CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Female circumcision: The good, the bad and the ugly?
  Views: 2,693
Published: 15 years ago
This is a reply to # 951,779

Re: Female circumcision: The good, the bad and the ugly?

The trouble with your arguments to justify routine male circumcision is that many of them are used to "justify" female circumcision -- neater, cleaner etc. And a well-done infibulation does look neater and is cleaner. And it can be done in hospital as well. Interesting the strongest advocates of female circumcision are women who have themselves been infibulated and it is women who carry out the procedure, not men.

It is generally believed in the rest of the world that the type of male circumcision routinely practised in the US does take away the sensitivity of the glans and removes the skin endowed with the most sensitive nerve endings in the body, thus turning the penis from a moist, sensitive, probing instrument into a dry blunt instrument and leading to requirements of artificial lubrication for sexual intercourse. Some forms of male circumcision practised elsewhere for religious reasons remove vastly less skin from the penis. As I've indicated, the US stands alone among major Western nations in practising routine male circumcision.

Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2022

4.547 sec, (1)