Re: Circumcision - a male view

> Female circumcision is barbaric. It is not right. I see your point,
> but the clitoris and the penis are different things. Cutting a woman
> there could cause loss of stimulation and sex drive. I'm sure it
> serves other purposes that a ob/gyn or a biologist could tell you
> as well. In some African countries they do it, as you probably
> already know, and sometimes they cut part of the clitoris itself
> --not just the hood. It would be like cutting off part of the male's
> penis--not just the foreskin. That's wrong, and it should be stopped!

I think you need to do a bit more research. There are many different types of female circumcision, and many reasons for doing it.

Many female circumcisions involve the complete amputation of the clitoris and the removal most of the labia, then stitching up the raw edges, leaving only a small hole for urine and menstrual flow to escape. When it comes to marriage, that opening usually has to be enlarged to allow intercourse and of course has to be surgically opened further to allow birth.

Barbaric? Well, that's not how it's viewed by most of the women concerned. It's women that usually carry out the "operation" of circumcision on females. They reckon that the result is very much better-looking and infinitely cleaner. Just one small opening instead of a mess of dirty, smelly folds of flesh. In those parts of the world where it's the norm, women who haven't had their genitals removed are virtually unmarriageable. And in some parts of North Africa where there was an effort made to stop the practice it was discovered that the local uncircumcised girls tended to develop a clitoris of such length that it actually obstructed the entrance to their vagina.

I'm NOT arguing for female genital mutilation, but merely indicating that those who favor it can produce for it arguments that are at least as compelling as those in favor of routine male circumcision.

I'm not in favor of routine male circumcision. The US is alone among civilized western countries in practising it -- even Canada has stopped. It turns a sensitive, probing instrument of pleasure into a blunt tool to ram into the female vagina. And it leads to the degradation of women because women end up being treated as no more than a "hole," whereas for uncircumcised men sexual intercourse is a gentle, mutually-satisfying exploratory exercise in which the most sensitive parts of male and female bodies are linked. Surely no-one in her right mind should want an insensitive poker used on the most sensitive part of her body?