Really interesting read. I personally do feel that FGM as it is commonly practiced is intended to specifically alter the woman's sexual practice, and even sometimes intended to cause the woman pain, while male circumcision is often specifically done for health or religious reasons, ie. not done to specifically hinder the man. It's interesting to hear about the negative impacts it could have, but I have also read quite a few articles which list the benefits as well. I personally don't feel like it is that big of an issue, I had it done to me as a child and I never really noticed or minded, and still don't to be honest, but I can also see the perspective that it is a serious alteration done to a child who never really asked for it. I personally feel that if it was a dangerous or dubious practice it wouldn't be as wide spread in the western world, but I'm no expert, it's just my opinion. Great article anyhow, thanks for posting it!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thanks.
That is the justification that is often given.
There is no compelling argument to do male circumcision for health reasons - there is just a belief that there is and I think that is part of the problem. Further I think this is based in the fact that medical culture has been influenced very strongly by religious belief and false health assumptions in the past. This just perpetuates the behaviour and attitude that it is OK.
I used to think that but if you actually look at it there is little evidence that it does any good and it does have real risks - if you work in a urology clinic it is quite common to see them even in the UK. Most men don't talk about them because it is an embarrassing subject.