Female genital mutilation (FGM) is performed for a combination of social, cultural, and perceived moral reasons, none of which are medically justified. The practice affects over 230 million girls and women worldwide, concentrated in a band of countries stretching from West Africa to the Horn of Africa, parts of the Middle East, and some communities in Asia. Understanding the reasons behind FGM means looking at deeply rooted social pressures, misconceptions about the body, and community dynamics that make the practice self-reinforcing even when individuals privately oppose it.
Social Pressure and Marriageability
The single most powerful driver of FGM is social expectation. In communities where the practice is common, an uncut girl faces real consequences: family ostracism, community condemnation, and significantly reduced prospects for marriage. Because marriage often determines a woman’s economic security and social standing, parents who might personally question the practice still feel compelled to have their daughters cut rather than risk their future.
The pressure typically flows from older generations. Grandmothers and elder women in the community often push for the procedure, viewing it as essential to securing a granddaughter’s place in society. Potential husbands in practicing communities may select wives who have been cut, partly because it signals family compliance with community norms and partly because of beliefs about fidelity and sexual purity. Opting out means sacrificing social networks and risking isolation for the entire family, not just the girl.
This creates a self-sustaining cycle. When nearly every family in a community participates, no single family can easily stop without putting their daughter at a disadvantage. The practice persists not because every parent believes in it, but because the social cost of breaking ranks is too high.
Controlling Female Sexuality
A core motivation behind FGM is the desire to regulate women’s sexual behavior. Families cut their daughters to prevent what they consider promiscuity and premarital sex. The underlying logic is that removing or damaging sensitive genital tissue will reduce sexual desire, making a girl less likely to seek relationships outside marriage. This is tied directly to concepts of family honor: a daughter’s virginity at marriage is seen as reflecting on the entire family.
In communities practicing the most severe form of FGM (infibulation, where the vaginal opening is narrowed with a sewn seal), the physical closure itself is treated as proof of virginity. The seal is expected to be intact at marriage, making it a visible guarantee to a husband’s family. These beliefs frame female sexuality as something dangerous that must be physically contained rather than a normal aspect of human experience.
Rite of Passage Into Womanhood
In many communities, FGM functions as a coming-of-age ceremony that marks the transition from girlhood to womanhood. The ritual carries meaning beyond the physical act. It represents separation from childhood, endurance of pain as a sign of maturity, and incorporation into the adult community. Girls who undergo the procedure gain a new social identity: they are considered women, eligible for marriage, and full members of their cultural group.
This dimension makes FGM particularly difficult to address through simple prohibition. The ceremony often includes days of teaching, celebration, and community bonding. When the cut is removed without replacing the broader ritual, girls lose access to an important social milestone. This is why some organizations have developed alternative rites of passage that preserve the ceremony and community recognition while eliminating the cutting. Results have been mixed, partly because the cut itself, not just the surrounding ritual, is what many communities consider essential.
Myths About Hygiene, Fertility, and Protection
A range of false beliefs reinforces the practice by framing it as beneficial or even necessary for a girl’s health. In some communities, uncut genitalia are considered unclean or aesthetically unacceptable. Cultural myths portray the clitoris as impure or masculine, or claim that leaving it intact brings misfortune. These beliefs have no medical basis, but they carry real weight in communities where they have been passed down for generations.
Some families believe that removing genital tissue widens the vaginal opening or makes childbirth easier. The opposite is true. FGM causes scarring and reduced tissue elasticity, which increases the risk of prolonged labor, obstetric tears, cesarean delivery, and postpartum hemorrhage. It is also associated with higher rates of stillbirth and newborn death.
Another persistent myth holds that FGM protects against sexual violence. In rural areas where women and girls travel long distances for school, water, or farming, communities sometimes view infibulation as a physical barrier against rape. Some families also believe the practice preserves virginity in a literal, structural sense. In reality, FGM offers no protection against assault and creates its own serious harms.
Religion Is Not the Reason
FGM is frequently assumed to be a religious requirement, particularly within Islam. It is not. The practice predates most major world religions and is not mandated by any faith. There is no mention of FGM in the Quran, and the wives and daughters of the Prophet Muhammad were not cut. Major Islamic authorities, including Al-Azhar University in Cairo and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, have explicitly condemned the practice. There is no authentic Hadith suggesting the Prophet’s support or approval of it.
Christianity and Judaism similarly have no scriptural basis for FGM. There is no mention of the practice in the Old Testament, New Testament, or Torah. Among Christians, FGM in some communities may have persisted as resistance to colonial influence rather than from any religious teaching. A small Orthodox Jewish community in Ethiopia (Beta Israel) has historically practiced FGM, but this reflects local cultural tradition, not Jewish religious law.
The confusion arises because FGM is common in some majority-Muslim countries, leading people to assume a religious connection. But prevalence maps show that the practice follows geographic and ethnic lines, not religious ones. It occurs across Muslim, Christian, and animist communities in the same regions, and is absent from the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries worldwide.
What FGM Actually Does to the Body
Understanding why the practice continues also requires understanding what it costs. The WHO classifies FGM into four types, ranging from partial removal of the clitoral hood (Type I) to infibulation, the narrowing of the vaginal opening with a stitched seal (Type III). Type IV covers other harmful procedures like pricking, piercing, and cauterization.
Immediate risks include severe pain, hemorrhage from severed blood vessels, shock, infection, and genital swelling. The procedures are frequently performed without anesthesia or sterile instruments. Death can result from bleeding or from infections such as tetanus. Over the long term, scar tissue can trap or damage nerve endings, causing chronic pain that persists for years.
The psychological toll is significant. Studies consistently find higher rates of PTSD, anxiety disorders, and depression among women who have undergone FGM. Many describe the experience as deeply traumatic, compounded by feelings of betrayal when family members organized or condoned the procedure. The combination of physical pain, fear, and the violation of bodily autonomy leaves lasting marks that extend well beyond the physical scars.
Why the Practice Persists
In 2015, UN member states committed to eliminating FGM by 2030 as part of the Sustainable Development Goals. Current assessments show that target is out of reach. While the likelihood of a girl being cut has decreased at the global level, progress has been starkly uneven between countries, and population growth in high-prevalence regions means the absolute number of affected girls continues to rise.
FGM persists because it sits at the intersection of marriage economics, gender inequality, community identity, and misinformation about the body. No single factor sustains it alone. A family deciding whether to cut their daughter is weighing her social inclusion, her marriage prospects, her standing in the community, and generations of inherited belief, all at once. Effective interventions tend to address the practice at the community level rather than targeting individual families, because the decision to stop only makes sense when enough families commit to stopping together.