My credit card number is
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 06:09:10 +0000
On Male Genital Mutilation in America
Most of us have heard of it before, and some of us have been unlucky enough to have heard gruesome accounts of it in one context or another: the terrifying concept of young prepubescent girls having their genitals operated on as a rite of passage. While this concept may seem distant and barbaric to us here in comfortable America, where no doctor or parent would even go so far as to consider altering a female minor's genitals in any way--in fact it is completely and indiscriminately illegal to do so to any extent--we should not be so quick as to place ourselves above what many self-righteous citizens might like to consider the lesser societies. For in fact, not only do Americans have a fixation on the concept of genital alteration, they deem it so important that it is a procedure performed on the majority of an entire half of the population: males. Though in this society the routine circumcision of infant males seems at most an issue of minor significance, I intend to shed light on the attention it deserves, not to make a modest proposal, but to call for a major change. The routine circumcision of males (known colloquially as just that) should receive the same legal attention as the circumcision of females (known much more thought-provokingly as female genital mutilation) for reasons of obsoleteness, gender double standards, and most of all, personal liberty.
Circumcision of both sexes has appeared in various societies throughout history for a slew of reasons, none of which justify the routine application of the procedure. Historically it has had a variety of reasons for being performed, some more excusable than others, including for religious rituals (both male and female), to discourage masturbation (both male and female), to promote chastity (primarily female), to discourage extramarital intercourse (primarily female), and cleanliness (both male and female). Ironically, today in America the only consistently used reason for which circumcision is performed--a high school is a great place to observe the passing down of ignorant perceptions and social norms--is just that: social norms--not medical necessity. The majority of American infant males are circumcised shortly after birth, despite the American Association of Pediatrics' 1999 statement that "the data on potential benefits are insufficient to recommend the practice of neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision," while the American Medical Association declares that "neonatal circumcision is a non-therapeutic procedure" (CIRP1). The British Medical Association goes even further, stating that it is "an invasive, radical procedure, and unless conservative treatments are tried first [e.g., less drastic treatments for disorders such as phimosis, a condition involving a foreskin too tight to be retracted], a therapeutic circumcision would be unethical" (CIRP2). Clearly there is no practical reason for the common circumcision.
For example, how often does one hear about penile cancer, a common reason for circumcision offered by some proponents of the procedure? According to a study conducted in Denmark, where circumcision is very uncommon (its citizens are apparently known for being uncircumcised) from 1943 to 1990, penile cancer rates have been dropping consistently, from less than 1.2 instances per 100,000 persons to about 0.8 instances per 100,000 persons, as much as a third less (Frisch, Morten, Soren Friis, Susanne Kruger Kjear, Mads Melbye). Given this information, the current risk for uncircumcised penile cancer for a Danish citizen would be about 0.000008%. Logic would suggest that these statistics would be roughly equivalent or lower for uncircumcised American males, but even with a much higher rate (for example, closer to 0.008%), the chances of getting cancer are very, very slim. To subject an infant to routine circumcision for reason of such a small chance to get cancer is absurd. Is it okay to alter the genitals of a child "just in case," for an issue that it is very unlikely for him to have to deal with?
Proponents of circumcision try to argue the medical benefits of such a procedure, but what medical benefits are there in removing a healthy, functioning piece of skin? Many Americans are actually unaware of the purpose of the foreskin and often refer to it as "just a piece of skin," comparing its level of functioning and usefulness to that of the appendix, implying that it is useless and should be removed. That, however, is not the case at all, as the foreskin serves two important primary purposes: to protect the glans (the "head" of the p***s) from irritation and unwarranted stimulation (such as from clothes), and to aid in sexual penetration, providing a natural lubricant and increasing vaginal stimulation via its added width. Ironically, some people believe that removing the foreskin makes sex more pleasurable for both parties involved; in fact, the removal of the foreskin creates such an added amount of friction that sex involving a circumcised male requires significantly more lubrication, while sex involving an uncircumcised male may require little or even no lubrication. At the same time, removal of the foreskin actually decreases sensitivity of the glans p***s, as it is subsequently constantly exposed to irritation and friction from everyday things like clothes; in response to this the p***s may become desensitized with the buildup of what amounts to calloused skin.
