After reading this article, I am highly perturbed. Women already do not share the same level of sexual stimulation and arousal as men. This "nicking" procedure only increases the chance that the little baby girl will just be a sexual object, rather than an actual, engaged participant in an activity that is supposed to be enjoyable and sacred for both parties in a marriage. Sure, the circumcision of males is typically a religious practice, but it also aids in the cleanliness and health of the baby so urine, etc won't get trapped and cause infection. The prevention of infection in men is particularly nice since women are already prone to UTIs and yeast infections more so than men since all of our "equipment" is closer in proximity. At least that's one less thing to worry about when a woman is with a man. On the other hand, I do not see the pros in female circumcision (#1 because there's not enough there to even cut...), and ultimately, I may seem sexist toward males in this case. I apologize because I'm typically an advocate of "what is good for one, is good for the other." BUT, because women in other parts of the world are more sexually objectified rather than being seen as a human partner in life, I believe that this so-called "nicking" is a way to take women down a few pegs. The U.S. should take a stance on the ideals in which we believe and not crouch to the cruel level of some other cultures. Again, another BUT comes to mind at this point. Is the genital "nicking" really for the greater good and in the best interests of the baby girls? Probably so. U.S. doctors are more educated, clean, and practiced, as opposed to doctors in other countries. The "nick" isn't mutilation...it's simply a "nick". There are pros and cons to each side, and in the end, who's to say that the parents won't be satisfied even after the nicking procedure? What if they go ahead and send their baby girl to a crude doctor despite the fact that she had already been nicked? Just a thought for you to chew on for a while...

To clarify, where I said "(#1 because there's not enough there to even cut...)", I was referring to a clitoridectomy, not to the other kinds of mutilation. It was a sarcastic side note.

I understand Kelly. I was highly upset as well. To think that the American Academy of Pediatrics would even entertain this thought was highly disturbing and it showed how much they "care" about young baby girls. You're right, what if the parents are not happy with the "nick" and want to do more damage, who's to say they won't? You bring up a good point that the US is not taking a stance. I've always been taught we were against mutilation, whether it be boy or girl, but for some reason it's like we are letting other ideals and beliefs effect sensible judgment. I wonder how other countries feel now about us and this new information?

Does this "nicking" really endanger girls' future enjoyment of sexual experiences? If it does, or it might, then I am totally on your side, Tatiana and Kelley. The AAP is very wrong in that case. But if we think that it won't, then the question is whether this procedure will reduce the number of girls who get severely mutilated, in ways that will obviously reduce their enjoyment of sexual experiences. The AAP seems to think that it will. You seem to think that it won't. What evidence does the AAP have? What evidence do you have?

Yes, Peter, it does. Read Half the Sky: Turning Oppressio into Opportunity for Women Worldwide by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn. It can be a very difficult read--especially for women--because of the graphic description of what women all over the world are experiencing. But it is a very powerful description of things we are often not aware of in our protected bubble.

"Does the Academy have a point?"

They should be shut down!!!!

Barbarism has no place in a civilized society. The "doctor" who wrote
the trash should lose her license!

Should be a national campaign to expose those compromising with EVIL.

The purpose of male circumcision is usually to increase pleasure, increase cleanliness or to abide by religious customs and accomplish the former.

The purpose of so-called female "circumcision" is quite different. It is a control and dominate procedure used to ELIMINATE female sexual pleasure altogether and, worse, to create an environment in which sex can actually cause pain.

The social benefit in a patriarchal society of eliminating women's rights to sovereignty of their own bodies, and most importantly, of eliminating women's ability to feel sexual pleasure is simple - the idea is that if women cannot be pleasured sexually, they will not stray, they will not leave their husbands for greener pastures. It is quite simply a method of controlling and dominating women.