Why is it permissible for the genitals of males to be mutilated as a cultural tradition but everyone goes “hog wild” when African and Asian cultures mutilate female genitalia?
Could be because there are thought to be possible valid medical benefits from male circumcision (it’s an ongoing debate), while there is not even any ostensible medical benefits from female “circumcision,” the sole purpose of which is generally to reduce sexual desire and/or feeling in a girl/woman.
Not only that, but Oscar Meyer would go out of business otherwise.
Headcheese, anyone?
What game are YOU playing?
I dont know that I should dignify this with an answer…but perhaps someone will benefit from this. Female genital mutilation is NOT analagous to circusision. It is not even close. Female genital mutilation comes in many forms, from nicking the clitoris, rubbing it with nettles to destroy it’s sensitivity to actual sewing up the labia until the girl gets older or even the wholesale cutting off of a girl’s external genitlia. As you can imagine, this renders sex extremely painful, and in many cultures women do not have the power or resources not to marry and have sex. Actually…now that I think of it, I think Cecil did a column of this…