I've heard it called Male Genital Mutilation. I've heard religious commentary on its necessity. I've read about the "hygiene" issues. I've read about so-called social stigmas for being "intact" in the boys locker room. But I still don't know, if I give birth to a baby boy in a few weeks, should we circumcise him?
This is an issue that has long-lasting, religious, social and cultural effects. A botched circumcision can inhibit a normal sex life. Some hetero women say intact males feel better. I met a man who chose to be circumcised at the age of 25, and 10 years later, says his penis still hurts from time to time. Does it matter if you're a baby and have no memory of the event?
Feminists argue against female genital mutilation as a cultural practice, citing that there is no medical reason to ever cut off a woman's clitoris. the practice is seen mostly as brutal and torture-like. Can the same be said of male circumcision? As sisters, mothers, and friends of men/boys, should we care about this?
Lots of info here and here . But a quick google search will yield thousands more.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is circumcision a feminist issue?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13751
I am against circumcision of any kind, on males or females. I am not so out-spoken about female circumcision though as I am about male circumcision because of course it is a terrible practice and there is no reason that anyone can ever come up with that can convince me it is ok. But for males, it has become so common that it is weird to people if I start talking about it being a barbaric tradition. I'm sorry if that offends anyone who is circumcised or someone who circumcised their son, but to me it is unnecessary and rooted in ridiculous religious tradition. There is no conclusive data about health problems on either side of the issue and, in my opinion, if you are not willing to pull the foreskin back a little bit in the shower and wash for an extra three minutes, then you and just plain lazy. I am going to do my very best to make sure my son (if I have one) is not circumcised, but the problem is getting the other person to understand...I think that more women should be involved in the issue (as well as men of course) because in order to truly gain equality, we need to support each other and not just count on support.
That's just my two cents.
I'd just like to point out that there can be legitimate medical reasons for doing it as well. In some cases if the foreskin doesn't retract properly circumscision is advised to keep the (male) child from being in pain. I know that's not why most boys are circumsised, but its not always the parents making a bad decision.
Male babies are born with the foreskin firmly attached to the glans. It begins to separate around 2-3 years old, with roughly half of adolescents having it retract fully by the age of 10.
So while it is true that the foreskin sometimes will not retract on its own, a parent wouldn't know that until their child is nearing his teenage years. If this is a factor in parents' decision for infant circumcision, they're doing it to prevent the possibility of this happening, not to fix an already present problem. Although, you're right, as an adolescent or adult this could be a reasonable choice, though it is possible to have a healthy, normal sex life even if you experience phimosis(non-retractable foreskin.) For some this is a painful condition and requires circumcision to fix the problem, for others there is no pain associated with it. It depends on the person.
Just wanted to clarify my above comment. You're right--if the foreskin feels too tight and is a painful condition for a child, circumcision is an option.
Another way is to do stretching exercises with the foreskin and a topical corticosteroid cream. From what I've read, this works in about 90% of cases. I'm not clear if this actually cures phimosis or just the pain associated with it, though.
My husband, now 36, had a circumcision two years ago because of his phimosis. His foreskin would rip when we had sex and he constantly had painful tears that made sex unbearable etc. So while there is (I believe) no good reason to circumcise a newborn, there is certainly evidence of medical necessity in this case. The healing was painful and longer than we liked, but the outcome is worth it.
I have two sons, about 8 years apart in age. My first son was circumcised mostly because my husband and I both took it for granted that that was the "normal" thing to do. It caused our son to spend 6 hours away from us, which worried us, and then was uncomfortable during diaper changes for days.
We decided not to circumcise our younger son. It wasn't worth it the first time around, and we chose not to repeat the experience.
It's absolutely a women's issue. Women are the ones who sign the consent form most of the time. Women are the ones who more often than not, DON'T want to do it, but are pressured into it by their partner.
This is not to blame the man (sometimes it's the woman who wants to and the man who doesn't). However, men who have been circumcised tend more often to want it for their kids because they want them to "look like them". Often, when confronted, men will get very angry and throw out things like, "you don't have a penis!"
Again, I don't blame the guy, but if women are consenting to circumcision of their precious babies just to appease the man or because they have been bullied about it, that's a problem.
It's a tricky one. I totally understand the body integrity and consent issues, but to me ultimately it is just theory. I've never actually met a man who wishes he weren't circumcised, but I do know a few men who wish they were, and one who actually got circumcised as an adult, when it is a much more involved operation.
Furthermore, assuming your hypothetical son grows up into a man who enjoys having sex with women, there's pretty strong evidence that circumcised men have a greatly reduced risk of acquiring/transmitting HPV, which causes cervical cancer. http://health.usnews.com/blogs/on-women/2009/03/26/why-women-should-favor-circumcision-to-prevent-hpv-infection.html
I'm pretty sure there's an entire organization of men who wish they weren't circumcised, and who sometimes seek surgical procedures or prosthetics to regain a foreskin. I've never met one either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Bumblebee43,
Many men are unhappy with having been circumcised. Unfortunately, it is still hard for many men to talk about for several reasons. One, people laugh it off. Two, they may not even have the words to describe what they are feeling.
http://norm.org/
http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/
And the HPV thing is absolute bull. The majority of men in this country are circumcised- and we still have HPV. Up to 90% of HPV clears up on its own within 2 years. Other than that, the most effective way to prevent it is condoms, pap smears, and if you choose it, the HPV vaccine.
Here's more on the medical angle from Dr. Dean Edell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuu07U2FokQ
Male circumcision is less severe than almost all of the widely practiced forms of female genital cutting. But if you're against Type 1a FGC, then it is only consistent to be against male circumcision as well.
Personally, I would never circumcise any child of mine. Short of a medical problem that inhibits function I see no convincing reason to surgically alter a child's genitals.
THANK YOU.
I don't know how many times I've worded it that same way and got blasted for trying to equate MGM with extreme versions of FGM. When I had clearly just said type 1a.
Bravo, and thankyou for the post.
You can search the feministing archives- this has come up in the past. I think it's definitely a feminist issue, or at least one that a lot of feminists care about (if there's even a difference between those two). My position is this: it's my son's body, and I don't have the right to cut off a healthy part of it without a seriously compelling medical reason to do so. There really isn't one (the AMA doesn't even push for routine circumcisions anymore) so I didn't do it. If he wants to be circumcised, he can make that decision himself, as an adult. If he gets made fun of in the locker room, I'll deal with that the same way I would deal with him getting picked on or bullied for anything else. If I have to have a slightly difficult conversation with him about why his penis looks different from his daddy's, big deal, I'll have a conversation. All this being said, I do not believe in attacking or demonizing parents who make a different decision. They have their reasons, and they have the procedure done by professionals in a low-risk situation. I would love to be able to convince everyone not to circumcise, but ultimately it's not my decision and I support the right of other parents to make their own decisions.
I'm very glad it didn't happen to me, the foreskin is packed with nerves, not to mention its function in keeping the rest of the penis sensitive. At the same time the frenulum is a major erogenous zone.
For a fairly long time I puzzled why I never needed lube to masturbate while other people claimed it was a necessity.
whoops not actually meant to be a response
I don't know if it's a "women's issue" specifically, but it is an issue about the bodily integrity of people who don't have a voice, which seems to put it squarely in the realm of things feminists care about.
I became aware of the issues surrounding male circumcision from two different fronts around the same time - first from learning that some Reform Jewish families are forgoing the actual cutting during bris milah, and then from dating an uncircumcised man. He'd researched the issue when he was a teenager and discovered he looked different from most guys in the locker room. After talking with his parents about their choice, and reading up on it, he was very, very relieved that he wasn't circumcised and planned to do the same for his future sons.
It is no more a womans issue then FGM is for men.
Here's the thing, I love my girlfriend my sisters and mother. So anything that is their issue is my issue. MGM is a woman's issue. It is a man's issue.
jewsagainstcircumcision.org
http://jewishcircumcision.org/women.htm
This is one of those places where the issues of motherhood bring it into the realm of feminism (although I think lots of women who aren't mothers also feel strongly about this without it fitting into issues of motherhood at all). As your story pointed out, parents have to make the decision for a baby boy, and that is how many women learn about this issue for the first time. I am opposed to making an irreversible and not necessarily needed decision like that for a child.
I've heard it called Male Genital Mutilation.
No better description.
I've heard religious commentary on its necessity.
Human rights to an intact body > Religon
I've read about the "hygiene" issues. I've read about so-called social stigmas for being "intact" in the boys locker room.
Both ridiculous. The first has been debunked. The second is just plain stupid.
But I still don't know, if I give birth to a baby boy in a few weeks, should we circumcise him?
