I agree with the sentiment. I don’t think a person’s body should be modified unless they specifically consent to the procedure.
My problem with anti-circumcision blogs comes from one argument, and one argument only:
Female circumcision is condemned, so male circumcision should be as well.
No, just no.
Female genital mutilation is mainly practiced in parts of Africa and the Middle East by people with very little medical training in unsafe non-sterile environments. Female genital mutilation involves at the very least nicking and at most removing the clitoris. It sometimes involves sewing the vagina up completely so that only a little hole for menstrual blood to pass through is left. Women who experience the most serve type of mutilation often die during child birth, and have extreme pain during sexual intercourse. Almost all women who undergo any sort of genital mutilation lose the ability to orgasm.
All of this is done as a way to control female sexuality. Female genital mutilation is performed to ensure that women do not have sexual pleasure or to ensure that they are virgins when they marry. It is a way of exerting control over women.
Male circumcision involves cutting off the foreskin for aesthetic or religious purposes. Men who are circumcised still retain the ability to have sexual pleasure. They can still function normally. Male circumcision is performed in hospitals by doctors, the medical risks involved are considerably less. The ability to orgasm is not lost, and most men don’t face serious medical consequences as a result of their circumcision.
I don’t believe in modifying someone’s body without their consent, male or female, but I do not like seeing male circumcision and female genital mutilation looked upon in the same light. They are not the same thing, and should never be treated as such.