[Little]

I've already covered this, in this thread even, but the people who practice FGM (all levels) claim there are similar benefits to it as there are for male circumcision. Whether those benefits are legitimate or not, I don't know - but what I DO know, and other posters in this thread have said so as well, is that the "benefits" of male circumcision you mentioned are dubious at best. The studies that tested them showed a relatively small correlation (not causation!) between men who were circumcised and lower instances of STI's, etc.

I don't know where all these parents are coming from who don't know that their kids need to wash between their folds. All their folds. I guess I am biased by living in the age of the internet, where all questions regardless of their potential for embarrassment can just be googled and solved within seconds. At the risk of being bombastic, my vulva would probably be a lot easier to clean if it didn't have all these pesky flaps and folds - after all, women produce more smegma than men and have more creases for it to get into. But I'm sure glad nobody decided to just get my labia or other parts of my vulva cut out.

[DreamP346]

I'm pretty sure if we shaved everybody's heads, that would reduce the likelihood of getting head lice. So instead of teaching our kids how to wash their hair properly, lets do laser hair removal and ensure that the hair never grows back so its easier for them to wash their heads and decrease the likelihood that they will get a parasite.

That's the same logic circumcision advocates use.

[DreamP346]

The simple fact is that any benefit of being intact is quite a bit less than the benefits of getting cut.

That is a matter of opinion. Circumcision leads to loss of sexual sensitity. You value decreasing the small percent of STI infection (which can also be achieved by practicing safer sex) over sexual sensitivity. You have the right to do so, but it would be presumptive to make that statement for everybody as a generalization.

[Stillness]

the "benefits" of male circumcision you mentioned are dubious at best. The studies that tested them showed a relatively small correlation (not causation!) between men who were circumcised and lower instances of STI's, etc.

I don't think the benefits or the causation are dubious. There are plenty of studies clearly demonstrating it. For example, a World Health Organization funded study found:

"There was a strong protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive penile cancer (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13–0.83; 3 studies). In two studies, the protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive cancer no longer persisted when analyses were restricted to boys with no history of phimosis…

Men circumcised in childhood/adolescence are at substantially reduced risk of invasive penile cancer, and this effect could be mediated partly through an effect on phimosis. Expansion of circumcision services in sub-Saharan Africa as an HIV prevention strategy may additionally reduce penile cancer risk." - [The study is free to view. Google "Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis".]

While some adherents of female circumcision may claim it has the same sorts of benefits, I don't think there are any studies demonstrating it. My guess is because they're not real. I did the search a couple of days ago when you put it up and some of the things they were also claiming as benefits was reduction in libido, stopping vaginal convulsions, and pleasing her husband with a better smell and appearance (if I remember correctly).

While I agree that just cutting back the clitoral hood would be analogous to male circumcision, I just don't think that physiology would give it the same benefits. That is the thing that makes it hard to argue against it, in my eyes. If there were some solid evidence that female circumcision conveyed any benefits or solid evidence that male circumcision contributed to more dysfunction, then I think you'd have a good argument. You would be able to say, "The same is true for cutting baby girls" or "Aren't you worried about the dysfunction/I don't want to subject my boy to dysfunction."

I think I'll just stay out of other people's business and if I had a baby boy, I'd let them know what's up if they tried to stick their nose in mine. No amount of pressure or possible future bullying he might face would move me to mutilate my child. Instead of cutting him like his daddy was cut, I'd teach him to stand up to pressure like his daddy.

[Little]

Seems like it matters how we're going about our googling. The other day when I was searching, I used the term FGM. Today I tried "studies showing benefits of female circumcision." And I hit gold.
One website suggests these two studies show less HIV transmission in circumcised women, though it's not clear from their abstract:
"StallingsR.Y., et al. Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse?. Oral Abstract Sessions: The 3rd IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment: Abstract no. TuOa0401"

Prevalence and Risk Determinants of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 (HIV-2) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) in West African Female Prostitutes
P. Kanki1,2, S. M'Boup2, (and a bunch more names I don't want to format to fit)

And another from 1950's America that essentially makes the same hygienic what-if, spare-the-adult argument as male circumcision does these days. This one is much more readable, in a sort of magazine article format. I don't suppose it's really a study, but it was in a medical journal.
C.F. McDonald, MD, “Circumcision of the female”, GP, Vol. 18 No. 3, September 1958, pp. 98-99

The information is out there. It's hard to find because, societally, we don't like FGM, don't want to believe it could be comparable to RIC, and use our words to mask the similarities.