To be honest what benefits do you see in having it done? You will permanently take away a natural healthy pleasure giving piece of skin.
This is an issue that has long-lasting, religious, social and cultural effects
Then the 21st century rolled round.
A botched circumcision can inhibit a normal sex life.
And die, rarely but it still happens. I read a case in Canada in the last ten years died. God knows how many have been reassigned as girls do to it.
Some hetero women say intact males feel better.
This is an empty statement. How women "feel" should never even be mentioned when it comes to MGM.
Does it matter if you're a baby and have no memory of the event?
He may not remember it, but he will have to live with the fact his parents consented to have his genitals altered to suit their purposes.
Feminists argue against female genital mutilation as a cultural practice, citing that there is no medical reason to ever cut off a woman's clitoris. the practice is seen mostly as brutal and torture-like. Can the same be said of male circumcision?
Yes, true most and I mean overwhelming FGM is more severe and dangerous then MGM. But, just because the suffering of one is greater does not diminish the fact the second is still suffering.
As sisters, mothers, and friends of men/boys, should we care about this?
Do you care about their well being? I would stop at no end to prevent the same from happening to my future daughter. I hope "women" will have the strength to step for the sons like we are starting to for our daughters.
Intact males do feel better, in my experience. Plus, no need for lube. ;)
And I, on the other hand, haven't noticed much of a difference, and can't quite figure out what the "lube" comment means? It's different for every individual, I guess.
I suppose I have noticed that the uncircumcised men I have been with have been slightly self-conscious about it, since it's a little uncommon and therefore "weird," but I don't know if that piece of information should matter any more than just another little piece of interesting anecdote to add to the pile.
The foreskin helps the penis slide in a self lubricated sheath, decreasing the friction between the penis and the vagina, decreasing or removing the need for lube in intercourse.
At the same time a substantial number of circumcised men need lube to masturbate.
I mean, I'm willing to believe that that is generally the case, I guess, I just have absolutely zero first hand experience with it (and am not inexperienced sexually with both circumcised and uncircumcised men).
OTOH, do you know anything about this feature being a possible difficulty for uncircumcised men using condoms? I don't want to go into too much detail, but might that sheath-shifting-around stuff make it a little trickier?
I've never had this problem. I'm uncircumcised and I have no objection to using condoms. In fact I'm typically far more in favor of them then the girls I've had sex with. Never had a condom slip off either if that was your worry.
Some men may suffer from frenulum breve where the foreskin ends up loose and I could see that being a problem with condoms.
I mean, I don't suppose you have any more information about that than your own experience? I've looked around for it but I can't seem to find anything, and it's been sort of an issue (not a major one, but it's there) with several of the uncircumcised guys I've known.
P.S. I don't know how comfortable I am referring to uncircumcised men as "intact." Sure, it makes sense in a very literal sort of way, but it seems like it wouldn't be much of a leap from there to thinking of circumcised men as somehow "less of a man" for it, which is, you know, obviously not good :/
Would you feel that the same judgment is applied to women who have been cut (and usually cut far more severely than any man) - that they are somehow "less of a woman" because they've been circumcised?
I personally feel that given the social and cultural pressure towards circumcision (of both male and female children, depending on your culture) that its important to establish unmodified genitalia as the baseline condition, and therefore favour "intact" over "un-circumcised". I'm open to suggestions though.
I'm generally against any kind of "would you feel the same if the genders were switched" argument style at this point, honestly. Also, I'm not sure you understand my comment? I was generally arguing against there being a "baseline" or "norm" condition at all in this case, not that circumcision should be the norm.
It's just common language about this topic in the medical world. I don't see the problem with it.
To go with your argument though, saying circumcised vs. un-circumcised seems problematic as it establishes the circumcised as the "normal" since the negative prefix is given to the latter.
Which is also why I don't go with intact and un-intact. I think intact and circumcised are the most fair.
What reason do you have to believe that men encourage it more often?
supposed to be a reply to caroline.....
People don't like being told they're abnormal, sometimes this goes so far as actively attempting to make other people like them.
I'm not sure i understand this, since in the US a majority of males are circumcised
And that majority doesn't want to believe their missing out on anything, and if they acknowledged that it this was unjust they'd also be acknowledging that they are missing out on something.
I'm not really sure what I'll do if I have a baby boy. I think it sounds wrong in principle, but my boyfriend is circumcised and he says he's glad he was circumcised as a baby. I pointed out that a guy could get it done as an adult if he really wanted it done, and he said that its much more painful to do it at that point. I wonder if there really is a difference in the actual pain and healing, rather than the memory of it. I think that in general infants heal much better than adults-- I've heard of infants having surgery and ending up with no scars. So its quite possible that being circumcised as a baby is very different than being circumcised as an adult.
I don't really like the idea of circumcising a baby, but what do you do when the father of the baby, the one who actually has a penis and is happy being circumcised, is for it? I can't experience any of this so should I defer to the person who can?
It sort of seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation to me. Your son could grow up to be angry about either choice. I kind of wish it wasn't even an option.
For every man who is glad he was circumcised, there is a man who is upset that he was. To some it may seem insignificant, but to others it feels like a violation of their autonomy. Wouldn't it be better to let your child decide what is right for him?
When I suggested that to my boyfriend, his response was that it sucks way more to have it done as an adult than as a baby, and a son could easily be mad that it wasn't done back when it was easy. That is, its not quite as simple as saying he can always get it done later, because its more complicated to do later*.
I think if it were completely up to me I wouldn't do it. But if the father wants to do it (as the person with the equipment to understand it), I'm not sure who should get to make that decision.
*This might be a similar dilemma, though less extreme, as that faced by parents of transgender kids. In that case the kid can express their opinion of course, but they're young and its hard to say if they really understand the consequences of things like sex reassignment surgery and taking artificial hormones. On the other hand, you can't just tell them to wait till they're an adult because a lot of those procedures are drastically more effective if done at a younger age.
Its not more complicated to do to an adult, it just takes a bit longer to heal because adults are...active and not, you know...immobile blobs.
Your son could be mad that he didn't have it done when he'd have no memory of it, but he'd get over it. Would he get over having a part of his genitalia removed without his say, especially if he was born in an era when it was proven medically unnecessary? Less likely.
I dunno, either way you're trying to predict the future. My boyfriend is glad he was circumcised, so yes, he "got over it" (or rather doesn't feel there was anything to get over). So its quite possible that my hypothetical son WOULD "get over" having been circumcised. Or, he might not. I don't know how to predict what the social trends will be regarding this, or what teenage boys will say in the locker room*, or how any particular man will feel about it. If my boyfriend had never been circumcised, I don't know if he would have been just as happy with that, or if he would have felt bad about being "different." I suspect he would have been fine with it either way, but there's no way to know.
This is a problem with any treatment that works better when you're younger. Off the top of my head, lots of kids are forced to get braces that they hate and that are painful. It would be easy to say oh, just leave it till they're adults and let them decide, but there are a couple problems with that: A lot of orthodontic work only works when your jaw is growing, its expensive and so easier to do under parents healthcare, and there is a social stigma to having crooked teeth as a young adult.
If it were left up to me at the time I wouldn't have gotten braces, because they hurt and I hated having them. But I'm glad it was done when I was younger because it worked out well and I would have hated even more to have to do it as an adult. Should I feel angry that my parents wanted to change the shape of my teeth and jaw? (I had an overbite that was fixed with rubber bands). I don't know, maybe. But in the end I'm happy with how it worked out. Its debatable how much of it was cosmetic and how much was about function-- according to my dentist, my teeth weren't matching up correctly and it would have caused problems throughout my life, possibly requiring more dental work later, if it wasn't fixed.
*As a girl, I'm always shocked when I hear stories of boys comparing penises and stuff like that. I mean, when I was in middle school us girls were masters at changing for gym without really being naked and without looking at anyone else. I would never have known if my labia looked different from other people's.
You keep comparing things that are not comparable. Braces is not equal to removal of the foreskin. It just isn't.
"I dunno, either way you're trying to predict the future"
So why take the chance of doing something irreversible?
Pantheon, I totally hear ya about damned if you do, damned if you don't. Another reason why I'm happy to defer to the father of the baby, should I be pregnant with a boy :-)
Your son might be mad that he wasn't circumcised? Seriously? Well, at least he can choose to have the surgery later, as opposed to not having a choice at all. If your son really wants to be circumcised, then the pain of surgery later in life will most likely be worth it.
Like I said, I'm leaning against doing it (hypothetically-- I'm not pregnant). But every guy I know is circumcised and happy with it, and that's gotta make you think. Who am I to tell them they're mutilated and they should be angry about it?
