Towsend, Patricia K. and McElroy, Ann, Medical Anthropology in Ecological Perspective, Third Edition. Westview Press 1996, pages 113 - 115.
Infancy is exactly when one does not want to be subjected to the sort of painful trauma experienced during circumcision. Having parts of one's genitals chopped off is traumatic at any age.
Circumcision is not necessary for cleanliness. The uncircumcized penis can be easily kept clean: a simple 15-second rinsing every time one showers is an effective and simple method of ensuring sanitation and well-being.
While it is certainly nowhere near as severe as female genital mutilation, it is still no simple medical procedure. It's a bizarre, barbaric, and completely unnecessary practice.
So I support those who question the practice, and choose not to subject their children to it, and am thankful that, as someone whose partner is Jewish, but whose children are all apparently female, I haven't been presented with the quandary of needing to negotiate this particular emotional and ethical minefield.
I do tend to feel that there is a qualitative difference, at least between the sort of MGM typical in the U.S. -- performed near birth, usually with some form of anaesthetic (though that was not always the case) and limited in scope and effect, compared to what victims of FGM typically suffer.
I suppose my point in adding anything to this node is to point out that a wrong is a wrong, and that if you are a parent you should consider carefully what you allow caregivers and authority figures to do to your children. Both males and females in contemporary industrial cultures are subjected to many forms of abuse that tend to replicate themselves in further abuse, passed on out of habit, spite or resentment of one's unchosen fate.
I appreciate and do not intend to minimize the injuries done to anyone in "our" culture. But I would ask (perhaps as spark for another node?) what is accomplished by what seems at times to be a tussle over "bragging rights." Perhaps this is only an effort to be heard, and I can accept it as such. But I have a tendency to hear some implicit message never stated, like, perhaps: "I was abused too, dammit, so why don't you just shut up about what was done to you? Life's a shit sandwich, get used to it."
Please understand that this is an attitude that I heard a lot where I grew up, so it very well may be merely an echo in my head that has nothing to do with what you are meaning to say here. But I sense I am not the only one who hears messages like this, implied, when they may not be intended, and perhaps an exchange on those sorts of unspoken, assumed connotations is part of what is needed to help all of us, whatever our sex or gender might be, to get beyond what seems like a sometimes pointless, frustrating kind of struggle.
1. Full removal of the clitoris and labia (both inner and outer}. This is what most people think of.
2. Removal of the labia which helps expose the clitoris.
I am aware that most often number one is performed, but sometimes a woman will want number two voluntarily, and this is the key.
If a person wants to pierce, prod, remove, etc. any part of their body, what business is it of mine? None. If any bodily change occurs, from ear piercing to circumcision without the concent of the person receiving the modification, then it is wrong. The effects may be different, but the effect is the same. "Does a person have domain over their own bodies?"
Hell yes.
I have heard people comparing male circumcision with that practice euphemistically referred to as "female circumcision." In male circumcision, the preputial skin ("foreskin") of the penis is cut off. There are a variety of forms of female circumcision, including lopping off the labia, excising the clitoris, or even partially stitching up the vaginal opening.
Equating, or even comparing the two practices, is bad form. Let me run through some of the arguments, and attempt to show how some forms of the argument are invalid.
But first, some disclaimers:
1: I am male.
2: I am circumcised.
3: I'm Sheygetz as Caesar.
I don't mind being circumcised. Although I am clearly not qualified to talk about uncircumcised life, having been circumcised as an infant by my parents for reasons of sanitation (though I don't know how much truth really is to that notion), I would like to point out that no one who is not themselves circumcised can discuss the following points:
1: The degree of nerve desensitisation. Some have argued that male circumcision causes a loss of sensitivity to the genitals, either by losing nerves, or by being "accustomed" to the "exposure" of my genitals to increased friction.* For those arguing on the grounds of extensive loss of nerves: So what am I missing out on, premature ejaculation? Thanks, but no thanks. For those arguing desensitisation through exposure: It's not like my genitals get all calloused or scarred. That's the kind of damage that would be required to really make a case for extensive desensitisation.
2: The trauma an infant suffers by being circumcised. Some have argued that circumcision is so traumatic that no humane person would ever subject a child to it. Seriously, give me a break. Do I seem particularly traumatised to you? I'd like to see a single case where there is conclusive evidence linking neurosis to infant circumcision.
Now, here are a few replies of my own to some other objections:
1: "It's barbaric." That's a loaded and purely subjective term if ever there was one. A little barbarity never hurt anyone. The point is not whether or not the practice is barbaric; the point is whether or not it is harmful. Tattooing is barbaric, but we're not going to outlaw that, now are we?
2: "It was introduced by the Victorians to control children." So? It is inappropriate to dismiss the fact that it is no longer used as a control mechanism, regardless of whether it was in the past. The fact is, male circumcision is no longer used as a device of socio-sexual control in Western civilisation. Female circumcision is, and perhaps the case could be made that some instances of male curcumcision is as well, in Africa. We're not talking about the past, we're analysing a present practice.
Some forms of ritual mutilation -- circumcision, tattooing, scarification, body piercing -- are beautiful bodycrafts, an important and cathartic barbarism. They can be done cleanly and efficiently using Western tools, but in Africa the practice is done crudely, clumsily, and can often lead to serious infections.
However, the ultimate test, against which there can be no appeal, when all issue of medical cleanliness are bracketed, is whether it actually leads to life-damaging neurosis. I can testify that, even outside its religious context, male circumcision is not traumatic, causes no appreciable loss of sensation, and is not a tool of social control.
Can the same points be made for female circumcision?
