There's no need for a newborn to have increased sexual stimulation. The risks includes pain during sex which is a pretty huge factor. It's mostly cosmetic as I said and the only health benefit is that is that the tissue would not become infected (doesn't mean that other parts of the vagina can't become infected) which is incredibly rare anyway in comparison to foreskin related conditions. An infection that arises from the penis (other than an std) is usually foreskin related. It doesn't prevent or reduce any health conditions or illnesses, therefore the only benefit associated with this procedure doesn't compare to the benefits of a circumcision.(Original post by QE2)
Increased sexual stimulation, hygiene and aesthetics.
Also, labiaectomy (labiaplasty) has benefits for some women.
So, as we know that male circumcision and and female circumcision both have claimed, but disputed benefits, as well as risks - why do you support one but not the other.
The study I linked did not see the benefit as justifying the procedure.
I think the CDC report should be taken with a pinch of salt. After all, it recommended routine circumcision for all males! Contrast this with all the European countries who see no medical benefit in routine circumcision.
I'm sure the fact that circumcision in the US is a billion dollar industry (but one showing signs of shrinking) has nothing to do with the call for all parents to circumcise their boys.
Nowhere does it say that this is a type of FGM though.
'The guidelines do not outright call for circumcision of all male newborns, since that is a personal decision that may involve religious or cultural preferences, Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of the CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, told the Associated Press.'
Find out which unis are hot off the mark here