Quick question for you...

And of course you can compare countries. If a medical procedure is effective, it's effective. Biology does not take into account, coustoms.

And again, harming the human body is NEVER an acceptable answer when you have other EVEN MORE EFFECTIVE answers.

Of course, you want to know why the "mirco tear" theory was proposed? Cause rapists who have partners that are not aroused, have to rub harder. So, are we saying that africa has a higher rape problem? of course we are. But circumcision is not the answer for that, either.

castration might be, but that's the feminist in me talking.

I mean, you can compare countries, but then you have to control for variables. If the US/Western Europe have similar rates, then you also have to account for, as I said before, the fact that WE has a far better healthcare system, so that could be skewing the numbers. If you compare the US's to Eastern Europe, which has a healthcare system much closerto the US's, then you start to see incidence rates from .4-1.2%, which are notably higher than 0.3%

Re "harming the human body"- it's not really harming. You have no memory of the pain if done in childbirth, no decline in sexual pleasure or performance, and no massive psychological trauma- in exchange for lower incidences o disease and easier hygiene. It's more like getting a nipple piercing to prevent breast cancer than getting your beasts cut off, to use your ridiculous analogy from above (Unless getting a nipple piercing is exceptionally painful, I wouldn't know).

Rape is a separate (serious) problem, let's not bring it int the discussion.