Female genital mutilation and male-circumcision are not the same game. They are not even in the same ball-park.

And so to the reasons I had my (now-19-month-old) son circumcised....

1. As pointed out by Snout, he will be less likely to contract and pass on STIs like genital warts (which has been shown to cause cervical cancer) and HIV.

2. In the event that he lives to an age where he cannot care for himself any longer, hygiene will not be such an issue. In a previous incarnation I worked with demented elderly people, whose daily hygiene was done by nurses or care-attendants. In most instances, when a proper wash was done beneath the foreskin, I found that it was probably the first such wash for a long while. Neglect to the point of stinking thrush and weeping infection were quite common.

3. The issue was sealed by discussion with our obstetrician.
First he provided a topical anaesthetic cream to apply before the procedure. He injected a small amount of local anaesthetic. A small plastic dome was placed underneath the foreskin, and a ligature tied around to block the circulation. The foreskins' end was then cut away. No tears at all, and no sign of distress. The ligature and plastic dome fell off four days later, all clean and neat.

I am not blowing the trumpet for routine circumcision. The stories of what happens when the job is botched are a staple of current affairs television, so I suppose I am destined to remain in the minority. My decision was in no way cultural or religious. And, as an aside, I harbour no malice toward my own foreskin. It has done me neither good nor harm thus far.

Despite beliefs that the genital modification of males and females are different, one commentator has noted the similarities in the arguments used to justify both procedures http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html . Female genital cutting has been rejected in the West and is increasingly rejected in Africa http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143956429 . Even so, there is a long way to go before the custom is eradicated, as can be seen by the fact that some athletes asked for asylum because of the prevalence of FGM in their country.

Despite the belief that circumcision reduces the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, the Westmead Children's Hosptial http://www.chw.edu.au/parents/factsheets/circumj.htm says that the risks of circumcision outweigh the risks and the British National Health Service says that the advantages and disadvantages of circumcision are controversial and unclear http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=649 . Certainly people will push a barrow one way and the other, but the Australasian College of Physicians says:

“The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit.” http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm

It also says “there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate”.

Interestingly, a court in Finland has convicted a Muslim mother of assault for having her 4 year old son circumcised http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Court+rules+circumcision+of+four-year-old+boy+illegal/113522095883

Yep, fair point. I believe there has been some reservation in health professionals in Africa to recommend male circumcision, because people may misunderstand that recommendation to apply to females also.

The science is really still in the pipeline regarding medical benefits of male circumcision. For every paper proposing its' protection against HIV, there are two to highlight the studies' errors and point out the biases of the research.

There has been some interesting stuff of late though. A trial done in South Africa by Auvert and Puren published last October, known as the Orange Farm trial, was prematurely stopped on ethical grounds. They recruited young, uncircumcised men, who were then circumcised or not as part of the trial. When it was noted that the control (uncircumcised) group were HIV seroconverting at more that double the rate of the others, the trial was stopped so that the control group could also be offered circumcision.

Current trials are taking place in Kenya and Uganda to see if this is replicable, and they are due to report next year. The current position of WHO is that safe circumcision should be provided where people want it but that a policy decision on whether to promote it should wait until the results of the Kenya and Uganda trials are available. I suppose the catch there is the safe bit. Certainly less of an issue if Plastibel-type ligatures are used rather than unsterilised sharps.

Certainly this is a decision I have taken for my son, but that is a parents role. I have also decided to have him immunised and to give him Flouride for his teeth. It is a decision I didnt take lightly. And if I had to take it again, the decision would be the same. He will not have to worry about phimosis (like 10% of his uncircumcised mates will) or thrush, or aged care attendants who dont do their job properly.

And, getting back on topic, female genital mutilation is not OK in this usually-more-enlighted age. It really is probably good grounds for seeking asylum.

Love your posts, big dave.

With regard to male circumcision, unless there is a problem with the foreskin, I agree, it is not really necessary and should remain a choice for men if they wish to be circumcised.

For women, circumcision is simply and horribly a violation of their sexuality. As with men, only rarely is it required to repair congenital abnormality.

On the subject of a higher incidence of spread of disease there would not be any problem at all if men would take better care of themselves by retracting their foreskins and washing thoroughly! Simple hygiene is far safer and easier than circumcision.