Female Circumcision Thesis

Female circumcision does not deserve to attract international criticism

Thesis statement -

Female circumcision does not deserve to attract international criticism, but should be respected alongside other cultural practices in other societies around the world.

My first contention is that the practice itself and the way the practice is executed are two different matters. Therefore arguing that the practice should be condemned because of unsanitary conditions is invalid. It is true that the procedure can be unsanitary.

“The practice is mostly carried out by traditional circumcisers, who often play other central roles in communities, such as attending childbirths. However, more than 18% of all FGM is performed by health care providers, and the trend towards medicalization is increasing.” (who.int)

My second contention is that there are many practices in our society and others that do not draw criticism and that female circumcision is being singled out for irrational reasons.

Women’s rights and women reproductive//sexual rights are focusing on this particular practice. It is being unfairly singled out. Talk about body piercing, scarring, giant ear lobes, male circumcision.

Nature has designed it with a GREATER variety and concentration of nerve receptors THAN ANY PART OF THE PENIS. Those who condemn female genital mutilation say it’s because it removes part of the girl intended to enhance sexual pleasure. Well, the same could be said for the foreskin. An average circumcision will remove as much as 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings! Without the foreskin, the glans (tip of the penis) also becomes desensitized to touch—further robbing the male of sexual pleasure. A circumcised male’s glans becomes keratinized (addition of successive layers of skin), becoming much tougher and dryer as a