RE: Elephant in the Room: Female Genital Mutilation is bad, so why is Male Circumcision OK?
@thecryptofiend, I was reading this offline and scrolled down till the comments last night - it has brought so many emotions ey?
If I were to have a son, though some Scientific studies have proven that circumcision does have health benefits = "keeping the 3rd leg hygienic" but if that's the only reason - why don't school just teach boys to men how to keep it clean.
If I were to have a son, no I won't have him circumcised as a baby, never! It could cause him trauma and if he would want to be snipped or not - I'll let him decide on that himself. As for religious wise, even Christ accepted those who are not snipped so - I think it's all religious orientation, brainwashing and cultural issue now?
As for FGM - no freaking way! And yes, I see what you mean - FGM = circumcision = it is like saying oh I just slap you it's less painful with you hitting me with a belt that scared me. It's both inflicting pain and perhaps the level of pain may differ but it's the same crime.
Yes exactly and both ways is actually doing permanent irreversible damage the severity may be different but it is still wrong - it may be worse to lose your whole leg versus losing your foot but it is not good either way.
Also regarding the hygiene thing - it is actually peoples attempts at overdoing the hygiene that can often do harm and cause urinary tract infections (one of the things that circumcision is supposed to reduce but the evidence is very poor). The problem is if you clean off the good bacteria that live on the skin they can get replaced by pathogenic bacteria which can cause infections. People are slowly realising this.