* arrogantsob has alerted me to a news article announcing that there is no significant degree of difference in the sensitivity levels of circumcised men from uncircumcised men.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030429/hl_nm/circumcision_sensitivity_dc_1
It may or may not surprise the readers that male circumcision is practised as a matter of course for Muslims, Jews, and a large number of Christians. This constitutes a rather large percentage of humanity, and I would dare to say that most of these people are not living in the past, nor were they abused by evil parents. I myself do not feel traumatized by my circumcision, I simply don't remember it. It did after all happen two weeks after I was born.
To be honest I think that this whole discussion was prompted by a need to vent hatred at a set of cultures that are so alien to people here that they automatically feel the need to reject them. To these people I would point out that these cultures often create individuals who are intelligent, open minded, and capable of deciding for themselves whether or not to continue in the footsteps of their ancestors. (ahem, like yours )While some move to different value systems, many more choose to keep their beliefs and so the cultures remain alive.
Please don't be quite so eager to judge others simply on the basis of your personal emotional response to a situation.
This has been a public service annnouncement on behalf of the "Think Again Party".
And to the supporters of religious circumsicion, I ask this question: "Why is your religious practice of genitally mutilating males legal, but if I sacrifice a chicken to Baron Samedi in my front yard I risk arrest for cruelty to animals?"
The reason infant males are genitally mutilated in this country goes back to the Victorians. It was done, originally, with one specific purpose -- masturbation prevention. All the reasons that have been tacked on since are justifications, after-the-fact propoganda to mask the ugly fact that in America, sex is considered to be dirtier than murder.
To discuss this further we must define mutilation. Mutilation is best defined, as the intentional removal or damage healthy, functional tissue, without consent.
We will start with some facts courtesy of www.infocirc.org
The three major methods of western circumcision used can be found on www.infocirc.org with pictures and graphic description, too graphic to be placed here. I will warn you now that anyone with less than a cast iron stomach may with to forgo viewing this material.
There are a multitude of groups within, Judaism and Islam, that seek an end to circumcision, and this practice has never been required or recommended in any of the Christian sects. The Koran, makes no reference to either male or female circumcision. More information can be found at www.infocirc.org
I regret not being able say all that should be said on this subject, but know that it is not my place to create a node so large that no one will be able to download it in my lifetime.
Note, this W/U is limited to first hand knowledge of circumcisions done in hospitals in Maryland. IMO, it is likely similar in other hospitals in the US. IMO, it is likely NOT similar to circumcisions done at home on or around day 8 of life.
Socialist Wolf correctly points out that breastfeeding has a protective effect against urinary tract infection (UTI) and other infant infections. Since small statistical increases in the frequency of UTIs in the first year of life is the most current fatuous justification for routine infant circumcision in the United States one additional fact needs to be pointed out. In the current US hospital based practice of circumcision on day one or two of life the infants' acquisition of breastfeeding skills and mothers' confidence in their ability to succeed in breastfeeding are both seriously undermined due to the circumcision. This leads directly to the loss of the breastfeeding protection from UTIs and other infections.
The timing of the surgery is totally for the doctor's convenience. Often infants are unnecessarily prevented from feeding for hours before the surgery. They are lined up in the hallway awaiting their turn, maybe sleeping, maybe crying with hunger. After being strapped down, awake and spread eagled and operated upon they are returned to their mothers in a stuporous state. Often they are incapable of effectively breastfeeding for many hours. Meanwhile the bottle brigade is all too ready to feed with the other stuff because "the baby has to eat". Once again breastfeeding (as well as the innocent foreskin) is sacrificed upon the altar of ignorance just when it could have prevented the very thing that circumcision is often purported to be done to avoid.
See these URLs and books:
doctors objecting - http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/ and Doctors Re-examine Circumcision, by Thomas Ritter, M.D. and George Denniston, M.D.
mothers objecting - http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/index.html
Jews objecting - http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/religious.htm Questioning Circumcision, A Jewish Perspective, by Ronald Goldman Ph.D. and http://www.fgmnetwork.org/
I don't think mostly mothers make the decision, I think they are just the one who is there to sign the "informed consent". The decision was made earlier.
7 minutes of torture is still torture. There is also pain afterwards, for many hours.
1. Of the nearly half of the population that has them, nobody went through puberty and that crucial period of nerve development and stimulation-feedback with both a circumsized and un-circumcized penis. This makes it extremely difficult to make objective comparisons on pleasure/sensitivity level. People who claim that there is a sensory benefit to one state or the other either have a "the grass is always greener on the other side" mentality or a gigantic ego.
2. Infant circumcisions are not medically necessary.
3. Research into the American database of pornography, on the web or in your local truckstop, reveals a asthetic bent towards the circumcized penis.
4. Conversations with many women reveals that many don't understand the difference. (I'm not kidding here. And I actually talk to many women about this because...)
5. I've perfomed several hundred circumcisions as a doctor. I always use anesthetic, in the form of local lidocaine. It usually seems to work. But not always. Most American doctors follow the current recommendations, and also use the same anesthetic.
6. In my practice in Wisconsin: a.) The majority of times it is the mother who makes the decision on circumcision. b.) Religion seldom is the deciding factor. c.) The national average of 55 percent going for it seems about right. d.)If they are uncertain, I always tell them not to have it done. It can always be done later...
7. I can do an infant circumcision using a gomco in less than seven minutes.
8. It really doesn't seem like a good idea to go for speed in doing a circumcision.
9. Gender reassignment for botched circs is not done. Find me one case in the last twenty years.
10. I am happy with my penis the way it is.
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
