Mail and Guardian discussion about CIRCUMCISION Igor, you miss my point. There is simply no comparison between the types of mutilation caused. A foreskin is less, and its removal has fewer side effects, than tonsils or even an appendix. The method by which these things are done is in a sense (albeit not in all, I do not deny that) a separate issue. Not only do I think that most circumcisiona in our country is carried out on boys that are (arguably) consenting anyway, I know for a fact that many female genital mutilations are done without consent. I think it is irrelevant to the, what shall I call it, mistake (?) to compare the excision of a foreskin -whether male or female-, to the profound mutilation that constitutes a clitoridectomy, not to mention infibulation. As said, it is like comparing a lie to a murder. Well, I do not think that earrings or even nipple piercing (the latter as far as I know only carried out on consenting adults, btw) fall in a class far from foreskin cutting, but I get your point. What about the lip-stretching with discs, a practiced by some central African and Amazonian tribes? The rings causing "giraffe-necks" in some Burmese tribe? Or our own 'Cape Smile'? The angle you didn't mention is that of 'cultural interference'. I also notice, in this context, that most Hindu's I know are grateful to the British for eradicating (more or less, at least) the practice of suttee. I also note that most Muslim scholars (despite the referral to Islam by most 'practioners') are no proponents of female genital excision. Mohammed is said not to have recommended it and even have condemned the extreme forms, meaning infibulation or infibulation as well as clitoridectomy that is not very clear. Personally I'd say that the 'degree of consent' as well as the degree of 'cultural interference' should somehow be linked to the severity of the mutilation involved in allowing certain practices. I think that clitoridectomy should not be allowed, not more than cutting off a penis or a hand, or gauging an eye out.