Dear Science,
The Economist recently ran an article about female circumcision. What are your thoughts on this, especially in comparison with male circumcision? Personally, I feel they are both brutal acts. I understand that male circumcision may reduce the HIV rate in Africa, but I still feel that in the long run, circumcision as a practice is best lost to history.
Noncutter
Female circumcision encompasses a broad spectrum of practices worldwide. Diligent anthropologists have cataloged them. Female genital cutting (FGC) comes in four broad forms: Type I involves cutting off the clitoral hood (prepuce); type II removes the entire clitoris (and typically a part of the labia minora); type III removes all of the external genitalia, leaving only a small slit; type IV is basically everything else (piercing, stretching, burning). Of this list, the closest approximation to male circumcision is type I; the female prepuce is derived from the same primitive tissues in the embryo as the male foreskin. The procedure is almost never done by a physician and typically done without anesthesia, sometime between the ages of 5 and 12.
As you might expect, type II and III female genital cuttings have the most severe potential long-term consequences, including pain during menstruation and sex. The urethra can be damaged—causing problems with urination and increasing the risk of infection. Scars and abscesses can form. New tunnels between the cut and the urinary and reproductive systems can form, causing all manner of problems. Monitoring childbirth can be next to impossible after a type III procedure, and delivery of a baby can be more painful and dangerous.
You want an opinion of this practice. Science would look to the women who have undergone FGC. A few scientifically rigorous surveys exist, asking if the women who have had one of these procedures would want it for themselves in retrospect (or for their children). One study of Egyptian women (97 percent of whom have undergone female genital cutting) demonstrated that 89 percent of women who had FGC would have their female children cut. Education, urban rather than rural life, and a lack of religious belief in the practice all put women into the 11 percent who did not wish to continue the practice. The health and medical consequences seem extreme, and there is a paucity of demonstrated benefits to the practice. From a scientific perspective (avoiding all cultural considerations), female genital cutting is difficult to justify.
In contrast, male circumcision has a lengthy list of demonstrated health benefits—lower HIV infection rates, lower penile cancer rates, lower urinary-tract infection rates, less cervical cancer in the sex partners of circumcised men, less infections of the penis head (balanitis), and lower rates of sexually transmitted infections. The biggest risks are cosmetic changes, with perhaps some reduction in sensitivity of the head of the penis. In comparison to female genital cutting, male circumcision is vastly safer and has far more demonstrated benefit.
Circumspectively Yours,
Science
Send your science questions to
dearscience@thestranger.com.
@50 I see the confusion; you didn’t read my original post (41) correctly.
If you’re circumcised your chances of premature ejaculation increase not the other way around as some (most) pro-circumcisers suggest.
@51: You didn’t read my post @40 correctly. As I pointed out right after your comment @41, I was referring to people who *believe* circumcision is a good thing because it decreased sensitivity and possibly stimulation without friction from the foreskin.
I really don’t care whether circumcision actually, as proven by science, increases/decreases chances of premature ejaculation. I really don’t, partly because I think it’s an argument of negligible value to bring to the issue of whether to perform circumcision or not. I was making a snide observation about the commonly touted PERCEIVED effects. Am I being quite clear?
The fact you keep harping on whether this is true or not when it’s clear that’s not the focus of the dialogue here says something about your reading comprehension, not mine.
@52
This is stupid; we’re essentially arguing the same point but for some reason you decided to be snarky.
And no, I did read your post correctly I just disagreed with it. If someone is thinking about circumcising their son then all “this could increase the chances of sexual dysfunction” arguments can be brought into the discussion. How can they not be? I know you were making a snide comment about the PERCEIVED benefits and I was agreeing that any PERCEIVED benefits are belied by the science (however little there is.)
I said there was evidence that circumcision increases this particular type of sexual dysfunction; I didn’t say it was a fact, or 100% for sure. And if there’s some science behind it then it’s more than just PERCEIVED.
awesome…
the people who are anti male circumcision are actually arguing with each other.
say what you want, the evidence is out there for people who have an open mind and are willing to do the research. you guys feel a certain way about it, and that’s fine. no need to name call. i don’t log in with my actual identity for my own reasons. at least i’m not name-calling and using arguments that basically can be whittled down to, “Nuh-uh!” i know the websites i posted aren’t hyperlinked i’m sure a normal, intelligent person could figure out how to use them. i’ve read the studies by the groups you talked about and like to spout off stats from…they’re flimsy, at best. the circinfo website debunks almost ALL of them with actually medical FACTS. not half-assed studies that never were published except for on the internet and were never peer-reviewed.
it’s easy to see how fanatical people get about this, though. kinda scary.
OH, and DON’T EVER compare male circumcision to FGM. what the HELL is wrong with some of you???
If only there were a way to search for the clinical results across the world that have investigated this… Oh. Wait. There is.
Google Scholar.
I thought this one was interesting for male circumcision:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cg…
@55, r-r-t-s,
thank you for helping bring this issue to a head. your link didn’t copy completely, (like mine didn’t) but, after i did a simple search on circumcision on the site you suggested, i found SEVERAL articles about it published by (or, cited by) The American Academy of Pediatrics. the very first article, “Circumcision Status and Risk of Sexually Transmitted Infection in Young Adult Males: An Analysis of a Longitudinal Birth Cohort” says it all:
(taken from the abstract of the study)
“CONCLUSIONS. These findings suggest that uncircumcised males are at greater risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infection than circumcised males. Male circumcision may reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infection acquisition and transmission by up to one half, suggesting substantial benefits accruing from routine neonatal circumcision.”
THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS HAS THIS AS THE FIRST ARTICLE ON THEIR SITE IF YOU SEARCH “CIRCUMCISION.” there’s PLENTY more on the health benefits if you look. the scientific evidence is there. obviously choose what you want for YOUR child, but don’t speak out against something like male circumcision without researching the ACTUAL facts from reputable sources. regardless of what you may feel about circumcision, there are proven health benefits.
i like circumcised dicks.
@JackieNo
“It is a fact that the parts removed by MGM take away more pleasure giving nerves than the female clitoris has.”
What? Are you kidding me?
From Wikipedia: “In humans, the clitoris is the most sensitive erogenous zone of the female…and is considered the key to females’ sexual pleasure…Most women can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation. Masters and Johnson were the first to determine that the clitoral structures surround and extend along and within the labia, determining that all orgasms are of clitoral origin.”
The clitoris is the reason women have orgasms. The foreskin is sensitive, it’s true, but it is not the key to a man’s pleasure.
I couldn’t find any unbiased numbers on nerves in either. I’d be curious to see your source that the foreskin has more nerves than the clitoris.