Please don't jump on me for being pro-circumcision or something. All I've said is that I don't like the idea of it but I'm not 100% decided on what I'd do if I had a son -- whether I would insist on making that decision myself or whether I'd let the father have some input.
Sorry, I don't mean to jump on you.
You can say that every guy you know is okay with it, but really, so what? They don't speak for all circumcised men. It just so happens that the majority of my male friends wish they weren't circumcised. Doesn't that make you think that it should be up to the individual?
"Who am I to tell them they're mutilated and they should be angry about it?"
But who are you (or your hypothetical son's father) to decide to unnecessarily remove a part of his body?
Just to chime in -- I think that if I were in your shoes I would want to continue having serious conversations about it with the father, and that ultimately, if the father was staunchly in favor of it, I might actually defer to him. I know I'm going to get some backlash for this, but I just wouldn't feel comfortable making that sort of decision on "principle" against the wishes of 1) the other parent who 2) had actually experienced the procedure in question. I'm not saying that this is necessarily how one should proceed in all these sorts of decisions, it's just what I think I would end up doing if I were in this particular situation.
I also don't think that male circumcision is in any way comperable to FGM simply because the general construction of the genitals are different enough to make it not really comperable. Even though it seems like maybe circumcision might be kind of like removal of the clitoral hood, you have to remember that the clitoris and the glans, although alike in some ways, are certainly not the same thing (e.g. the clitoris has a much higher concentration of nerve endings) -- and of course, if you *say* "circumcision is like FGM!" people are going to think that you mean the extreme kind that makes the news, and I think it's kind of insulting to the horrors of FGM (not to mention to the circumcised men who don't feel like their genitals are "mutilated") to compare it to circumcision.
I'm not sure how all this fits into the rest of my feminist ideals, and it's totally possible that some piece of it conflicts somewhere. Everything is a work in progress.
I also say, have a real heart-to-heart with the father. ultimately I would defer to the father's choice, since he is the "model" in a way. blast me and say it's not feminist, but it makes lots of sense.
The clitoral hood and the foreskin are both the prepuce, they both protect the glans/clitoris, keeping it sensitive and moist, while at the same time containing one of the highest concentrations of light touch nerves in the human body. The prepuce, and the frenulum which connects it to the glans/clitoris itself is a source of sexual stimulation.
Without the prepuce the glans/clitoris will dry out, harden and desensitize. There are a few differences but it hardly without merit to suggest that the male and female prepuce are pretty close analogs.
Your example doesn't particularly sway me, even if the clitoris is more sensitive then the glans, it is not therefore a justification to take away sensitivity away from the glans. The glans is still the most sensitive part on the male body just as the clitoris is the most sensitive part on the female body.
My point wasn't to justify taking sensitivity away from the glans, my point was that male circumcision is not "just like" female circumcision, even if we limit it to the clitoral hood -- what I implied but might not have explicitly stated is my speculation that removing the clitoral hood would be much more damaging to sexual function and pleasure than male circumcision is, because the extremely high concentration of nerve endings (higher than in the glans) could make any touch painful and uncomfortable without the hood. I don't think this is really comparable to the results of male circumcision. Again, I'm not arguing for circumcision here, I just really don't think that arguing that circumcision is "just like" FGM is the right way to go (for both immediate biological reasons, like what I've mentioned here, as well as some very real and serious social reasons as well).
The glans is that sensitive as well. And it can be uncomfortable to touch, much less let dangle around unprotected in a pair or jeans (which to any uncircumcised guy sounds utterly excruciating).
Further we are talking about the median amount of nerve endings. The deviations tend to vastly out weigh any difference between individuals.
On what basis are you saying "the glans is that sensitive as well"? Just sheer number of nerve endings? Isn't the concentration meaningful?
And either way, even if it were biologically "the same thing" (which it isn't), I still think it's pretty terrible to say that circumcision is "the same thing" as FGM, considering the vast institutional hatred of women's sexuality, women's bodies, and women in general that surrounds the latter. I mean, this is kind of a terrible example, but it sort of reminds me of people using "rape" as metaphorical language, even when it's well intended and you can see what they're getting at (e.g. "raping the environment"). Circumcision as it is practiced is nothing at all like the practice of FGM in almost every respect, except for the fact of somewhat analogous biological features being involved.
I can say the glans on an uncircumcised man is so sensitive that it can be uncomfortable to touch and painful to have rubbing against clothes because I have one and it is. Further when talking to other uncircumcised men the response is the exact same.
However many nerve endings is necessary to reach the point of touch being uncomfortable is very easily surpassed by the glans.
I gotta say, I think a decision to "let your child decide" once they're an adult is pretty much a decision in favor of not circumcising. Not because I think no one would ever want to be circumcised (I know a few who have), but because once you're an adult and fully aware of the pain involved, and with a more difficult healing process, etc, it would just take a really extreme devotion to it to make the process worth it then (which is different from just a casual "Yeah, I kind of wish they had had it done when I was a kid" attitude).
Yeah, this is what I was getting at, but said better. The vast majority of people are not going to make a decision to change their genitals one way or the other* as an adult, so whatever decision you make for the child is most likely the way its going to stay. That's why I'm kind of annoyed that I even have to make the decision. I'd love to just let the kid decide, but they can't decide as a baby and its kind of a burden to tell them to decide as an adult.
I'd be much happier of circumcision of any sort had never been invented, but given that most men in our society are circumcised and fine with it, its a tough decision. Most teenagers don't want to be "different," but they also probably don't want to go through painful surgery, so they could very well be mad at their parents for not having it done when they were an infant.
*I think I heard, but I might be wrong, that plastic surgeons can try to undo a circumcision just like they can offer labioplasties for women.
No. There is no surgical fix for circumcision. There is foreskin restoration, which means that men wear weights around their penis to try and stretch the skin to give a foreskin-like effect in a attempt to re-sensitize the toughened mucous membrane of the glans, but it in no way gives back full functioning of the foreskin. There is no way to get that erogenous tissue back.
I don't disagree with your comment on the surface, but I'm still really uncomfortable with the sort of dramatic language of thinking of uncircumcised men as "intact" and circumcised men as having a "lost" foreskin that they will never get back and so on :/ I am a woman and so I can't speak to what it's like from first personal experience, but... I don't know. It's just something different. I do think that we should think about circumcision and seriously consider its origins, its effects, its place in society, and so forth, and I am definitely skeptical of it as most of the rest of you are, but I really don't think it's fair to anyone to call it a mutilation, one that leaves someone not intact and causes them to "lose" something that they will never get back. Again, yeah, it's factually true that removal of the foreskin is not something that can be reversed later, but... I'm sorry, I'm being unclear and I can't quite put my finger on what I want to say, it's just really upsetting to me to think of certain beautiful men I've loved as mutilated people who should be mourning a profound loss, or something.
Did you read my above response to this complaint? I'll rephrase it here.
I never called circumcision a mutilation. I agree with rhowan's comments below:
"I agree that calling what is commonly known as male circumcision "male genital mutilation" is counterproductive - though for different reasons. People who have had their own genitals modified (male or female) often do not take well to being told that they have been mutilated. People also don't take well to being told that they've mutilated their children. For this reason the more neutral term "genital cutting" is useful from an advocacy perspective when interacting with people who have normalized the various practices."
I disagree completely with your complaint on my language of intact, however. First of all, its the more common word in medical studies to refer to those who still have their foreskin. It's not "my" word. Secondly, I say intact vs. circumcised. Any other language that I've heard immediately brings to the forefront the thought that one is not normalized.
When you say circumcised vs. uncircumcised, you normalize the first and make the second negative.
When you say intact vs. unintact it normalizes the first makes the second the negative.
Thus, intact vs. circumcised.
"one that leaves someone not intact and causes them to "lose" something that they will never get back. "
That's the reality. Sorry. Circumcised men will never get their foreskin back. Does that mean they are less of a man? No. It does however, take away some sexual sensation.
Do you have an alternative phrase?
Did you read my comment? I never said that your comment wasn't literally true, just that the language of "losing" something one "never gets back" is, connotation-wise, awfully close to calling circumcised men somehow "less." That is what I am complaining about.
Furthermore, I'm not accusing you of misusing language or anything, I never said "intact" was "your" word, and nothing I have said has meant to be a personal attack against you. Saying that "intact" is the establishment term only amounts to defending your personal good intentions in using it, not the actual appropriateness of its use.
I wish people would actually think about the content of my comments instead of reacting like I'm making some kind of judgment about them personally if I disagree or especially if I have a complaint about language. I feel like this has been happening a lot on this site lately, and it's really, really trying.
And my "alternative phrase" is simply not to talk about the foreskin of circumcised men as a lost thing they will never get back. If I had to talk about it I suppose I'd say it was "removed" or something, that seems like pretty innocuous language. But I don't see why it would be necessary to make much of the point of foreskins that people will never get back unless you're trying to provide an emotionally wrenching image of some future adult guy sadly longing for his long-lost foreskin as the dire result of a mother's mistaken decision to have her child circumcised, and that's what I'm objecting to. I don't think anyone making that decision is really unaware of the consequences, I don't see how it's relevant to say BUT YOU CAN NEVER GET IT BACK to someone in the midst of that decision, unless you're trying to play on their emotions by portraying circumcised men as lacking something. That is what I find objectionable.
And if we're going to get personal about this, I think that sort of argument is especially tasteless coming from someone who made a comment above saying that they enjoy uncircumcised men ("intact" men -- complete men??) more in bed.
I'm sorry if this is all coming off as rather harsh, but I really did mean it when I said that this portrayal of circumcised men is really upsetting to me. I can explain why further if it's not readily apparent, but I think it probably ought to be.
I'm reacting to your language. You are the one who is coming off as harsh. I agree it has been happening a lot on this site lately, but I'm only responding in kind to the tone that you've set in your responses to me. I hadn't taken issue with you until it seemed like you were attacking me.
I asked if you read my comment because it was the second time you complained about my phrasing, and you hadn't responded to my initial response. It was an honest question, not snarky. I thought you had simply missed my response, so I was directing you upward.
"And if we're going to get personal about this, I think that sort of argument is especially tasteless coming from someone who made a comment above saying that they enjoy uncircumcised men ("intact" men -- complete men??) more in bed."
Again, I never got personal. I do enjoy intact men more. I do not think that makes them more manly or complete, and I certainly don't think that it means all intact men are better in bed than circumcised men, but thats been the case in my personal experience. Intact men have the benefit of the foreskin, and I find that pleasurable during vaginal intercourse. I don't see how that makes me "tasteless."
As for the "never get it back," comment, I'm sorry that you're having trouble with that reality and its upsetting to you.
I continue to say it because it is a really important point to make, especially when people are trying to decide whether or not to circumcise. Once it is done, its done. It cannot be undone.
Yes, an intact man may wish that their parents circumcised him when he was a baby but if he really once it done, he can have it done.
But if a circumcised man wishes that his parents didn't have it done when he was a baby, he isn't left with a way to regain that functioning part of his anatomy.
Do you have a response to why I find the word "uncircumcised" problematic?
As for the "never get it back," comment, I'm sorry that you're having trouble with that reality and its upsetting to you.
This is just insulting. If you aren't going to make any kind of attempt to see where I'm coming from, then I don't see how I can continue trying to explain what I mean to you for any reason other than masochistic ones. Do you seriously not understand the difference between "reality" and "how you are talking about reality"? I'm perfectly fine with "reality," what's pissing me off is that people are portraying something about reality in a certain degrading light. It's really not that complicated, and is exactly the kind of thing we complain about in other contexts on the rest of this site (the portrayals of people).
Re: "uncircumcised" -- I do agree that there is a problem with this language too. However, I think it's less objectionable than "intact," because with circumcised/uncircumcised, the emphasis is on the particular procedure, not some broad concept like "intact." I'd like to find some alternative, sure, and I've actually been considering that throughout this discussion, but I don't as of yet have a better alternative.
And, fwiw, I did see your "above comment," and I retained my disagreement with it (for reasons that I've recently stated), I just didn't really think it would be productive to respond to that particular comment, since it seemed like it was going to turn into a merely semantic argument about the word "intact." I've obviously changed my mind now, though, because it seems like this notion of "intactness" is only one of several instances of circumcised men being viewed as in some sense lesser. There's an almost imperceptible slide that several people have made from advocating against circumcising babies to arguing in favor of adult uncircumcised men generally, and I really don't think that slide is appropriate at all (and I think it's fully possible to make decent arguments against circumcising babies as a general practice without having to do that).
Also, where, before your comment at 3:06, did it seem like I was personally attacking you? I did not at all intend to come off that way, and usually I would just apologize for having accidentally offended, but I really feel like you're not being even remotely charitable in your readings of my comments, and are more concerned with pushing your own opinions than pausing to consider why I might find the way you're speaking about things offensive. You can decide to continue using the language of "intact" and so forth, it's not all that big of a deal, but you don't have to be so dismissive and condescending about it.
And, to clarify, I am not arguing in favor of circumcision as a general practice at all. I just think that there are much better arguments against circumcision that could be made that don't include, and are sensitive to, the shaming of circumcised men.
You're putting words in my mouth and I really don't appreciate it. I'm not shaming circumcised men. I'm sorry that you hate my word choice and arguments so much. I've made them consciously and I believe they are important. I'm not going to continue this discussion further, its not helping either of us.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm saying that the words that were in your mouth amount to a certain meaning that may have been unintended on your part but is nonetheless offensive/upsetting.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Fair enough -- let me try one more time, sincerely, to show you why it upsets me though:
Imagine that I and my current (circumcised) beloved are sitting in a bar or some other public space, and some people at the next table over are having a loud discussion. The discussion goes something like this:
"So my friend isn't going to have her baby circumcised, because there's no medical reason for it, so why do it?"
"Yeah, I mean, sometimes things can go wrong, too, and the child ends up being hurt, there's no real good reason to take the risk."
"Yeah, and the foreskin does serve a function, right? It's protective and stuff, and all that stuff about hygiene is pretty much a load of crap."
"And I mean, if you got him circumcised, you'd be removing a part of him he would never get back! You should keep him intact."
"I know! How terrible, that cutting off a dude's erogenous flesh is standard in this country! I wonder if circumcised guys realize how much they're missing out on?"
"Yeah -- intact men are better in bed anyway!"
"Hahaha, yeah, his future girlfriends will appreciate it."
So isn't it obvious that that conversation would be totally fine to overhear at the beginning, but then would turn uncomfortable at a certain point, me knowing that my circumcised lover can hear it? Is it not obvious when I'd start to feel bad and even offended on behalf of my lover? I really do mean this as a genuine sort of thought experiment, and I really do feel kind of personally offended on behalf of people I've loved :/ I'm not sure how to express this better?
I think it's possible to hold the belief that its better not to circumcise your child unnecessarily without being insulting to people who have been circumcised (as infants, or in adulthood).
I also think its possible to believe that something is lost through circumcision - because obviously it is, as you stated tissue is removed. The problem only comes if/when people assign too much importance or value to the presence or absence of that tissue and are rude and insensitive in expressing their opinion.
Clearly most men who are circumcised are unconcerned by it, are happy with their physical and sexual functioning, and do not miss any sensitivity that they may or may not have lost. That's fine, and no one should be harassing them or disparaging them for it.
Actually, the worldwide circumcision rate is about 20%. I don't know if you live in the US, but for newborns, the rate is around 50% and falling steadily. So if you do ever have this hypothetical male child, there is a good chance it will no longer be the norm.
That reminds me that Dan Savage addressed this in his book, The Kid. He said that since roughly 50% of American boys are now uncircumcised, if his son gets picked on in the locker room he can form a gang with the other intact boys and pick on the circumcised ones back. (He likes to write outrageous things, obviously he isn't really advocating bullying).
I wonder how those statistics break down in different areas and socioeconomic classes, because I've never seen an uncircumcised man and my boyfriend claims that with all the nakedness of the swim teams he was on growing up, he never saw one either.
Currently, ~ 80% of men in the usa are circumcised.
~ 50% of newborns are circumcised now. There is your discrepancy. Circumcision rates also vary by region and income. The midwest has some of the highest rates, the west coast some of the lowest. The statistics are out there, if you care to look them up.
You're absolutely right that the decision to let your child decide is one in favor of not circumcising. How can you let your child decide when he is not capable of giving consent?
If you circumcise your child, you are taking away his choices. You're taking away his ability to say no. Circumcision is irreversible, he cannot get his foreskin back.
If you don't circumcise your child, he still has the choice to to get the procedure later. He has options.
Like I said, if later in life an uncircumcised man wants to be circumcised, the pain of the procedure will most likely be worth it for him. Just like the pain of the "restoration" process for men who want their foreskin back is worth it. (I'd like to reiterate that Foreskin Restoration doesn't "undo" circumcision.)
Like I said, if later in life an uncircumcised man wants to be circumcised, the pain of the procedure will most likely be worth it for him.
Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of things I "want" to do, and probably plenty of things that you "want" to do, that I don't do because the pain-in-the-ass quotient is too high at the moment. What I was proposing in my original comment is that it's silly to say "Oh he can just do it later if he wants it" because by then the pain-in-the-ass quotient is too high. I'm not arguing in favor of circumcising babies, I'm just arguing in favor of making decent arguments in general.
Please don't assume you know what I am and am not willing to do. You know what? I have put my body through pain to get what I consider to be positive results. People do it all the time.
How is it "silly" to say he can do it later if he wants? He can.
You want a "decent argument?" So do I, and I don't feel like I'm getting one from you.
This is not about shaming circumcised men. All my lovers have been circumcised, and they are beautiful as they are. This is not the issue. If a man is happy he was circumcised, that's wonderful for him! But not all men are and that is the problem. This is about consent and autonomy. If someone feels like their autonomy and ability to consent has been violated, there is a fucking problem.
I'm not assuming what you are and are not willing to do. I just said that it's a general fact of human life that there are things one wants to do that one does not do for a wide variety of reasons that often fall under the heading of "general difficulty and priorities," and that it's totally plausible that someone would wish they had been circumcised but would not prioritize it enough to go through the difficulty of actually having it done as an adult. This is not a weird, nor a personally attacking, statement. And again, I'm not arguing in favor of circumcising babies, I'm just saying that you can't write it off as if you can leave the decision up to the kid -- there is a decision that needs to be made of whether or not to circumcise the kid as a baby, and if you decide to "leave it up to them," you are deciding not to circumcise them as a baby. This very well might be the right decision, I just would like people to take responsibility for that decision instead of pretending that saying "it should be the child's decision" gets them out of having to make a real decision then.
Defer to your son and let it be his decision. I don't think having a penis gives you more of a say in removing part of somebody else's.
He can always have it done if he is unhappy, and like any surgery, will have to prepare himself and treat himself for the pain.
He cannot get it back once it is done. Once it is gone, its gone for good.
(Speaking of of non-religious, routine infant circumcison only)
I did a fairly extensive report on male circumcision a few years ago for a gender class I had in college. I absolutely believe it to be a feminist issue, if for nothing else but its beginnings in racism and sex-shaming.
I don't have the sources right now, but I remember some of the following reasons given, historically, in favor of circumcision:
Circumcision would make men less likely to masturbate.
Circumcision of black men would make them less likely to rape white women. (Really)
Circumcision would prevent syphilis and blindness.
Yeaaahhhh.
I'm against circumcision because the benefits seem to be nil to tiny. Also, studies have shown that babies do feel a good deal of pain, with increased heart rates, etc. For one thing, the foreskin only separates from the glans around 8-14 years of age in males, so removing the foreskin before this is akin to ripping a fingernail back from the finger before removing it. Also, infants typically aren't given as much painkillers as adult men and some hospitals use only a topical medication to treat the pain.
I think the study of adult men in Africa and its effects on HIV transmission need to be studied further to see if this is truly a benefit worth circumcising for. I understand that the study was incomplete because they felt an ethical obligation to circumcise the remaining participants due to the stark differences in results. However, cultural considerations need to be taken into account. The use of condoms in sub-Saharan Africa is spotty, at best (due to some of our lovely US campaigns.) Also, there is a practice in some communities of "dry sex"--using herbs to dry a woman's vagina to make sex rougher. (Why this is looked at as a good thing I cannot imagine.) Circumcision would remove the ability of the foreskin against the glans to provide a natural lubrication for this type of sex, making more tears on the glans and vaginal wall likely.
I'd also like to point out that all of those men had a choice whether or not to be circumcised, and infants are only at the mercy of their parents.
I really think circumcision's effect on HIV prevention needs to be studied further, in communities with different cultural contexts, world wide. For now, I'm firmly in the "anti" box.
When you were studying this, did you find anything out about how well it heals in infants as opposed to adults? I'm just not sure its fair to compare someone circumcised as an infant to someone circumcised as an adult. Maybe it is-- I'm just not sure how to find out.
The reason I'm wondering this is that infants, in general, heal much better than adults. There have even been cases of infants losing one hemisphere of their brain and having the other half grow to compensate and function normally. That would never happen in an adult. I also would imagine (but haven't checked) that as you grow up your brain and body feedback forms together, so something that you grow up with might feel like perfectly normal sensation, but something changed when you're older might feel too sensitive or not sensitive enough. (For instance, I bet that people who lost a limb as an infant don't experience phantom pain like someone who loses a limb as an adult. But I could be wrong about that.)
I'm just speculating-- does anyone know if this is true? It seems logical but I'm not really sure.
(If it is true, I suppose it would apply to girls too, at least for the milder type 1A of FGM. I'm still not going to support it in any form, but it has always struck me as way more horrific to do it to older kids/teenagers than to do it to infants, because it seems like infants would heal much better, and the experience would be less traumatizing.)
I know that infant circumcision does not require sutures to close the wound, where as adolescent and adult typically does.
They both have similar risks of bleeding and infection.
Circumcision performed in the hospital pretty much always require sutures. The ritual Jewish method usually does not.
I'd also just like to add that no major US medical organization recommends routine infant circumcision for health reasons.
On a personal note, a male friend of mine is uncircumcised. He was never teased about, but wanted to have the surgery anyway for a while because he felt a little abnormal, as he put it. Now he is very happy with himself (and his sex life!) and decided not to have it done. Good for him. Even if he went through with it, it was always his choice. The one getting the (essentially cosmetic) surgery should be the one to weigh the potential benefits and risks, no one else.
I think because for females it really is just castration. It would be the equivalent of cutting off a mans entire penis shaft and head and only leaving the testes (ovaries on a female) without the skin covering and a crude peeing hole. I have read from men who say that in some cases they wish they had a circumsicion when they were little because as an adult when he needs one (it was causing him pain) it will hurt far worse. So, I think in some cases circumcion on males is necessary but in no way does it equal the unnessecary procedure done to women which is just called castration.
Please note the differences between female circumcision and female genital mutilation or female cutting. There are SEVERAL different degrees and the experiences cannot be all grouped together into one "equivalent of cutting off a man's entire penis shaft."
Also, how do you know it will hurt far worse when infants cannot convey in words the degree of pain they feel? What we can measure is the rapid heart rate of infants going through the procedure, thats about it.
For those who say that there may be health reasons for cirumcision, keep in mind that there are numerous conditions that early surgery would prevent (whether those conditions would ever arise or not) such as removal of tonsils, removal of wisdom teeth, and appendectomy. These are all surguries that are commonly performed on children and adults when conditions indicate they are neccessary. Would you advocate that they be performed as preventitive measures in the same way you advocate circumcision? There is no logical difference when you are speaking of a possibility that a complication or condition may arise further down the road. I can't understand why anyone would ever advocate optional surgery on someone who could have no say.
Exactly. And keep in mind that those surgeries all remove body parts that no longer have any function and are essentially useless. The foreskin has a function and a pretty good one, too. (Tonsils do have a function, they're just not so good at performing it.)
There are actually doctors who recommend removing tonsils to prevent sore throats, and dentists who recommend routinely removing wisdom teeth. I'm not for it though-- I refused to let them take out my wisdom teeth since they couldn't give me a good reason, and when I was a kid my parents refused to let them take out my tonsils when the doctor suggested it. But its definitely not unheard of to do those procedures before any problems develop.
Preventative appendectomies are less common because they require you to go under, which is inherently risky, but I've heard that if they're going to open you up for some other surgery they often remove the appendix while they're at it, even if its not inflamed.
Like I said, I don't like the idea of removing any of these things without a good reason. But as far as I can tell most people function just fine with or without wisdom teeth, tonsils, or foreskins. The foreskin does have a function, but removing it doesn't make your penis not work. Tonsils and wisdom teeth do have functions, but the loss of them doesn't really affect you that much. I have my wisdom teeth and they work just fine as normal teeth, but if they weren't there I don't think it would be a problem for me to chew or anything.
I had this argument with my boyfriend the other day, so I'm sort of just repeating his arguments for circumcision to see what the reactions are. I'm against it, but its pretty hard to convince someone who's happy with their body that they should feel mutilated and want to be different than they are.
