Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:41 PM

  Female hyprocrites

  There is no difference between male genital mutilation and female circumcision. Male genital mutilation began as practice of religous sacrifice - you are offering up the part of your body with the highest number of nerve endings per unit area to God to symbolize your faith. You are sacrificing sexual pleasure. Take away the foreskin and you take away a great deal of sensation. Adult men who have had their genitals mutilated this way report that sex is much less enjoyable (an infant mutilated at birth would have no basis of comparison).

  How is this different from female circumcision?

  More generally, it doesn't pass the reality test - how can it be that a healthy male body is better off by cutting off part of it? You are second guessing evolution to think that a few thousand years of religous practice can do a better job of knowing what's best for the male body than hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. If lack of a foreskin greatly reduced the risk of being infected by deadly STDs then surely in a couple of hundred thousand years of screwing and evolving (and being exposed to no doubt many HIV like viruses throughout the course of human evolution) we would have lost the foreskin already. Now some religous nuts hold cultural sway over us for the last few thousand years and in modern times man hating women egging them on want to normalize a practice they decry in their sisters! This is hypocracy.

  —Fully intact
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel