I love my feminism class. It has opened me up to my new favorite identity that I've discovered about myself...my feminism side. That said, today in class I gave a presentation on Vaginal Rejuvenation (no thanks to my partner who showed up an hour late with nothing to contribute to the project). My presentation focused on the comparison between voluntary vaginal reconstruction surgery anf Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Africa and the Middle-East. In fact we watched a case in Africa where a young girl is having an FGM performed on her, and all we were thinking is this is awful and how can this be happening? But then I had to wonder don't we do the same thing in our society but with baby boys when we circumsize them? The only difference is that the young girls lose their entire clitoris and labia leaving only a hole. But besides that it's almost the same thing, removing a part of the sexual organs of a young child without anything given for the pain...and it is socially accepted!! Any thoughts on this??
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Vaginal Rejuvenation.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10556
Circumcision does deliver a public health benefit: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
Furthermore, circumcision is done a few days after birth. The child isn't going to remember it, and there are some who would argue that an infant isn't even conscious at this point in their life.
FGM is performed when a girl is older, and fully aware of what is happening. The removal of the clitoris impedes sexual experience later in life. The procedure itself is very high risk (some girls die) and has no medical benefit.
Sorry, but I just don't see the comparison.
Yea, I'm with K. Rae on this one. Circumcision actually allows the penis to be more easily stimulated (not that this is the important aspect of the procedure, I'm just sayin.), while FM, you know, does the opposite in a pretty violent, horrifying, and irreparable way.
OK, how to say this delicately... I've known a couple of uncircumcised guys and they say the idea that a circumcised penis is more easily stimulated is not true. There are a lot fo strange ideas about male circumcision circulating in our culture that just turn out to be false.
How would they know?
By their descriptions, men who are circumcised seem to have fairly similar sexual experiences to those who are not. There are a number of books and websites on this topic.
I think the consensus is that tissue that's exposed develops the same degree of "toughness." But I've read a bunch of research on this, and there's some conflicting evidence. Some people claim that circumcised men orgasm faster, and some of the research supports this, while other research does not. It is a medical fact that more nerve endings are removed during a circumcision than most people realize, and this can certainly contribute to a change in sexual experience. This fact is really troubling to me, because most people wrongly believe that there are no nerve endings in the foreskin, and this is the traditional story you get from the medical establishment. Fostering ignorance seems really irresponsible to me.
Interesting. I've mostly heard proponents of male circumcision say it's more hygienic, but maybe this is just an ingrained tradition. For example, not eating pork or not eating shellfish, or even separating meat and dairy (Kosher) as is practiced in many religions usually stems from a time when these practices caused illnesses and could not be easily cured. The animals were seen as unclean creatures. I'm not an expert, and I'm not knocking any practice, just speculating. I intend to read more and speculate further.
Isn't it crazy (and great) how Feministing always ends up adding to your to-read list? Although my to-read list is already insanely long, I don't really feel like complaining. :D
The only way to measure this is to have an uncircumcised guy get circumcised as an adult and compare experiences before and after. Actually, you would need a large number of guys from different ages, races, orientations, what have you, to ensure that you did not measure the exception.
Who wants to fill out a grant application?
Sure, but the fact that circumcision removes tissue that contains nerve endings and has a number of functions is disturbing, isn't it?
I'm totally not trying to cause trouble here, but the idea that infants at that age aren't conscious is really antiquated. My daughter was a premie and had to get all kinds of blood tests done so they were constantly poking her heel, and she screamed everytime, and remembered it from one day to the next. After three days in the hospital they had to send a different lab tech because she started screaming right when the tech walked in the door.
In philosophy of mind, the few people who advocate this view are also those who think there's nothing wrong with vet schools doing surgery over and over again on the same animal with no anesthesia whatsoever. Inspite of the fact that the animal shows signs of pain, tries to escape, etc. In this view consciousness is defined in such a narrow way that infants, animals, and the mentally disabled are never thought to be conscious.
One is clipping off a tiny piece of skin in deference to God*. One is carving out an organ, so that the victim will be sexually crippled.
"But besides that it's almost the same thing"
* You don't have to care about that part, but the point is that it's not intended to damage the child, as FGM deliberately destroys a girl sexually.
I totally agree that male circumcision and FGM are not the same at all. But it's kind of inaccurate to characterize the foreskin as "a tiny piece of skin." It's actually a good-sized sheath of skin that contains quite a few nerve endings. And many researchers have concluded that it has a number of functions that are generally not discussed.
What functions are those? A little late for me, but that's something I've never heard.
One source lists 12:
1) to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
2) to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3) to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion throughout life.
4) to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5) to lubricate the glans.
6) to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7) to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8) to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9) to serve as an aid to penetration.