In 2003, 55.9 percent of American newborn males were circumcised1, compared to a British study that suggests that "3.8 percent of British boys born today would be circumcised by their fifteenth birthday" (CIRP2), suggesting that an even lower number of circumcisions actually are performed neonatally--a drastically low number. In fact the whole of the Western world has statistics much more closely resembling Britain's than America's; America is the sole Western nation on the list of nations in which the majority of infant males are circumcised, most of which are either officially Muslim or Jewish, two groups that circumcise for religious reasons. While the rates of American routine infant circumcision are falling with the rest of the world's, why is America so much farther behind, and why are its people so set on maintaining their essentially meaningless tradition, while the rest of the world realizes the practice is obsolete?
One of the oldest and most long-lived reasons for circumcision is religious ritual. Jews, for example, have had their males circumcised for centuries; the First Covenant with Yahweh, in fact, commands that all males be circumcised on the eighth day after birth as a form of sacrifice and metaphysical cleansing (Krieger). Today, however, American proponents of circumcision rarely use religion as a reason for the procedure to be performed, and when they do, they often speak from a Christian perspective, even though circumcision is obsolete in Christianity: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (The Bible, New International Version, Gal 5.5-6). In other words, with the Second Covenant circumcision is no longer expected and is, in fact, completely obsolete. Why do I propose, however, that we illegalize circumcision when it is such a defining aspect of the Jewish culture? The issue is that in America, law takes precedence over beliefs and religious rites; if a religious rite does not remain consistent with American law, it very well may be illegal. The act passed by Congress banning female genital mutilation, which concerns virtually all forms of alteration whatever to the genitals, states explicitly and plainly that "no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual" (United States Code of Laws, Title 18: Section 116). In other words, if female circumcision were a ritual part of the Jewish culture, a Jewish family could not legally have their daughter's genitals altered in any way, shape or form, regardless and indiscriminate of religious significance. This concept of banning a religious rite may seem questionable and many readers may have already objected to the validity of such a meddlesome and interfering concept, but in order to create laws, very strictly defined lines must be drawn to denote what is legal and what is not. Those who protest indignantly at the presentation of such an idea ought to ponder whether it would be acceptable for the American government to allow a homicidal cult-religion to roam around killing freely "on account of freedom of religion," that noble Jeffersonian concept--a law that is in place not to protect the "right" of religious groups to mutilate their children, but to protect their right to believe whatever they want to believe.
One of the most important issues involved in the legal status of circumcision in America is gender double standards. As stated earlier, legislation was passed which completely and indiscriminately bans any form of genital alteration--of females. What of males? Does not one half of the population deserve the same stringent protection as is guaranteed to the other? "But," you exclaim in pure indignation, "female genital mutilation is disgusting and brutal and barbaric and bloody and immoral and evil!"
It is true that in many societies throughout history, the most often cited in discussion being non-Westernized African tribes, girls averaging the age of twelve or thirteen would be forced to endure having their genitals cut and altered in ways that will not be put into print here, before having their labia sewn together, with just enough room left for urination and menstrual flow, so long as the operation is not botched. But we live in America, where if female circumcision were legal, it would be performed under exceedingly sterile conditions by a licensed doctor or surgeon, rather than a shaman mystic with a rusty, blunt knife or stone, and female circumcision does not necessarily--and if it were legal in America it would not--entail the removal of the clitoris or the sewing together of the labia. In fact, female circumcision by definition may be as simple as the removal of the clitoral hood (without removing the clitoris itself), the female equivalent to the foreskin covering the glans of the male p***s, and the clitoral hood is extremely smaller. However, as I have stated repeatedly before, any form whatever of female genital alteration is strictly illegal, so I ask yet again, why are males not guaranteed the same protection by the law? To assert that female circumcision is inherently worse than male circumcision because of the extreme conditions and circumstances under which it is usually performed is no less preposterous than to assert that male circumcision is inherently worse than female circumcision by comparing complete male castration to the removal of a female's clitoral hood.
