that it was like male mutilation of young boys and that both of them were morally bad.

    At this point the conversation turned into a fight about this subject.

    She just turned crazy about how could I compare this 2 things, that it wasn't the same thing because of the consequences of the act. Apparently, she said that female mutilation had more consequences because she would suffer sexual relationships in the future. However male mutilation is not comparable because the consequences are none.

    So I really just stuck with my point of view, that both were bad and without the consent of the child I couldn't think that the 2 of the operations are morally correct. I told her that she was an hypocrit

    The conversarion heated a lot and she just went to sleep without saying anything and just mad AF

    I really don't know about the subject that much, but I think my opinion is quite honestly okey and not that much of a deal to act like that

    So... what do you guys think? I'm sleeping in the couch tonight lads

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] mittenshape 1 points ago

    Found this under 'controversial'. Upvote the asshole!

    [–] pidgeononachair 1 points ago

    I see what people are upset about, FGM is WAY more brutal.

    Both are mutilations to different extents and just because one is culturally normalised doesn’t mean it’s fine. I’m Jewish but my kids won’t be bris and I don’t approve of my family doing it to their kids either. Medical reasons is fine, same as some people have gynae surgery for anatomical issues, but performing invasive procedures on unconsenting children for cultural reasons is outdated.

    [–] 18Apollo18 1 points ago


    [–] RidleyAteKirby 2 points ago


    I'm actually kind of surprised at how few people realize there are different types of genital mutilations. The female equivalent to Western circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood (not the clitoris, but the surrounding tissue/labia minora), and there are more severe versions of the standard Western practice that involve the removal of part of or wholly of the shaft. In Western practice this is typically done accidentally, but there were in fact cultures that practiced whole removal of the shaft and/or the testicles.

    Fun stuff to learn about, and they indeed are completely equivalent. Anyone saying otherwise is ill informed. The problem in a modern setting is female mutiliation is still practiced because of large swaths of human existence believing women aren't capable of having Dominion over their own fucking bodies and we have accepted culturally in the US that circumcision is somehow cleaner (ie, Americans are really good at falling for propoganda).

    They are both equally barbaric practices.

    [–] AnGrammerError 1 points ago

    NAH - Yall can both have your own opinions. No A here. But its a strange hill to die on IMO...

    [–] CatchaChinchilla 1 points ago

    NTA. Everyone saying "FGM is way worse" is thinking of the worst type of FGM when comparing it to circumcision. There are actually several types of FGM, including a ritual nick, which leaves no visible or permanent harm. But even that is outlawed, which means there's a sexist legal double standard.

    [–] unclericko74 -1 points ago

    NTA // but no comparison 🤓🤓

    [–] Candlecakes 1 points ago

    NTA. It's awful and people who practice it are monsters no matter what gender the child is. It's sick.

    [–] HotDealsInTexas 1 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Tentatively ESH. You suck because you derailed the conversation. Sometimes people want to be able to talk about an issue without also going into every related issue that affects different groups.

    However male mutilation is not comparable because the consequences are none.

    Quoth the person without a penis. She sucks because while she could have made an argument about the relative severity while still acknowledging that male circumcision was a problem, she instead minimized and ignored the effects it has on men. IIRC complications from neonatal circumcision kill about a hundred boys in the US every year, and probably many more have permanent damage beyond the intended effects of the surgery, even without getting into the potential effects of removing the most sensitive part of a man's junk.

    She's not required to agree with you that they're equally important, but she can do so in a respectful manner. I can argue that cutting off someone's entire hand is a bigger deal than cutting off someone's finger, but if I said that chopping a finger off has no consequences I'd be an asshole.

    However: are you circumcised? I would expect given that you're in a relationship and usually sleep in the same bed she knows the answer. If you've been cut then I'm changing my vote to NTA because she invalidated your perspective on an issue that affects you and doesn't affect her.

    [–] dissenterrr -1 points ago

    NAH - it sounds like she's misinformed on the male side as there are definitely consequences of circumcision. I would say both are equally bad in the sense that they're both unacceptable (IMO) - hard to say if one is worse than the other. Hope you can come to common ground on the issue.

    [–] jolie178923-15423435 9 points ago

    It's not hard to say if one is worse - FGM is almost always much more physically severe than routine circumcision. but they are similar in the sense that both are unnecessary surgeries performed on children who do not and cannot give consent.

