I'm posting this recent study because there where several topics lately concerning circumcision and because I found it interessting enough to be worth sharing.

False beliefs predict increased circumcision satisfaction in a sample of US American men

"... most women who have actually undergone FGC do not regard themselves as having been harmed on balance by the intervention ..."

"Instead, similar to many circumcised men in the USA, Israel, some Muslim-majority countries, and very often in their own communities these women tend to perceive their modified vulvae as improved or enhanced compared to the natural state (e.g., ‘cleaner,’ more ‘feminine,’ more aesthetically appealing )."

"One possible explanation for this discrepancy, i.e., between the harm judgments of critics and supporters of FGC, is that the latter may be on average or in certain respects less knowledgeable about the anatomy, functions, and sensory implications of surgically unmodified female genitalia."

"This hypothesised asymmetry in knowledge could be due, at least in part, to a lack of personal experience with the relevant tissue among ‘circumcised’ women (especially post sexual debut; see Figure 2): in other words, if they were ‘circumcised’ early enough, they cannot truly ‘know what they are missing.’"

Figure 2

"... men with positive attitudes about their circumcision status may know less about the anatomy and functions of the foreskin compared to such men who have negative attitudes about their circumcision status. Goldman speculated that the more wareness a man had of basic issues regarding the inherent (as opposed to contested or probabilistic) effects of circumcision — namely, that it involves the removal of a substantial amount of functional tissue — the more he would be dissatisfied with being circumcised."

"Why might many circumcised men, like their female counterparts in societies where female ‘circumcision’ is the norm, fail to regard the loss of sensitive genital tissue in infancy or early childhood as a harm? The answer explored here is that they may lack sufficient or accurate information regarding the anatomy and functions of the intact penis (or vulva) ..."

"Cultural expectations, in the form of scripts or norms for example, undoubtedly play a large role in shaping individuals’ attitudes toward their own (and their children’s) genital status, whether modified or unmodified. To illustrate just how strong such cultural forces may be, consider that many ‘circumcised’ women do not want to “burden (their) daughter with excess clitoral and labial tissue that is unhygienic, unsightly, and interferes with sexual penetration” (Ahmadu and Shweder 2009, 17); these women report having the

same desire for “healthy and aesthetically pleasing genitalia” in their daughters as they would want for their sons – an attitude that many Western mothers would presumably find shocking."

"For example, after hearing about societies that do not routinely modify children’s genitalia, engaging in a sexual encounter with someone who has not undergone such a modification, or learning about the properties or functions of the excised genital tissue (i.e., properties that one might reasonably regard as having value), some adults of all genders experience a ‘perspective shift.’ They begin to reconsider their feelings about their own genital status or about the practice of genital modification generally, sometimes resulting in very negative attitudes and emotions."

"Thus, while the majority of circumcised men and women in societies where nontherapeutic childhood genital cutting (NGC) is culturally entrenched appear to regard their modified genitalia as ‘normal,’ a minority of both sexes, upon reflection, come to express anger and resentment at not having been able to provide their own informed consent for the procedure when they were old enough to understand what was at stake."