Both male and female genital mutilation (circumcision) is as prevalent as it is, in part, due to a desire to restrict sexual activity via a reduction in sexual pleasure. For example, Dr John Kellogg (the cereal guy) recommended male circumcision as a remedy for masturbation; female circumcision is often performed to increase the chances of fidelity.
In the US there has generally been greater social pressure on girls to remain ‘pure’ and not express themselves sexually. Promiscuous women (“sluts”) have been treated much more harshly than promiscuous males (“players/studs”).
So, we might expect circumcision rates to be much higher for girls compared to boys. Instead, female circumcision is illegal and male circumcision is the norm (75% prevalence). What’s going on here?
I suspect that circumcision rates would plummet if we just dropped the euphemism. If doctors’ asked “have you decided if you want to mutilate [name of your baby boy]‘s genitals?” instead of “have you decided if you want to have [name of your baby boy] circumcised?”, they probably would get a different response.
Dropping a euphemism can be seen as having an agenda. Nearly everyone is fine with calling female circumcision ‘genital mutilation,’ because we’re horrified by the practice (probably in part because we associate it with developing nations). However, if a doctor referred to male circumcision as mutilation, I suspect that some people would say the doctor has a liberal agenda.