10) to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11) to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
12) to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner.
and another one lists 17.
I read another book that listed 15 when I was pregnant. Of course, I also read a number of pro-circumcision sources. We didn't know the sex of the baby and wanted to be prepared with an answer in case it was a boy, since you don't have that much time to decide after the baby's born and you're not in a great position to be doing a ton of research. =)
Wow, what a can 'o worms.
First off, language is important. The preferred term is Female Genital Cutting (FGC), preferred by many recipients of the procedure b/c they do not consider themselves to be mutilated. You will find the same response from many American men who have been circumcised - they do not like opponents of circumcision calling it mutilation. In fact, many recipients of FGC consider the radically circumcised female body to be more beautiful than the unaltered female body.
There are many kinds of FGC, categorized by the WHO into 4 types (http://www.who.int/topics/female_genital_mutilation/en/ )
The type which removes the least tissue involves clipping the clitoral hood. This is exactly analogous to circumcision of American males. The most radical type is infibulation, which involves removal of all external genitalia, including labia majora, and sewing the vulvular opening shut almost all the way shut. The vulva is ripped open upon intercourse, and ripped open again during childbirth. Sometimes the infibulation is repeated after childbirth. The equivalent procedure on a male would be complete removal of the penis.
All cosmetic surgical procedures performed on female genitalia are rooted in particular ideas about women's sexuality and their relationship to men. Circumcision of males is rooted in their relationship to god and is not tied to their sexuality. While certain surgical procedures performed on males and females may bear superficial similarities, the intent is not comparable.
I definitely agree that FGC and male circumcision are profounfly different. But I'm not sure about this:
"Circumcision of males is rooted in their relationship to god and is not tied to their sexuality. "
This is clearly true in certain religious communities, but in America, the rise in non-Jewish circumcision occured during the Victorian era and was connected to the fear of/disapproval of masturbation. There's a really interesting discussion of this in "A Short History of the Institutionalization of Involuntary Sexual Mutilation in the United States" by F. A. Hodges, which is in the book Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy.
I have two boys both with intact penises. Our religion says nothing about circumcision, it was a personal decision that I made.
As for an infant not being conscious that comment left me speechless. My youngest son had major surgery at 2 days old . By the way he fought doctors who tried to tube him, writhed when extubated, turned his head to look for Mom (who sat on the same seat each day) when only his head was not paralyzed by meds I would strongly argue that an infant is very, very conscious. Don't tell me it's some tranference either. I am not sentimental
Anecdotal yes, but it would take a truck load of evidence to change my mind.
Consciousness does not always mean memory. In fact in infants, it almost never does. Just thought that was pertinent to the discussion.
So it would be okay for me to put you through immense pain right now if you couldn't remember it tomorrow.
Or to put it another way: It is okay for a man to spike a woman's drink with roofies and rape her because she won't remember it, and that makes it okay.
You do realise that a person can be traumatized by a terrible event even if they do not remember the event itself, right?
I don't know about any research into this regarding babies, but your argument left me fuming. Consciousness is enough of a reason to not cause anyone pain. That's why people going under surgery are given drugs to keep them numb or asleep. It's a matter of comfort during the operation, not a matter of whether they'll remember.
So, no, it was not pertinent.
Finally! Found a source: http://www.hon.ch/Dossier/MotherChild/postnatal/brain_dev.html
"Although it has already undergone an amazing amount of development, the brain of a newborn baby is still very much a work-in-progress. It is small - 25% of its adult size & weight - and strikingly uneven in its maturity. By birth, only the lower portions of the nervous system (the spinal cord and brain stem) are very well developed, whereas the higher regions (the limbic system and cerebral cortex) are still rather primitive.
The lower brain is therefore largely in control of a newborn's behaviour (cf. reflexes ), while the cerebral cortex is still quite immature. As the highest, most recently evolved part of the brain, the cerebral cortex is responsible for all of our conscious thoughts, feelings, memories, and voluntary actions."
Sure, so the lower part is "largely in control" and the cerebral cortex is still developing. But it's not non-existent, and newborns react to pain and discomfort in a way that suggests some degree of consciousness. That's why all procedures such as surgery and circumcision that are done on newborns now involve anasthetic.
Yes. I read another source saying that pain and other stimuli are much stronger in newborns. This is necessary to develop appropriate responses.
That being said, I don't think fears about pain are adequate justification for parents to be foregoing circumcision. The loss of the functions you listed above are much more important concerns.
Especially in comparison with FGC. The experience a newborn male has when his foreskin is removed is nothing in comparison to the experience of a young girl who has her clitoris cut away.
Agreed.
