Isn NOHARMM s terminology a little harsh (genital cutting, mutilation, intact, etc.)?
Much of the language our culture uses to describe this practice is cloaked in euphemisms. It s a “benign” procedure; it’s offered as a “service” to parents; it only involves “a little snip” of “extra skin” that “doesn t hurt” and “isn t remembered”; and it has “no effect” on a male s life. An intellectually honest discussion of this issue acknowledges anatomical reality, recognizes that infant circumcision offers no significant compensating benefits for the loss of the functional prepuce, and validates the experiences of children, as well as the damage endured by the men they become. “Circumcision” is a euphemism that often betrays the reality of its effects. In societies that impose it on boys and girls, however, “circumcision” is commonly used in the vernacular of that culture. Women and men living in circumcising cultures refer to themselves as “circumcised,” not “mutilated.” While “mutilation” is the technically correct term used outside the circumcising culture, it creates resista