Despite everything previously discussed here, however, the most important issue at stake is personal liberty. There is a simple reason the legislation passed on female genital mutilation specifies females under the age of eighteen: those over the age of eighteen are deemed mature adults able to decide to do whatever they want with their bodies--if they want to have their genitals altered, they can have virtually any procedure they want performed, given they can find someone willing, able, and licensed to perform the desired procedure. All issues of obsoleteness placed aside, why is it that our society insists on having male infants circumcised? Why is it that our society insists on having a procedure that can be performed later in life, on a larger and therefore more easily alterable organ, performed on neonatal children who are much more susceptible to infection and complications? The fact is that, in electing to have their sons' foreskins removed, parents who opt for circumcision are also removing his liberty to choose for himself what to do with his own body. Why not leave his genitals intact and, if he really wants to have the procedure done, let him choose to have them altered once he is old enough to choose for himself?
To leave children uncircumcised is the only logical conclusion; an uncircumcised man can be circumcised if he wants to be, but a circumcised man can never revert to the natural, intact status he possessed at birth. If there is no advantageous reason for having the procedure performed, and especially if it is purely for cosmetic purposes, then there is no reason to have it performed on an infant who very well could have grown up perfectly content having otherwise not been circumcised. Having become obsolete, creating unfair double standards, and invading on personal liberty, routine infant circumcision in both sexes should be immediately eradicated and made illegal.
Post-script: Additional circumcision advocation arguments and their rebuttals.
It's the parent's choice though!
Legally speaking, you are correct, though many of us would like to see that change. Of course the child cannot choose for himself immediately after birth -- so why choose to have the procedure performed when he can simply elect to have it performed later in life by his own free will, if it is so important to him?
[under construction; will be added to]
Bibliography
The Bible, New International Version, Galatians
Circumcision Statistics. Circumcision Information and Resource Page (CIRP).
<http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics>
1. <http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA>
2. <http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/UK>
Frisch, Morten, Soren Friis, Susanne Kruger Kjear, Mads Melbye. "Falling incidence of p***s cancer in an uncircumcised population (Denmark 1943-90)." British Medical Journal (London), Volume 311, Number 7018: Page 1471, December 2, 1995.
Krieger, Hilary Leila. "A Cut Above the Rest." Jerusalem Post, 21 November 2002.
United States Code of Laws, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Assault: Section 116. Female genital mutilation. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=116>
Most of us have heard of it before, and some of us have been unlucky enough to have heard gruesome accounts of it in one context or another: the terrifying concept of young prepubescent girls having their genitals operated on as a rite of passage. While this concept may seem distant and barbaric to us here in comfortable America, where no doctor or parent would even go so far as to consider altering a female minor's genitals in any way--in fact it is completely and indiscriminately illegal to do so to any extent--we should not be so quick as to place ourselves above what many self-righteous citizens might like to consider the lesser societies. For in fact, not only do Americans have a fixation on the concept of genital alteration, they deem it so important that it is a procedure performed on the majority of an entire half of the population: males. Though in this society the routine circumcision of infant males seems at most an issue of minor significance, I intend to shed light on the attention it deserves, not to make a modest proposal, but to call for a major change. The routine circumcision of males (known colloquially as just that) should receive the same legal attention as the circumcision of females (known much more thought-provokingly as female genital mutilation) for reasons of obsoleteness, gender double standards, and most of all, personal liberty.
Circumcision of both sexes has appeared in various societies throughout history for a slew of reasons, none of which justify the routine application of the procedure. Historically it has had a variety of reasons for being performed, some more excusable than others, including for religious rituals (both male and female), to discourage masturbation (both male and female), to promote chastity (primarily female), to discourage extramarital intercourse (primarily female), and cleanliness (both male and female). Ironically, today in America the only consistently used reason for which circumcision is performed--a high school is a great place to observe the passing down of ignorant perceptions and social norms--is just that: social norms--not medical necessity. The majority of American infant males are circumcised shortly after birth, despite the American Association of Pediatrics' 1999 statement that "the data on potential benefits are insufficient to recommend the practice of neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision," while the American Medical Association declares that "neonatal circumcision is a non-therapeutic procedure" (CIRP1). The British Medical Association goes even further, stating that it is "an invasive, radical procedure, and unless conservative treatments are tried first [e.g., less drastic treatments for disorders such as phimosis, a condition involving a foreskin too tight to be retracted], a therapeutic circumcision would be unethical" (CIRP2). Clearly there is no practical reason for the common circumcision.
