Why aren't parents offered the option to remove their daughter's prepuce?

Question

In the USA, it's perfectly normal, and some people are even obsessed with it, to remove the prepuce (foreskin) in an infant male. It is a cosmetic procedure, all medical associations are in agreement of this. Today, we hear more and more about women getting "designer" vaginas and having their prepuce (clitoral hood) removed fully or partially, leaving the clitoris exposed much like the penis head in the male.

So why don't doctors offer this cosmetic procedure to parents of baby girls just like they do to baby boys?

And please don't try to bring up any "health" reasons on why the male circumcision should be done. All health organizations from the AAP and on agree that the health "benefits" are slight at best, and not enough to recommend the procedure. Also, the removal of the prepuce in girls hasn't been studied at all, so there might be undiscovered "health" benefits.

This topic is not addressing religious circumcision so calm down.

As for why I'm in the baby section, I also happen to be a father, so I'm not just some "guy" trolling here.

It's a double-standard I've thought about and I wanted to ask others about it. Why do people get defensive about questions?

Answer 1

He is not weird to want to bring this subject forward. Why should a female infant be protected by law from having their prepuce removed but not an infant boy.

In 2014, boys that are unhappy about being circumcised may have legal recourse as they will be 18. In 1996 the US pass the FGM act, the protects underage girls from any genital cutting including the prepuce (Defined as FGM Type 1 by WHO). Boys born 1996 and after could probably take the government to court on the basis that they were not protected by the 14th amendment. So really they are going to have to either allow the removal of the prepuce of infant girls, or protect infant boys. Male circumcision was illegal in both the Roman and Greek empires. Sweden and Finland have both recently restricted circumcision. Australia has just banned circumcision in any state hospital.

The US is the only first world country that circumcises most of its infant boys. Circumcision is taking a downward fall in the US, by 2014 it may not be all the prevalent and could end up illegal.

As for the Jewish girl at top, traditions change. Did a Mohel suck your son's penis on his 8th day? While some jews still practice that, majority don't. FGM is in tight with the Muslim community, should we then allow that to happen on US soil? Most of the worst things in the world are a direct result of religion.

Jackson Meem:
Come on the prepuce or clitoral hood is just a piece of skin, it can be cut off in minutes. The benifits are less smegma, AIDS protection (Langerhan Cells), easier to clean/hygiene. Regardless of what you think, the prepuce on the female is to protect the glans, just like the males. Muslims have found other medical benifits too.

As for the AAP, from their website
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential (Means not Proven) medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

Answer 2

Wow, some people are getting so defensive. Probably because deep down they know circumcising their sons was a disgusting thing to do. I wish males had the same protection under the law.

The first answer was particularly bizarre. I know Jews have weird traditions and laws but even so plenty of people don't believe the god business, including quite possibly the person whose prepuce is removed when they grow up. (Yes, people leave religion. Modifying your own body, with your informed consent, for the church, is one thing, but doing it to a defenceless infant?) Besides, many Jews are against circumcision and a quick google shows that.

I also had to laugh about the AIDS question above. 70% of males with AIDS weren't circumcised? The study (done in Africa, and not a well-performed one under any standards) actually showed a 60% reduction in acquisition of the HIV virus from a HIV+ female after heterosexual intercourse. See how the numbers and facts are blown out of proportion? Gee.

Hopefully males will soon of eventually receive the same protection under the law as females. As a prepuce owner I know how useful it is and how nice it feels.

Answer 3

Prepuce Of Clitoris

Answer 4

Actually there is a bill to protect baby boys, too. Be sure to sign it, hmm?


Our son is intact. He can make his own choice when he's paying his own way in the world.

Answer 5

Good question. I like to trot out this little gem when people who don't understand anatomy or cultural relativity get their knickers in a twist:
http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm
http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

Heck it would be so much "easier to clean" a baby girl if she had her labia trimmed, but that is just as sick and wrong as cutting a baby boy isn't it?

Answer 6

neither should be done. they are done routinely in hospitals for *purely* cosmetic reasons. (even the AAP says so! like you said)
(and then there's the religious reasons, but those are done later, i do believe)

if it ain't broke...

Answer 7

It's amazing what culture can do.

Answer 8

Female children are protected by the law from any messing down there, no matter how small. Often people compare female circumcision to the removal of the clitoris, not just the hood, but I call that mutilation, since it's like removing the glans of a boy. Either way, it's illegal to also just remove the hood on a girl.

I'm against infant circumcision. By leaving your son uncircumcised, if he's not satisfied with it he can always get cut and end up satisfied in the end. One survey found that about half of circumcised guys would have preferred to had made the decision themselves:
http://www.jackinworld.com/qow/q15.html

That may play a part into why circumcision rates have fallen so much. For example, circumcision rates were as high as 90% back in the 1960s and 1970s (that's partly why today's adults are so... brainwashed, I supposed you could say, about thinking that circumcision is better) but they have fallen to as low as 14% in some states. Here are the statistics:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/

The USA is the last developed nation doing it to a large number of newborns without religious or medical needs. (Europeans, Latin Americans, Japanese, and most Australians, Canadians, and Asians don't circumcise):
http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html

Christianity doesn't ask for circumcision, either. In fact, sections of the Bible are harsh against circumcision, and the Catholic Church even condemned the surgery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_in_the_Bible#In_Christianity

So now there are many more uncircumcised boys. They don't get made fun of anymore due to that (I know, I'm one and I'm 18, a pre-med student).

In a medical study, it was found that females are more likely to hit orgasm with an uncircumcised man:
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html

The lubricated foreskin (on the inside... like your eyelids) slides up and down during sex and masturbation to stimulate the head (which is why you don't hear of uncircumcised guys needing lube to masturbate).
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
http://net.indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/index.html

Studies have found that circumcision reduces sensitivity (this article also mentions how it has lost popularity in the USA in recent times):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285532,00.html

And despite being more sensitive, uncircumcised guys still last in the same six minute range (average) that circumcised guys do:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x

Makes masturbation more difficult:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x

Which makes sense, that's how circumcision was promoted in the USA:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0

Increases erectile dysfunction rates:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14979200&dopt=Abstract%7C

If too much skin is removed in circumcision, it can make the penis smaller since the penis needs some skin to expand during an erection:
http://drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=21&action=detail&ref=1125
http://www.altermd.com/Penis%20and%20Scrotal%20Surgery/buried_penis.htm

There's pain involved, often why doctors don't want you in the room when it's done:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/1f21e.htm
http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/

Of course, there are other risks associated, but those are typically the ones due to surgery. You can research it more here:
http://shorl.com/deprygyfrykiny
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/against-circumcision.html

PS. As far as cleaning goes, it's really simple. For the first years in life the foreskin doesn't pull back. That prevents stuff like poo/fecal matter from touching the head. Later on all it takes it 5 to 10 seconds to pull the foreskin back and rub the head; it even feels good.
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/protect-uncircson.html

Answer 9

Wouldn't that decrease the likelihood of the woman to have an orgasm? It's just different for females to have the prepuce removed.

Answer 10

It is for healthy conditions. I read a study - a serious one since there are many Dr's in my family - that men who have AIDS were studied and 70% of them are not circumsized which leads them to think the prepuce makes a perfect environment for bacteria and God knows what else. So don't get all angry if people don't agree with you. You posted a question so you get a whole bunch of answers, wheter you like them or not.