“For what it is worth, when my son was born, I said no to circumcision. The doctor could offer no benefit beyond aesthetics. As my wife said at the time, ‘He’s perfect as he is, why would I do that to him?’ Making him ‘look like dad’ – my friends’ justification every time – seemed about as dumb a reason as anyone could present. (I also have many scars and healed broken bones; does he need those ‘badges of dad’s life’ as well?)
If it were routine in this nation to cut up newborn baby girls’ bodies for aesthetic reasons, … well, I can stop right there; there is no way we would still be cutting baby girls’ bodies for aesthetic reasons right after birth. People making (still essentially unsupported) arguments about how ‘it doesn’t hurt later enjoyment of intimate relations’ and ‘there might be health benefits’ would be properly shouted down by university faculty, social activists, government agencies, leftist groups of every variety, and an army of hysterical (an etymologically dangerous word in this hypo but useful) female ‘survivors’ of the procedure.
But boys? ‘Pull out the knife and get to work, doc! Swab a little numbing agent on there … if you think it is necessary.'”
It is interesting, I think, that this would be a non-issue for baby girls for entirely defensible feminist reasons. No, I’m not talking about female genital mutilation, which is far more drastic and barbaric than male genital mutilation. But any sort of involuntary prettifying of baby girls for purely aesthetic or cultural reasons would be protested and banned. More evidence that there actually is a growing bias against boys in our culture. And it starts at birth.
The Dish 