This is a rather 'hot' topic, so to speak, at the zone.

There has been no real proof ever issued that mutillating the genitals of either males or females has any effect on the potential for disease or infection of either sexual or non sexual transmission. Recently (since the 90's), there has been some limited empirical evidence published on aids transmission rates in Africa. The original observation was that tibes that practiced circumcision had a lower male HIV rate than tribes that did not. However, it must also be noted that sexual practice and lifestyle is the single greatest predictor of HIV infection rates, and sexual practice varies significantly between tribes.

However, the HIV evidence even if true, is something of a non-sequitur. If we found, tomorrow, that women who were mutillated had a lower rate of a particular STD, it would have no bearing on the acceptability of the various female-oriented practices of ritual genital mutillation. The same should be true for male mutillation.

If nature really did abhore a foreskin, then the human foreskin would have been selected against, and it would have virtually disappeared. While there are some 'just so stories' out there about how a foreskin could potentially 'trap' viruses or bacteria gainst the glans and result in infection, a larger UTI rate or other infection rate has never been noted in any population of any ethnic group of uncircumcised male. Many people claim that 'well, in an unsanitary environment [etc] common sense would indicate that we should eliminate the foreskin'. If we are to accept this argument (which I would point out aain, there is no evidence to accept it), then we are left with an excellent argument to not introduce surgical wounds to the penis that could (and probably very often did) fester and result in impotence, sterility or worse.

It is essentially a myth. Sorry to say, but its completely irrational to believe that circumcision is 'healthier' or 'more sanitary'. If you have religious beliefs that it is 'better', then thats fine, cut up your own penis. Same thing with female genital mutillation. If you think god wants you to not have a clitoris, cut your own one off.

Here is what seems rational. If it is a belief based practice, then by all means, practice it. But the fact is to do this to children who don't have a say in the matter and may not grow up to believe the same things that you do strikes me as silly. The argument that 'little jimmy won't remember it' is silly. We don't excuse harming people just because they don't remember it. The moral import of the act is the suffering inflicted, not the recall of the sufering on the part of the victim. Just ask the millions of women raped after the administration of drugs or alcohol by their attacker.

The fact is that this practice is essentially the same as Femal Genital mutillation. Its a violence conducted against helpless members of a society on the basis of superstition and religious dogma. It is abusive, it results in the suffering of the victim and leaves their body peremnantly altered (or some would say, disfigured). There really is no difference.

In my view, the practice should be ended immediately. Let grownups inflict this sillyness on their own body, not do violence to children.

Yeti