FGM/C, MGM/C...how about NO GM/C?

I'm not a proponent of circumcising baby boys. I'm not in favor of circumcising ANY boys before they reach the age of consent. Of course, if a male over the age of 18 decides he wants to have his foreskin removed, then what business is it of mine? I'd sooner tell him not to get a tattoo he might later regret.

Because I'm a woman of European descent who lives in the United States, it goes virtually without saying that I do not condone female circumcision.

The debate over genital cutting of either sex is about as complex and multi-layered as the debate over the death penalty (more on this in a future post). I could write thousands of words about it, but that's not why I brought it up in this post.

I brought it up because of some startling research reported in 2007 in The Journal of Sexual Medicine. One of the most compelling arguments against female circumcision is the claim that it renders the victim incapable of feeling sexual pleasure, or, if she does feel pleasure, of experiencing orgasm. This research indicates that this is is not the case.

This is good news for the millions of women who have already undergone genital cutting, and not such good news for those girls whose culture prescribes it. It's also bad news for people who argue that male circumcision is a trifle when compared to female circumcision because men can still orgasm without a foreskin.

Thanks, Adrian Colesberry.