I ran into similar issues with my husband when the topic first came up. In my situation, he felt as though me not wanting to circumcise our son meant that I felt he was inadequate or maimed or somehow "less than" because he was circumcised. We spent a lot of time addressing his emotional reactions to this. I told him, essentially, that I think he's beautiful and whole as he is, and that I don't think there's anything wrong with his penis or, by extension, with him. BUT, I want something different for our son. I want him to be able to make the decision on his own. So yes, our son will spend his childhood with a penis that looks different from his daddy's- but he also has different colored hair, and different personality quirks, and his toes curl together in their own way. By the time our son was born, we were on the same page- happy with my husband's body as it was, but wanting to give our son the power to choose about his own body. So you might want to check in with your boyfriend, and remind him that wanting something for your child is separate from loving your boyfriend and finding him attractive and beautiful.
I think a lot of times, mothers leave this decision up to the fathers because the kneejerk answer is, "hell, I don't know. I've never lived with one of those things." However, if the question whether to circumcise or not were examined closer, you'd have to wonder why it's even performed on the general population? And as Kate alluded to, it's a lot of myth.
That said, I think that a lot of baby boys have the fate of their foreskins determined by their fathers. My friend has two kids, each with a different dad (please don't slut shame her, she's awesome AND it's not feminist).
One dad is circumcised, and he thought 1. it is a horrible, unnecessary practice, 2. guys don't generally look at other guys much anyway, and 3. when a little boy looks at his naked dad, he'll see a LOT more differences than just this little piece of skin. So that son wasn't circumcised.
The other dad is not, and he felt it was important for his son to look like the other boys. Now, my feeling about this guy is that he has a very different socioeconomic and cultural background from most other people in the area, so probably felt very marginalized growing up, anyway. So for him, this was one small but intimate thing, that became very important in his mind.
"hell, I don't know. I've never lived with one of those things."
It is a common response, but not one I entirely understand. Women do have a clitoral hood, I have yet to meet a woman who would willingly part with it. I have met many women for whom it played a large part in their sex lives (i.e. it was far more pleasurable to be touched there then to be touched directly on the clitoris).
I think that's true-- the idea of touching directly on my clitoris actually sounds kind of painful, like touching a blister that peeled off your hand. But I also wouldn't be surprised if growing up without a clitoral hood means that your clitoris is more used to direct stimulation, so it isn't a problem. I'm not aware of any studies on that...
Anyway, while there are analogous parts, female and male genitals just aren't the same, and when you start getting into very detailed sensations the comparison kind of breaks down. I've never had a penis and I don't think that the fact that I have a clitoris means that I know what its like to have a penis.
Right.
As Pantheon said, while they're analogous parts developmentally, the sensations of a clitoris are vastly different from that of any part of a penis, so... but even still, yes. It's not one of those things you can answer so quickly once you give it a second thought. I remember my mother saying that she deeply regretted having my brother circumcised, because it was unnecessary and no doubt painful, even if it's done with local anasthetics (those things take 7-10 days to heal, and when you consider a newborn wears diapers all day, it CAN'T be fun).
Of course few women would opt for getting rid of their clitoral hood right now. But would the idea seem so crazy if 50% or more of the women they knew didn't have a clitoral hood and had equally healthy and normal sex lives?
The comparison between male and female body parts doesn't quite work. It is hard to make an exact female comparison for the sensitivity of the foreskin area and, frankly, unnecessary.
Many posters here seem to feel that without a compelling reason TO circumcise, facing the slight risk of injury or later regret seems wrong and I agree with this.
I don't, however, think that we need to exagerrate the case AGAINST circumcision. Of course there are some men who wish that they hadn't been and vice-versa and I think that issues of bodily autonomy are a good point.
But I have a hard time believing that a practice done to the majority of men in this country for decades has a serious downside that we would only be hearing about now.
In other words, if there IS a big difference for male sexual enjoyment between circumcised and intact penises, I can't swallow the idea that men in the U.S. wouldn't have tried to put an end to the practice a long time ago.
But I have a hard time believing that a practice done to the majority of men in this country for decades has a serious downside that we would only be hearing about now.
In other words, if there IS a big difference for male sexual enjoyment between circumcised and intact penises, I can't swallow the idea that men in the U.S. wouldn't have tried to put an end to the practice a long time ago.
They didn't know, and it certainly wasn't talked about. For the ones who suffered a botched circumcision sex was simply painful, they likely didn't or don't know why, it just is, other men lost their genitalia and were lied to throughout their lives when they were told they were girls.
For the ones who were circumcised 'properly' they wouldn't know, most people didn't talk about their proclivities to masturbate, and if they did most men were circumcised so they had no way of knowing what they were missing out on. The reason its happening now is that only now do men feel the ability to speak up, and with fewer and fewer men being circumcised the retaliation will become stronger and stronger.
I am not exaggerating when I say that the foreskin is a major erogenous sector, which drastically improves the ability to masturbate without an aide. Further it seems that people don't have a problem with any of the biology behind comparing the clitoral hood and the foreskin instead it looks far more like their objections lie with the implications that would have.
Further if you look at the arguments for circumcision, many of them fall into the camps of viewing male genitalia as 'dirty' and men as lacking hygiene or responsibility, or viewing natural male genitalia as inherently ugly and requiring alteration. Here the viewpoint has been to ignore and diminish any potential suffering men have experienced. And I have to wonder, what has a male infant done which could be so wrong to cause you to so quickly suspend all empathy for him?
There are stories of doctors literally burning the penises off boys without anaesthesia when they fail follow even the most basic notion of ethics, and the simplest of safety procedures, But this doesn't seem to infuriate anyone.
Instead it has led to the discussion of whether the glans is not as sensitive as the clitoris and therefore less worthy of concern, or how uncircumcised men don't taste as good, or whether it is more of a crime to do it to an infant or to an adolescent, and that is appalling to me. It suggests that under no circumstance from when from when a male infant is born he will not experience sympathy or pity from society. That no one can step away for just one second and conclude that this is wrong, whether its done to a girl, or whether its done to a boy.
The problem is that this argument assumes a lot of things that simply aren't true. Let me say that I can completely empathise with a man circumcised as an infant. Much better than I can with one who wasn't.
But ... the man circumcised as an infant doesn't need any sympathy or pity, because nothing bad has happened to him. Something value-neutral has happened to him, as innocuous as a haircut or a pierced ear. In the first six months, there's an increased risk of infection, roughly offset by the decreased risk of urinary tract infection later on. (Whoop dee do.) There's also a very small risk of serious complication, roughly offset by the small decreased risk of penile cancer or AIDS. One might argue what the rates should be in principle, but I'll follow the strict empirical line and just measure them. (I don't think I'd even try to come to agreement with someone who doesn't regard a measurement as the ultimate test of fact - if we diverge on this, we're forced to just agree or disagree at random). Again, all of those suck, but the difference is negligible.
Which leaves us at nothing bad has happened to this little boy. So he doesn't need any sympathy. Which is easy to recognise, especially if your empathy is complete. And herein lies the problem.
that you prompted us not to slut shame your friend is a sad state of our society -- i'm guessing she gets this :-(
I like the first dad's reasoning, and I think you're probably right about the second dad's reasons.
It would never have occurred to me to judge her for having two different fathers... My default assumption would probably be a divorce and remarriage, but any other situation is fine too.
And I felt bad even saying it here, you know? :( But I know how it sounds, and well... people draw various conclusions.
Anyway. I think that when it comes to pregnancy, childbirth, and how to raise kids, a lot of people fall back on old emotional responses that may or may not serve them, as in the case of the second dad.
I have my opinions on circumcision, but you CANNOT compare circumcision to the removal of the clitoris. Removing the clitoris is comparable to removing the penis altogether. Circumcision is vastly milder.
No one compared it to the removal of the clitoris. In fact people have been repeatedly explicit in comparing it only to Type 1a, the removal of the clitoral hood, which is the female analog of the foreskin (clitoral hood is the female prepuce, the foreskin is the male prepuce), both are packed with nerve endings, as well they keep the nerve endings in the glans/clitoris more sensitive.
That said things go wrong
There was a thread recently on the main Feministing site where a lot of commenters did not make that distinction in their comparisons, and that might be why some of us are being a little defensive.
I feel that Hobbes42 makes this comparison, or comes near enough to doing so, in the original posting.
Good post - definitely a feminist issue. I'd just like to add a comment. You say 'A botched circumcision can inhibit a normal sex life.' This is certainly true, but many people don't realise that any circumcision may inhibit a normal sex life. I know this through my brothers experience. Whether, and to what degree, male circumcision affects sexual performance is a matter of much debate (see the wiki article), however it seems that there are at least a few men who have inhibited sexual performance due to loss of nerve function caused by circumcision, even if this is rare. My brother is one of those people, and after seeing the psychological stress he went through (not to mention the knowledge that he was missing out on the fun of sex) I would never allow a child of mine to be circumcised. Even if there is only a slight possibility that sexual dysfunction will occur, I'm not willing to risk it just so my son can 'look like other boys.'
