“My aim in this article has been to highlight, detail and explain an analytical
and normative inconsistency in [the] belief that FGM is intolerable on the grounds that it diminishes capabilities such as bodily integrity through inflicting sexual, physiological and psychological harm and is perpetuated by coercive social forces, while regarding MGM as benign. By examining the history of MGM and drawing on empirical studies of its effects on sexual, physiological and psychological functioning, I have sought to show that there is good reason to recognize qualitative, though in the majority of cases not quantitative, similarities between MGM and FGM.”
Full document here: http://www.norm-uk.org/uploaded/JohnsonMaleGenitalMutilation2010.pdf
Tags: amputation, circumcision, damage, death, double standard, female genital mutilation, FGM, foreskin, functions of the foreskin, genital mutilation, history, human rights, hypocrisy, intact, Intactivism, Intactivist, Judaism, male genital mutilation, medical ethics, MGM, mutilation, risks, sensitivity, sexist