There are different types of FGM, they range all the way from complete removal of labia and clitoris and sewing up the vaginal opening (leaving a hole just big enough for menstrual blood to pass through) to just removal of the clitoral hood. That last one is fairly analogous with circumcision. Proponents of female and male circumcision (as it can be called) both say it has health benefits and increases sexual pleasure. Oddly enough opponents of it claim the exact opposite.
Also, the tradition of male circumcision at birth is a mostly western thing (as far as I know). I know that some of the tribes and cultures in Africa that do this to their children wait until both boys and girls are preteen or teen before circumcising the boy or preforming whatever form of FGM on the girl (they see it as a rite of passage for growing up).
We've had FGM in our country for a long time. It's not been as severe as that practiced in other areas (and its been a fairly well kept secret). It used to be perfectly acceptable to cut off the clitoral hood or even the clitoris to treat abberent sexuality in girls all the way up into the late 50's. There are still tales of doctors, at birth, shaving or cutting a baby girl's labia or clitoris because the doctor deems it abnormal large (and that doesn't count children born with ambiguous genitalia). And last but not least, epistotimies and the so called 'husband's knot' (sewing up the vaginal opening after birth so that it's nice and tight for the husband). If that doesn't count as an underhanded American version of FGM, then I'm a monkey's aunt.
Great point. Isn't it crazy that so many people just accept episiotomies as healthy, routine, and necessary?
It seems to me like that's a problem with a lot of women's health issues, especially in the past. There is a ton of abuse that has been perpetrated against women by the medical establishment, all in the name of health and morality. Epistotimies, vagioplasty, boob jobs, hymen removals/ rejuvenations, the origin of vibrators, the overwhelming need to control female sexuality, the complete lack of knowledge on the workings of female sexuality. And all of this history is completely lacking from the public consciousness. It saddens me :(
I know! I read a great book about medical ideas about women during the Victorian era, and it was fascinating. But when I tell most people these things they act like it's some kind of conspiracy theory. Amazing.
Circumcision has been proven to have no medical detriments to the boys except for a very rare surgical complication and what's more, provides protection against some STDs, including a 50-60% protection against HIV. While that's not enough to require it for everyone, obviously-- need a lot more benefit than that to justify making it routine. But for those who have a religious or cultural reason, there is no real reason to stop it, provided they do so in a sterile field with sterile tools and anesthetic. There is simply no comparison.
And who told you circumcision doesn't involve anesthetic? It usually involves injecting a nerve block to the base of the penis, completely numbing the penis. Even traditional mohels now use a topical anesthetic around the area. Babies that cry during it usually are just a little confused and want to be held instead of lying on a cold table-- and many sleep through it, especially when their mothers stay with them. They aren't crying in pain.
Yes, occasionally there are screw ups, but they are very rare and usually only occur if you let an untrained resident practice on your son-- if you request a pediatrician at the hospital or have it done afterwards by a trained mohel or experienced pediatrician, you have nothing to worry about.
This is somewhat controversial.
Circumcision has been proven to have no medical detriments to the boys except for a very rare surgical complication
I meant this is somewhat controversial.
The problem with the religious/culture justification is that the person with the religion or culture is not the person being circumcised most of the time.
What? Jewish Mohels circumcise Jewish baby boys; Muslims circumcise Muslim boys.
I'm not sure that a baby who's a few days old can really "belong to" a religion or culture. Clearly their parents can, but can they?
I think a semi-good analogy for (male) circumcision is the flu shot. We take little toddlers in to get the flu shot on the chance it will protect them from getting sick, and those toddlers are getting hurt and can remember the pain (my 18 month old niece freaks out walking into the doctor's office because she remembers getting needles there). Circumcision can protect boys/men from getting infections and stds. It's a relatively safe procedure that the baby boy won't remember. My nephew didn't get circumcised at birth, but by the time he was 2 he kept getting infections, and so got circumcised then (much more traumatic).
I'm not sure that this is a fair comparison, because there are other ways to prevent STDs and infections. They are usually very simple, such as pulling back the foreskin and washing with soap and water. Or using a condom. We don't pre-emptively remove other healthy parts of the body on the off chance that they might get infected.
What SociologicalMe said.
Condoms have been around for a long time, and yet STD's still spread. Adding another layer of defense hardly seems like a bad idea.
I wrestle with this issue when it comes to places like Africa where the AIDS rate is so high that public health officials recommend routine circumcision. I can see how it would be beneficial in that situation. But I also think that a lot of it has to do with a failure to effectively use condoms thanks to abstinence-only sex ed and other social factors. So for my part, I plan to teach my son to take care of himself and use condoms and make informed decisions about his body and sexuality.
Condoms are great. People don't always use them correctly. Education mitigates but does not solve this problem.
Circumcision doesn't solve the problem, either.