It might be, it might not be. But the way a few commenters around here have attempted to intertwine circumcision and female genital mutilation is unconscionable and unethical. Female genital mutilation and circumcision are not analogous, and intertwining them only serves (at least, to a North American audiance) to trivialise female genital mutilation.
Why? We all know female genital mutilation gets called female circumcision in an attempt to control to language, and analogise it to something far less problematic. And calling circumcision male genital mutilation gives the same effect - it conveys, in a way that'll be unconscious to most people, that it's just the same as something they've accepted as fine, and which, in practice, is a complete non-issue. (Even though in exceptional cases, it may be an issue, most people will never encounter a problem with it in real life. Self-selecting internet forums are obvious different.)
Now, one can make "in principle" arguments, similar to those against infant ear piercing, say. And I'd accept that's an accurate analogy, and think that how much we allow parents control over their offspring, and how much we as a society dictate what they do, is always a tricky gray area. If you think that Feminism is proposing an alternate formulation of society, and not just about the advancement of women, then it's appropriate to "What about the mens?", so long as one doesn't attempt to conflate circumcision and female genital mutilation.
I'm curious, since there are so many different procedures that fall under the umbrella of FGM or FC, do you not see how at least one of them is comparable to male circumcision? Type 1a, as others have pointed out, is the removal of the clitoral hood, the counterpart to the foreskin on the male body.
I can see how routine infant circumcision is a different thing that FC, given the cultural contexts and availability of clean instruments.But is it any different than boys who go through the "right of passage" of circumcision in their adolescent years in some communities?
Is Type 1A generally done to infant girls or to adolescents? I guess that biologically they might be comparable body parts, but the stories I've heard of how these things are done in tribes in Africa are horrific above and beyond the actual procedure. I think that even if "all" they're doing is removing the clitoral hood, its far worse to do it to an older child or teenager than it is to an infant. For one thing, they will remember the traumatic experience (which in many cases seems to be made way more traumatic by the circumstances in which its done) and for another, I think that if you grow up with the procedure already done, the body-brain feedback develops together and works better. If you do it to a teenager it seems much more likely to be an issue.
If they do Type 1A to infant girls then I guess (without having studied the issue in detail) it might be comparable. But I still think its dangerous to compare them without being VERY specific about what you're discussing, because if Americans start thinking that FGM in Africa is comparable to male infant circumcision in the states, they're going to think that FGM in Africa is no big deal.
Re-read my comment please. I was comparing type 1a, which yes, is typically done to adolescents, to rite-of-passage adolescent male circumcision. I also made allowances for cultural practices and clean facilities.
Also, please do a google search on these things that you don't know. I've tried to explain and define many things but it is very difficult to have a discussion when the other person is using a lot of assumptions and no actual research.
I meant that to be a general reply to the discussion of comparing FGM to male infant circumcision in the US. I still think that is an important point.
And yes, I think that rite of passage circumcision in either gender is worse than infant circumcision.
I meant that to be a general reply to the discussion of comparing FGM to male infant circumcision in the US. I still think that is an important point. I know I hit reply on your comment, but unfortunately there is no way here to reply to several comments at once. This was supposed to be a reply to your comment and the ones that you were replying to.
And yes, I think that rite of passage circumcision in either gender is worse than infant circumcision.
I think it would be a mistake to assume that just because the genital structures are analogous, that men and women are equivilent enough that one can equte them sensibly. Our genitals are different enough that even if two things descend from the same tissues in development, or are otherwise analogous, it doesn't mean they're the same. So I have to plead ignorance as to whether type Ia is equatable to circumcision, as does, I think, everyone else.
Obviously correlating male circumcision as we know it in the West to the majority of forms of female genital cutting is inaccurate and misleading. However, I think most of the commenters here have been very clear that when they are comparing practices they are speaking only of type 1a FGC.
"And calling circumcision male genital mutilation gives the same effect - it conveys, in a way that'll be unconscious to most people, that it's just the same as something they've accepted as fine, and which, in practice, is a complete non-issue."
I agree with you on a certain level here. Calling female genital cutting "circumcision" trivializes (to the uninformed) what is actually being done in most cases.
And I agree that calling what is commonly known as male circumcision "male genital mutilation" is counterproductive - though for different reasons. People who have had their own genitals modified (male or female) often do not take well to being told that they have been mutilated. People also don't take well to being told that they've mutilated their children. For this reason the more neutral term "genital cutting" is useful from an advocacy perspective when interacting with people who have normalized the various practices. Your statement about male circumcision being a complete non-issue in practice could be seen as an example of that normalization.
I think you've missed a big chunk here. If you call both circumcision and female genital mutilation "genital cutting", then my gut will respond with "Oh, female genital mutilation is the same as something I already know to be trivial, so it's trivial."
And the result is you still trivialise.
Which is why I think its important to speak of the specific types of genital cutting, because it does encompass such a broad range of practices. Someone who has had their clitoral hood removed as an infant in an operating room has had a vastly different experience from someone who was subjected to full infibulation and excision at the age of 12 under un-sterile conditions with primitive tools.
The advantage of "genital cutting" over "circumcision" is that it linguistically forces people out of their comfort zone, while emphasizing that there are sharp pointy things being aimed at people's genitals, without immediately alienating the people engaged in these practices beyond the point of listening to arguments against them. It's a deliberate compromise, I admit.
And again, I call into question your assertion that male circumcision is trivial. Trivial compared to almost all forms of female circumcision yes, but not objectively trivial. It's still an unnecessary irreversible surgery performed for spurious reasons and not without risk of complication.
Ack and there I go using "circumcision" to describe what's being done to girls. This thread is screwing me up semantically. :P
But I, like the vast majority of North Americans, know circumcision to be trivial from first hand experience. So regardless of terminology, when your language carries the message "circumcision and female genital mutilation are the same." my instinctive, unconscious reaction will be to associate both with the only of the two I know anything about and conclude they're both trivial. Which'll be the general reaction. I don't think this is avoidable, regardless of the terminology you choose.
We're looking at this from opposite angles. You're saying that male circumcision is normalized so we shouldn't associate it in any way with what's done to girls because that might be normalized by association. I'm looking at what's being done to girls and thinking that that's clearly wrong, and how can we de-normalize what's being done to boys.
Because despite your personal experience of your own circumcision as a trivial matter, that experience does not hold for everyone. And the issues of choice and bodily integrity that apply to girls apply to boys as well.
Yes, we're looking at this from opposite angles. But:
1)Most anglophones will look at it from the angle I'm suggesting, because they have experience with circumcision and not female genital mutilation. Our first hand experience is always going to trump our abstract understanding.
2)Even in the way you phrase it, you want to use the clear unethicalness of female genital mutilation to make people think of circumcision as unethical. This, to be blunt, exploits what's happened to these girls for a different cause. It's not appropriate, and it's not ethical.
3)While not everyone thinks circumcision is a trivial matter, that is going to be dominant enough that it'll be the main thrust of what gets conveyed. If we look to data from non-advocacy groups (I'll use Canadian, since I'm a Canuck: http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm ), or speak to men not self-selecting for this purpose, we should fine the same: very rarely it's a big deal, usually it's a "Who cares?" deal, and this should be the attitude we expect from a random audience (although not from every individual in a large audience).
4)Yes, there are other issues tied up in this - what choices we should/shouldn't allow parents to make for their children, for instance.
So we can look at it from either perspective in principle, but I think the ethics of it require us to prefer one viewpoint to the other. (I think point #2 overwhelms any consideration from #4, essentially - if one wants to compare circumcision to something women can appreciate, choose ear piercings or something else that illustrates the control over their bodies issue without the extra muddy waters of female genital mutilation impairing function and whatnot. (This may be imperfect, not sure what the complication rates are or anything.))
Even in the way you phrase it, you want to use the clear unethicalness of female genital mutilation to make people think of circumcision as unethical. This, to be blunt, exploits what's happened to these girls for a different cause. It's not appropriate, and it's not ethical.
Yes! That is exactly it -- well put, thank you.
There's no medical reason for it, so why subject your baby to a painful procedure?
I thought of another question. Not that this is necessarily a factor in deciding what to do, but I read somewhere that "intact" men often ... well, taste worse, for oral sex. Does anyone know if that's true?
I think that probably depends a whole lot more on diet than anything else (and also hygiene, I guess).
That's completely untrue :). I do know first-hand. COMPLETELY untrue.
Ladies, do NOT "defer" this decision to your husband/partner. Yes, he has input, yes, his feelings are important, but it is NOT his decision. It is YOUR SON'S.