Stillness, I'm a little confused about the quotes you posted ... is the study suggesting that circumcised males who did not have penile problems (phimosis) don't have the same lower rates of penile cancer as circumcised males who DID have phimosis? The wording is kind of vague.

[Hugo-B]

I agree now. Partially because of this thread and one of the wonder-if-I'm-a-lesbian threads, my view has changed. I want to share a couple of things I picked up.

The first was actually because of something I looked up for the other thread about pheromones. Circumcision removes glands that make them. The subconscious effects they have in human reproduction is not fully understood. What is known it that it plays a role in attraction, arousal, and mood alteration. I read about some speculation that female arousal may be hampered because of the lack of penile pheromones. So even if a woman consciously prefers a circumcised penis, her body may not respond as well to one. I want to stress that this is speculation, but I don't think it's unfounded.

The second thing is a little more complex and biblical. I know not everyone here is a Christian and quoting the Bible is not well received around here, but I promise that what I'm about to say is relevant and has a payoff, especially for the American members who want to shut up their Christian friends and relatives. I've mentioned a couple of times on this thread that my dad was circumcised because of spiritual reasons. I was his firstborn. Biblically, the firstborn has a lot of spiritual significance I won't bore you with, but he dedicated me to God. He also gave me the name of the first High Priest of Israel. This probably influenced his decision to circumcise me.

We know that certain elements in our society love to claim that America is a Christian nation. And, while there are people from all religions that circumcise, the largest segment of the population circumcising their babies are probably professed Christians. Like my dad, somewhere in a lot of their minds is probably some spiritual significance attached to this tradition. This morning I was pondering the irony of that considering the history of Christianity when I came across a scripture that I've read countless times that I've never seen the way I did today.

Here's the irony (I'll try to make this brief. Bear with me. I promise a payoff.): In the ancient world, if you had wanted to attach yourself to the house of Abraham or the nation of Israel, as a man you would have needed to get circumcised. I think we know that to this day Jews still adhere to this traditionally. The Christian congregation was initially 100% Jewish and so 100% circumcised. So guess what the first major conflict was when Gentiles started to flock to the congregation? Yep, circumcision. Many believed that it was a requirement, so that Gentiles would need to be circumcised. This issue was taken to the fully Jewish, fully circumcised governing body in Jerusalem. Their unanimous decision was that circumcision was an unnecessary burden. They sent out letters to the congregations letting them know that them and God himself declared subversive any mandatory circumcision. This event and the letter they sent out is recorded in the Bible at Acts 15, so it's a part of the Christian faith. That's the ironic part, that in this "Christian nation" we routinely force circumcision on our sons when circumcised Christians fought tooth and nail against making it mandatory. It get's deeper.

I mentioned that they fought tooth and nail, because, not just at that time, but for years after the explicit mandate of the governing body some Jewish Christians wouldn't let this go. The most prolific penman of the Christian Scriptures, Paul, was also specially assigned by Jesus himself to the Gentiles. If you were to do a search for "circumcision" or "circumcised" in the Christian scriptures (meaning the "New Testament"), nearly every reference discussing it is him fighting against the idea. Judging by the frequency with which it was discussed it was at least one of the most (if not the most) heated topics in the primitive congregation. I wanted to give you all an example of a scripture and the first one I came across blew me away.

"Look out for the dogs, look out for the workers of injury, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are those with the real circumcision." - Philippians 3:2, 3 [emphasis mine]

When he says "real circumcision" he's referring figuratively to their hearts being receptive to God's will. (If it's not clear compare Deuteronomy 10:16 or Romans 2:29) So, when he speaks of 'mutilation' he's referring to literal circumcision. The Bible calls circumcision mutilation.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying it's unchristian to get a circumcision or to be circumcised. I'm just pointing out the irony for Christians to require that their sons have one, especially if they think it has any sort of spiritual significance to do so. Also, it absolutely changes the function - probably in ways we don't even understand.

