Search the Community

As a boy, I remember taking a shower with my father and two brothers and noticing a drastic difference in appearance between my father's penis (uncircumcised) and mine and my brothers (circumcised). I didn't like the appearance of my dad's, but didn't know then that he was uncircumcised. I saw it as just another strange characteristic of the aloof and authoritarian man we called "Dad." Growing up, I was told that male circumcision was done for cosmetic/hygiene reasons, and considered it normal. As an adult, I have gradually learned to view it otherwise, and would choose not to have had it done if that were possible. As a thinking adult, the question leaps to mind "Why aren't girls also routinely circumcised in hospitals as newborns?" Most girls have overdeveloped labia minora and a lot of unsightly extra skin therefrom. I recently visited a website which I found by googling "normal vulva." The site consisted of 25 pictures of vulva presented as normal, but which, except for 3, were repellent to me. I read several of the posts from girls worried about their genital appearance, and the replies that routinely reassured them that "Men don't care." Maybe some men don't care. I have read that schoolgirls in Zimbabwe are instructed to sit facing each other on the classroom floor and pull on each others labia minora to increase their size, because "men like having something to play with before intercourse." I used to think that women in pornography magazines were not a representative sample because excessive intercourse had pulled things out of place. I now know this is false because I have been married 28 years, and the appearance of my wife's genitals has not changed at all, even having birthed 2 children. So over-developed labia minora is something girls are born with. I asked my wife about this and she said that the condition is "God's way of punishing girls with great tits and ass, and the men who lust for them." During much of human history and across many cultures, women were regarded as "dirty" or "sinful" and potentially dangerous. Is there a connection with genital appearance? For instance, was genital abnormality considered the devil's mark, the result of diabolical liaisons? She also said that our daughter, like her, does not have over-developed labia minora, indicating the trait is hereditary. Considering, that most girls do, what are the biological evolutionary implications? If a girl had a patch of unsightly excess skin on any other body part, this would deter most paramours and she would be less likely to reproduce. How is the historical abuse of women across many cultures involved? (Mass rape during wartime, for example.) But, finally to the question posed in the title: Why is female circumcision invariably labeled "mutilation" and never considered cosmetic? Many girls would benefit in self-esteem from the procedure if intelligently done in a sanitary hospital as a newborn. How do we today know that the practice which has been performed across many cultures for thousands of years was not cosmetic? If it was and was successful, this could explain why the condition of over-developed labia minora was not selected against by males. After all, "marrying off a daughter" was historically an important undertaking for parents and they would have done anything necessary to ensure the appearance of virginity, which was generally checked.