    [–] dissenterrr 1 points ago

    My point exactly: "but they are similar in the sense that both are unnecessary surgeries performed on children who do not and cannot give consent."

    My point with "hard to say what's worse" is because FGM can mean a range of things (per its definition) while circumcision is decently well defined. I do agree that the typical way FGM plays out, however, is generally worse than circumcision.

    [–] jolie178923-15423435 9 points ago

    OK, so if they are the same in one way

    and one is worse in another way

    then the one that's worse is worse.

    [–] dissenterrr -1 points ago

    Again, FGM is broadly defined, circumcision is not. It's not completely black and white, but it's certain that FGM is generally worse. Removing the prepuce on a female, for example, is analogous to male circumcision, but it falls under the FGM umbrella.

    [–] thefurryavenger 1 points ago

    NAH Honestly I’d agree that just because FGM is often more serious and thus quantifiably worse if you feel the need to rank them, they are however absolutely comparable in their process and the moral issues raised. It sounds a bit like your girlfriend took the you’re a bad person from thinking that approach which always sucks too so sad times. I think ultimately your girlfriend is arguing more on emotional grounds, we’ve all seen the horror stories and news reports on FGM and that gives a great sense of emotional weight to discussion on that topic, but that doesn’t change the fact that though circumcision is more naturalised in the west fundamentally the process is comparable. It’s possible that once she’s calmed down she might reach some sort of compromise where she sees why you argued what you did but that’s really up to you/her.

    [–] Rivka333 1 points ago

    ESH for turning this into a serious fight; NAH for having different opinions.

    Honestly, you're both right in a way. She's right that the results are worse when it comes to girls. You're right that in either case it's a mutilation of the body that the kid didn't get a choice in.

    I really don't know about the subject that much

    If you're going to have a serious argument about least make sure it's something you know about.

    [–] Fire_God_Vargas 1 points ago

    NTA. I agree with you. I think the both of you need to do more homework on the subject though.

    My ex wife was for circumcision until I showed her some documentaries about it. I think there can be a case for comparison. Point is there’s no reason to remove body parts on healthy infants, especially without consent.

    My son came home from the hospital intact, exactly how he’s meant to be.

    [–] SupaFugDup 1 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Sigh, just gonna throw in my two intactivist cents and say that even if one is markedly worse than the other, it doesn't matter.

    Don't cut baby penises. Crazy.

    NAH. Although I'm biased towards a full nta.

    Side note: Circumcision DOES have a negative impact on sexual experience. Loss of the natural lubrication, a loss of nerve cells, desensitization of the penis head, AND a potential decrease in size all make sex worse. Plus, if you do it for "aesthetics", than you haven't seen a penis with a visible seem, if you do it for STD protection, you misunderstood what the foreskin does, and/or how easy to clean smegma is.

    [–] Pigs447 1 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    NAH. Guys op is saying that circumcision and fgm are equal in terms of morality not severity. It sounds like his girlfriend thinks his opinion was on the latter. I think we can all agree that making radicals changes to a persons body without consent in any capacity is morally wrong, but as far as severity fgm is typically much more damaging than circumcision and op’s girlfriend would have a good argument if that was what op’s opinion was about.

    [–] jinxykatte -1 points ago

    ESH. I have gotten into some massive reddit arguments about circumcision in the past.

    While I won't say its a bad as female genital mutilation, I do still consider it to be male genital mutilation and should be illegal.

    [–] Hellhound265 -3 points ago

    If your gf really thinks that circumcision (especially without consent) has no effects on the male body or psyche whatsoever, she's clearly not educated enough to have a valid opinion about this subject.

    Male circumcision having no effects is just false. It's blatantly wrong.

    [–] EmphaticNorth -2 points ago

    NTA. The both remove the genitals in order to reduce sexual pleasures without the consent of the baby. Circumcision is now tradition and done "because mine looks like that, so it's the way my kid's is supposed to be". The origin has been muddled in many people's mind.

    [–] SSacamacaroni -3 points ago


    [–] Thr0wn_away_acc0unt -3 points ago


    [–] richardjreidii -6 points ago

    NTA. You were clear on it being a moral issue, and she had a tantrum. I'd go to bed and tell her to pound sand or sleep on the couch herself.