For example, how often does one hear about penile cancer, a common reason for circumcision offered by some proponents of the procedure? According to a study conducted in Denmark, where circumcision is very uncommon (its citizens are apparently known for being uncircumcised) from 1943 to 1990, penile cancer rates have been dropping consistently, from less than 1.2 instances per 100,000 persons to about 0.8 instances per 100,000 persons, as much as a third less (Frisch, Morten, Soren Friis, Susanne Kruger Kjear, Mads Melbye). Given this information, the current risk for uncircumcised penile cancer for a Danish citizen would be about 0.000008%. Logic would suggest that these statistics would be roughly equivalent or lower for uncircumcised American males, but even with a much higher rate (for example, closer to 0.008%), the chances of getting cancer are very, very slim. To subject an infant to routine circumcision for reason of such a small chance to get cancer is absurd. Is it okay to alter the genitals of a child "just in case," for an issue that it is very unlikely for him to have to deal with?
Proponents of circumcision try to argue the medical benefits of such a procedure, but what medical benefits are there in removing a healthy, functioning piece of skin? Many Americans are actually unaware of the purpose of the foreskin and often refer to it as "just a piece of skin," comparing its level of functioning and usefulness to that of the appendix, implying that it is useless and should be removed. That, however, is not the case at all, as the foreskin serves two important primary purposes: to protect the glans (the "head" of the p***s) from irritation and unwarranted stimulation (such as from clothes), and to aid in sexual penetration, providing a natural lubricant and increasing vaginal stimulation via its added width. Ironically, some people believe that removing the foreskin makes sex more pleasurable for both parties involved; in fact, the removal of the foreskin creates such an added amount of friction that sex involving a circumcised male requires significantly more lubrication, while sex involving an uncircumcised male may require little or even no lubrication. At the same time, removal of the foreskin actually decreases sensitivity of the glans p***s, as it is subsequently constantly exposed to irritation and friction from everyday things like clothes; in response to this the p***s may become desensitized with the buildup of what amounts to calloused skin.
In 2003, 55.9 percent of American newborn males were circumcised1, compared to a British study that suggests that "3.8 percent of British boys born today would be circumcised by their fifteenth birthday" (CIRP2), suggesting that an even lower number of circumcisions actually are performed neonatally--a drastically low number. In fact the whole of the Western world has statistics much more closely resembling Britain's than America's; America is the sole Western nation on the list of nations in which the majority of infant males are circumcised, most of which are either officially Muslim or Jewish, two groups that circumcise for religious reasons. While the rates of American routine infant circumcision are falling with the rest of the world's, why is America so much farther behind, and why are its people so set on maintaining their essentially meaningless tradition, while the rest of the world realizes the practice is obsolete?
One of the oldest and most long-lived reasons for circumcision is religious ritual. Jews, for example, have had their males circumcised for centuries; the First Covenant with Yahweh, in fact, commands that all males be circumcised on the eighth day after birth as a form of sacrifice and metaphysical cleansing (Krieger). Today, however, American proponents of circumcision rarely use religion as a reason for the procedure to be performed, and when they do, they often speak from a Christian perspective, even though circumcision is obsolete in Christianity: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (The Bible, New International Version, Gal 5.5-6). In other words, with the Second Covenant circumcision is no longer expected and is, in fact, completely obsolete. Why do I propose, however, that we illegalize circumcision when it is such a defining aspect of the Jewish culture? The issue is that in America, law takes precedence over beliefs and religious rites; if a religious rite does not remain consistent with American law, it very well may be illegal. The act passed by Congress banning female genital mutilation, which concerns virtually all forms of alteration whatever to the genitals, states explicitly and plainly that "no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual" (United States Code of Laws, Title 18: Section 116). In other words, if female circumcision were a ritual part of the Jewish culture, a Jewish family could not legally have their daughter's genitals altered in any way, shape or form, regardless and indiscriminate of religious significance. This concept of banning a religious rite may seem questionable and many readers may have already objected to the validity of such a meddlesome and interfering concept, but in order to create laws, very strictly defined lines must be drawn to denote what is legal and what is not. Those who protest indignantly at the presentation of such an idea ought to ponder whether it would be acceptable for the American government to allow a homicidal cult-religion to roam around killing freely "on account of freedom of religion," that noble Jeffersonian concept--a law that is in place not to protect the "right" of religious groups to mutilate their children, but to protect their right to believe whatever they want to believe.