Here are some good resources that might put some of these questions to rest:
doctorsopposingcircumcision.org
Dr. Dean Edell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHVvB1oHAgg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuu07U2FokQ
"Facing Circumcision: Eight Physicians Tell Their Stories"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CC9Y-Us210
If you're Jewish or Muslim at least you have a reason of some sorts for circumcising your male child (we can always argue about how good these religious and cultural reasons are as arguments against other arguments - but that's a different discussion).
But if you're not, then why on Earth would you do it? There's only religious/cultural reasons for it, and absolutely no medical. On the contrary. I know it has been the norm in most anglo-saxon countries for some non-religious pseudo-medical reasons that have long since been proven false. Now there's only medical arguments against it.
So - if you're not Jewish or Muslim - why consider it at all?
Among North Americans, for instance, it's also a cultural practice, if not as long ingrained. This is probably the main reason. Probably everyone I know who's circumcised falls into this group.
Medical reasons are the second. While the medical benefits of routine infant circumcision in some settings (and here I'll bring us back to North Americans) are pretty trivial, they may not be in other settings, e. g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/botswana/5292646/Botswana-to-circumcise-half-a-million-men-in-Aids-fight.html
Sure it is a cultural practice in the US and Canada, but it is a cultural practice based not on religious beliefs or ceremony, but incorrect, misleading, and outdated medical and hygiene advice, some sort of weird fear of an intact penis (as is referenced below), and racism and sex-shaming. Not to mention its a dying cultural practice, so why try to keep it going?
I do think that the health benefits in other countries, particularly sub-Saharan African countries where AIDS is an epidemic, deserves further study and is a different conversation than routine infant circumcision in the US.
Lots of Canadian men are circumcised but the statistics I found showed that in the last decade rates have gone down so now depending on what province you're in, 0-30% of male infants are circumcised. I have no idea what would've made a dramatic drop.
I gather circumcision has always been rarer in Canada than it is in the United States. In 1970 only 48% of Canadian men were circumcised compared to 70%+ of American men. As for reasons for the continued drop, the Canadian Paediatric Society has advised against routine circumcision of infants since 1975, fewer doctors perform the procedure at all, and provincial health care plans no longer cover it unless it is being done for medical reasons. In 2005 overall only 9% of Canadian male infants were circumcised.
Why would you keep any cultural practice going? The practical considerations are nearly nil (I cited Canadian stats above, but both the cost and the quality of life increases from circumcision are almost identically offset by the risk of complications - i. e. it's on the average essentially harmless, and either choice has an equal odd of being a bad one (though both choices are almost invariably benign), so all that's left is essentially "preference/tradition".
But it all hinges on why you'd follow any tradition. Which is not something we can answer for each other.
No, its not the same at all. (Where do you get that there is a quality of life increase, by the way? Cause all I've read says the opposite is a result of circumcision.) I'm not going to rewrite all of the reasons everyone has listed above, but I think that body integrity is a pretty damn important issue. Again, the person getting the essentially cosmetic procedure should be the one to weigh the potential benefits and detriments, no one else.
You don't seem to put a whole lot of stock into the risks. I do, and I'm sure those that have experienced those risks come to pass don't accept "it's just tradition" as an excuse.
There are lots of traditions that many feminists just want to die out. (See the wedding traditions post, for example) You could say "its just tradition" for a lot of things, but that doesn't negate the fact that those traditions are inherently wrong. And none of those involve the permanent removal of a functioning part of the human anatomy.
The Canadian Paediatric Society claims this, for instance: http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm - as does every other Paediatric Society I've ever read things by, or any national medical organisations I've ever seen produce things, or any material I've ever seen come from anywhere other than anti-circumcision advocacy groups. The conclusions come out the same; the benefits are small, the risks are small, and both are order of magnitude the same, in a western setting. (Subsaharan Africa & it's AIDS infection rate may tilt the balance, as an example.)
I did put stock in the risks. It's just that the risks are very unlikely, and lie in both directions. We might easily condemn a tradition that's transparently harmful, but could be a lot more open to one that's benign. That's not unreasonable.
Right in the abstract of the study you cited, it says this:
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." Nowhere does it discuss quality of life, just possible preventative medicine, which in the end it decides it is not enough to recommend the practice.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba released this caution in 2002: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/manitoba/2002.html
"Infant male circumcision is often treated as a minor procedure with virtually no risk or significant complications. That is not true. Infant male circumcision may lead to complications that range from minor to severe. A study reported in the British Journal of Surgery (1993) suggested that complication rates range between 2%-10%."
and "If parents persistently request circumcision of a newborn male infant after a thorough dialogue about benefits, risks and alternatives, a physician is not obligated to perform the procedure if he/she does not regard the procedure to be medically indicated and appropriate. Physicians may respectfully decline to perform this medical procedure, just as they respectfully decline to prescribe medications that are not medically indicated, and as they decline to offer medical opinions contrary to their best professional judgement."
Although I personally don't agree with denying it to parents right now, this particular medical group does and I think that says something.
American Academy of Pediatrics (http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap1999/)
"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficent to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
There is plenty more.
It might've been worthwhile for you to read more than the abstract - interested readers can read the whole study and draw their own conclusions on what it says about quality of life, but the main conclusion of the study that I was leaning on is "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed." Which is, in fact, what the other organisations you've quoted have said, as I said I expected them to, that there's no strong need to perform circumcisions on infants, as the expectation is that it's essentially as harmful as it is helpful; i.e. you're not doing the child any medical good, or any medical bad (on average).
Circumcision is, from a medical angle, a trivial issue. The report I quote cites two other studies, one of which estimates that circumcisions costs you an extra $102 in medical care, and extends your life by an average of 14 hours (both these numbers are enough to make me say "Who cares?"), and one that estimates circumcision results in an extra $25.35 in medical care, and extends your lifespan by 106 days.
But the short of it is that, at least in Canada, the medical tradeoffs are so small as to be nonfactors. It's medically unnecessary, so doctors shouldn't feel obliged to perform it, but it's medically harmless, so they needn't feel obliged to not perform it either.
A non-issue.
I did read the whole thing, thanks. I was just pointing out that the article did not say "quality of life was improved," as you are insisting it did.
I come from an Asian country where circumcision is not the norm, unless for medical reasons. However, now that I am in Australia, I often see articles (most of them in men's magazines, some in women's), about how some women out there prefer the look of a circumcised penis, and apparently, to them, uncircumcised penises look disgusting (the foreskin makes it look disgusting, probably when in normal, un-erected mode). One columnist even mentioned that an uncircumcised penis looked like a wooly mammoth and belongs back in that age as well.
I have also noticed that in American porn, even Asian porn (made in Asia), the men are always circumcised...so this must be the preffered look.
Not all American porn actors are circumcised. It's not the "preferred look" by everyone. Most of the uncircumcised men in porn, though, are either foreign or amateur. Fortunately, this kind of porn is gaining in popularity.
My mom didn't want my brothers circumcised because she didn't want to hurt them.
I think this procedure is pointless.
I was mostly against circumcision for my son, while my husband was somewhat for it.
Here's how I handled it: I found a video of a circumcision being done on youtube (very straight-forward, no propaganda) and told my husband he could watch it and then decide what he wanted to do. He never watched it, and my son did not get circumcised. Might not work for everyone, but there it is.
That's actually a really good idea---puts things into perspective. I wish we could bump this comment up to the top.
No. It's not a feminist issue. At all. Period.
If you:
A, do not have a penis,
and
B, are not male,
Then issues concerning men's bodies and parts of men's bodies are not your issues.
It's a little insulting that you think it's okay to just rush in and try to take over a men's issue.
Much like feminists dislike men jumping in and trying to overtake your issues, don't jump in and overtake ours.
You can theorize all day long, but you are not a male, and will never actually be able to understand how a male feels about it. Because you'll never experience it.
You may have not noticed, but feminism isn't solely concerned with just what is good for women.
I feel that FGM is a feminist issue, male feminists included.
"Because you'll never experience it"
I'll never experience FGM either, and not due to my anatomy, but I can still have an opinion on it.
completely agree with that.
As a man, FGM is my issue too, and circumcision is yours.
Circumcision is a big deal
Some respondents reported prominent scarring and excessive skin loss. Sexual consequences included progressive loss of sensitivity(up to 75%) and sexual dysfunction. Emotional distress followed the realization that they were missing a functioning part of their penis. Low-self esteem, resentment, avoidance of intimacy, and depression were also noted.
We need to make people aware that this is a serious problem, we're mutilating young boys without their consent.