When I tried to argue that male circumcision was genital mutilation you called it 'shenanigans'

Good post, I can remember being read extracts from the Bible at school but I doubt they read us anything like that. Unrelated to this thread, but Bible related, I was amused when I heard that the only time Jesus ever used violence was against the money changers!

Is this (the information you shared above) contained in the old and/or new testament or is it from something else?

[Stillness]

Is this (the information you shared above) contained in the old and/or new testament or is it from something else?

The "Old Testament" is all pre-Christian. The laws to the house of Abraham and Israel that required circumcision are there. The "New Testament" was penned entirely by Jewish Christians. The early history of the Christian congregation is from that part of the Bible. I didn't reference any non-biblical records or traditions. Everything I wrote is from the Bible. If you crack one open or look at one of the many free online versions, it's all there.

One of the things I did notice is that three of my translations didn't read 'mutilate' at Philippians 3:2, so be aware if you tried to share that with someone. I googled "online parallel bible." The first site is bible[dot]cc. If you type in "philippians 3:2" you'll get a bunch of renderings. 6 translations on that page render it "mutilation" or a related word. Most of the translations I own do. Most on that page use the word "concision", though. It's an ancient word meaning "a cutting up or off; mutilation." The first commentary on that page says the Greek word it's translated from (the Christian Scriptures were written in Koine Greek) means "a cutting off, a mutilation."

I was amused when I heard that the only time Jesus ever used violence was against the money changers!

He made a whip out of ropes and drove them out of the temple. I would give what's left of my foreskin to go back in time and be able to see him making that whip and using it against them.

[Stillness]

Seems like it matters how we're going about our googling. The other day when I was searching, I used the term FGM. Today I tried "studies showing benefits of female circumcision." And I hit gold.

I wasn't ignoring this. I wanted to take out more time to look over this stuff. I googled your search and I actually found this post! It was so meta. I think it goes to your point that people just aren't looking for or providing the same kind of information on this.

Your first study about the Tanzanian women was interesting. The others didn't seem to indicate any benefits. I'm puzzled as to how it could have anything but a downside. As I see it, the upside in men is that it eliminate the mucous membrane and possibility of phimosis, which in turn reduces the likelihood of infection and transmission of infection as well as reducing potential malignant tissue developing. For women, there is still a genital mucous membrane. And phimosis is not as common as I understand it.

I did some searching around. Apparently, in some parts of the Islamic world, the circumcision of women is of the analogous type 1a. There's a video that I'm very interested in watching on Vimeo called "Women in Islam - Female Circumcision" (if you type "11916062" it takes you right to it). The speaker is dry and the video is 45 minutes, so I haven't had the time or been in the right mood to go through it yet.

Also, yes, on your question about the study I cited. It seemed to indicate that phimosis played a significant role. I also did some research on that yesterday and found out that the foreskin is naturally unretractable before birth and does not become retractable until late teens for some! For others it happens in infancy. The mean, according to one European study was at 10. I had no clue about this.

[Little]

No problem on the later reply. I have googled the kind of topics we cover here and quite a few times found posts that I myself posted in :P Funny how things work!

It seems to me that the study you cited is telling us that the men who need circumcision for medical reasons benefit from circumcision. Makes sense. But why somebody (especially the WHO, an organization that I respect and cite, no joke, all the time to the point that my husband knows who they are, concerning their breastfeeding recommendations) would use it as an argument for routine circumcision, I don't really understand.

Yup, the glans and foreskin are fused at birth. That's what I've been fussing about all this time with the "forcible separation" bit on infant circumcision. I wonder if clitoral hood problems are more common than we think, but since retraction isn't a vital part of a woman's sexual response, it doesn't get noticed as much? Pure speculation on my part.

[Stillness]

It seems to me that the study you cited is telling us that the men who need circumcision for medical reasons benefit from circumcision.

No. It was stating that circumcision in childhood substantially reduces the risk of penile cancer later in life. Interestingly, it increases the risk if the circumcision is perfermed later.