One of the most important issues involved in the legal status of circumcision in America is gender double standards. As stated earlier, legislation was passed which completely and indiscriminately bans any form of genital alteration--of females. What of males? Does not one half of the population deserve the same stringent protection as is guaranteed to the other? "But," you exclaim in pure indignation, "female genital mutilation is disgusting and brutal and barbaric and bloody and immoral and evil!"
It is true that in many societies throughout history, the most often cited in discussion being non-Westernized African tribes, girls averaging the age of twelve or thirteen would be forced to endure having their genitals cut and altered in ways that will not be put into print here, before having their labia sewn together, with just enough room left for urination and menstrual flow, so long as the operation is not botched. But we live in America, where if female circumcision were legal, it would be performed under exceedingly sterile conditions by a licensed doctor or surgeon, rather than a shaman mystic with a rusty, blunt knife or stone, and female circumcision does not necessarily--and if it were legal in America it would not--entail the removal of the clitoris or the sewing together of the labia. In fact, female circumcision by definition may be as simple as the removal of the clitoral hood (without removing the clitoris itself), the female equivalent to the foreskin covering the glans of the male p***s, and the clitoral hood is extremely smaller. However, as I have stated repeatedly before, any form whatever of female genital alteration is strictly illegal, so I ask yet again, why are males not guaranteed the same protection by the law? To assert that female circumcision is inherently worse than male circumcision because of the extreme conditions and circumstances under which it is usually performed is no less preposterous than to assert that male circumcision is inherently worse than female circumcision by comparing complete male castration to the removal of a female's clitoral hood.
Despite everything previously discussed here, however, the most important issue at stake is personal liberty. There is a simple reason the legislation passed on female genital mutilation specifies females under the age of eighteen: those over the age of eighteen are deemed mature adults able to decide to do whatever they want with their bodies--if they want to have their genitals altered, they can have virtually any procedure they want performed, given they can find someone willing, able, and licensed to perform the desired procedure. All issues of obsoleteness placed aside, why is it that our society insists on having male infants circumcised? Why is it that our society insists on having a procedure that can be performed later in life, on a larger and therefore more easily alterable organ, performed on neonatal children who are much more susceptible to infection and complications? The fact is that, in electing to have their sons' foreskins removed, parents who opt for circumcision are also removing his liberty to choose for himself what to do with his own body. Why not leave his genitals intact and, if he really wants to have the procedure done, let him choose to have them altered once he is old enough to choose for himself?
To leave children uncircumcised is the only logical conclusion; an uncircumcised man can be circumcised if he wants to be, but a circumcised man can never revert to the natural, intact status he possessed at birth. If there is no advantageous reason for having the procedure performed, and especially if it is purely for cosmetic purposes, then there is no reason to have it performed on an infant who very well could have grown up perfectly content having otherwise not been circumcised. Having become obsolete, creating unfair double standards, and invading on personal liberty, routine infant circumcision in both sexes should be immediately eradicated and made illegal.
Post-script: Additional circumcision advocation arguments and their rebuttals.
It's the parent's choice though!
Legally speaking, you are correct, though many of us would like to see that change. Of course the child cannot choose for himself immediately after birth -- so why choose to have the procedure performed when he can simply elect to have it performed later in life by his own free will, if it is so important to him?
[under construction; will be added to]
Bibliography
The Bible, New International Version, Galatians
Circumcision Statistics. Circumcision Information and Resource Page (CIRP).
<http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics>
1. <http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA>
2. <http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/UK>
Frisch, Morten, Soren Friis, Susanne Kruger Kjear, Mads Melbye. "Falling incidence of p***s cancer in an uncircumcised population (Denmark 1943-90)." British Medical Journal (London), Volume 311, Number 7018: Page 1471, December 2, 1995.
Krieger, Hilary Leila. "A Cut Above the Rest." Jerusalem Post, 21 November 2002.
United States Code of Laws, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Assault: Section 116. Female genital mutilation. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=116>
