Let’s talk about circumcision. First, I will admit that I am not trained medical professional, I’ve read some studies on circumcision, certainly not all of them, but I do intend to use some deductive reasoning to support my belief that circumcision (of infants) should be done away with.
Let’s assume that it can be definitively shown that circumcision has benefits for male health, that circumcised men receive some benefit from being circumcised. I’m skeptical that it does, but for the purposes of this argument I will proceed under the assumption that some health benefits are conferred. Let’s assume that there are some hygienic benefits, a decrease in the accumulation of smegma, a decrease in the transmission of std’s etc.
As to the hygienic benefit, Is it outside the realm of possibility that surgically excising a part of a woman’s labia could theoretically result in a more hygienic vagina? or a decreased rate of std infection among women? The human vagina is packed with bacteria, it menstruates once a month, it is prone to yeast infections etc. If some sort of surgery had a tenuous link to a decrease in yeast infections would we then take to mutilating the genitals of new-born infant girls? No, we would not. It’s very possible that there would be riots in the streets if we did this. And yet, we have a problem with a supposed increased amount of smegma generated by an uncircumcised penis? This can be corrected by routine cleaning of the foreskin, it certainly does not necessitate early infant elective surgery.
The same exact argument can be made about std infection. It would have to be the mother of all std’s in order for us to justify slicing into the vaginas of infant girls to partially prevent it. We would never see this happen…ever. What we’re really dealing with here is the fact that we circumcise boys mainly because most women find the foreskin repulsive, it is done for the aesthetic preferences of women. I’ve heard mothers say that they circumcise their boys because they don’t want them to be rejected by females when he gets old enough to start having sex. This is a sub conscious admission of the female disgust with the male foreskin. She wishes her genetics, in the form of her son, to have a higher chance of reproducing, thus she wishes to remove a portion of his penis that she knows his future girlfriends will be repulsed by.
The ironic thing about it is that you’ll never see these same women wish to excise any part of the female vagina to please the future men their infant daughters will sleep with. I love the female form, her curves her hips, lips and legs… I love everything about the way women look…
Well, almost everything.
I happen to think that the female vagina is not particularly aesthetically pleasing. Everything else about the female body is, truly exquisite to look at, at least it is as far as I’m concerned. But evolution has unfortunately placed a reproductive orifice on you that looks very much like a hirsute oyster shell. Even after a proper shave, it just doesn’t look that appealing. Now, in terms of the sensation one experiences upon penetrating it, that’s great, no complaints there, but women…no offense, but the vagina isn’t exactly the most aesthetically pleasing act of evolutionary engineering.
And yet I would never wish to mutilate it, especially infant girls, to appease my aesthetic preference. Women insist on not being “fat shamed” forming movements around “positive body images” and not having to adhere to societies expectations of what female beauty is. Ok, thats fine…whatever, the choice however is up to women as to whether or not they wish to overeat, or not exercise.
When a woman is overweight, we do not march her into surgery for compulsory liposuction, when these idiotic feminist women grow their armpit hair as a part of their “activism” we don’t force them to shave it. They are allowed to exist as they are, overweight, hirsute, and unattractive, and rightly so. But the act of forcing someone to shave hair or lose weight is a reversible one. These women, even if they were hypothetically forced to do these things (no I do not advocate that) would at least be able to reverse the process. We don’t even give our infant boys that, we cut away a piece of their flesh, packed with nerves that will never grow back. Imagine if you will, that it was determined that snipping away some part of the female sexual anatomy would trigger a hormonal mechanism that made the process of menstruation less bloody. Would we do this to infant girls? surely men don’t like periods, it’s not “aesthetically pleasing” to the vast majority of men.
For the religious amongst us, at least of the abrahamic variety, if your religion told you that God demanded that your infant daughters vagina be mutilated would you allow it? Most of you immediately balked at the thought. Yet you allow it for boys?