I realize that the two procedures- the removal of the foreskin (albeit without consent or anesthesia) and anything from snipping the tip of the clitoris to its complete removal, along with all labia- differ drastically in terms of pain and the context in which they occur. However, it does seem a little hypocritical to use the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child to decry one practice and not the other, especially when many of the same arguments are used to support both types (religious reasons, health benefits, esthetic preference by the opposite sex). Can anyone provide a good reason why we should be fighting to have one practice banned yet allow the other to go on, without reducing this to an “us vs. them” argument? Also, as much as I’ve heard about the deplorable conditions of female circumcision (e.g. holding girls down and cutting them with broken glass), is there any info out there about the conditions surrounding male circumcision in sub-Saharan countries?
Circumcision Debate: Why the obsession?
My short answer would be (and bear in mind that I am not “obsessed” with this issue so I’m not inclined to get too deeply into a debate about it), is that not enough adult men are complaining about being circumcised as babies, and in fact, enough of them prefer or or have no problem. And that the two procedures are very different and result in a very different outcome for males vs. females.
Remember the Roundheads defeated the Cavaliers.
While they share the same name, I don’t really consider them the same in both cases. Circumcision in males is the trimming of the foreskin. Female “circumcision” is the amputation of the clitoris.
I don’t think male circumcision has any lasting effects on the male. There aren’t any support groups for circumcised men -at least none I know of. I’ve been cut and my little guy is chockful of feeling. I don’t think my sexual enjoyment has been altered in anyway. I spoken with a couple of guys who have had their foreskin removed later in life and they pretty much back this up. It doesn’t change the overall sensation.
I doubt you’ll find any woman happy to say if their clitoris were removed tomorrow they wouldn’t miss it much.
I think you’d be better to compare female “circumcision” with the amputation of the entire head of the penis.
The reasons for the procedures are very much different. The main reason behind female circumcision is to remove the sexual sensations in young girls to “keep them pure” for marrage. If they get no thrill from sex, they won’t be interested in fooling around much. This is very different from the reasons behind male circumcision.
So, while I think male circumcision is a somewhat silly although mostly harmless practice, I consider female “circumcision” to me a gross mutilation.
Male “circumcision” is a MOSTLY harmless but needless practice. (Except for religous reasons…). Yes, there is a similar practice, for females wher only the skin over the clitoris is snipped. That also is “a MOSTLY harmless but needless practice”. Both are acceptable to me- but come under “buy why?”.
However- in some cultures they pratice horrible mutilations of the female sexual organs and call it “female circumcision”. FGM= “Female genital mutilation”.
It’s the difference between getting your ears peirced- as opposed to having them cut raggedly off without sanitized tools or pain-killers AND then your ear drums destroyed as well. For men- it’d be like having your penis cut off- slowly and without any medications.
Do not trivialize FGM by calling it “female circumcision” and comparing it to “male circumcision”. FGM is a horrid barbaric inhumane practice.
Female “circumcision” typically involves the partial or total amputation of the visible clitoris; it is the equivalent of amputating a man’s glans or even his entire penis.
How nice would that be, really? Not nice at all. Female genital mutilation is a misogynistic and barbaric practice to keep women “in their place” by seriously restricting (or destroying entirely) their ability to have an orgasm. As far as I know the practice only occurs in patriarchal cultures with existing tendencies to subjugate women.
Male circumcision is a generally harmless procedure for cosmetic and hygienic effect (and there actually are some slight advantages in terms of hygiene and health) or religious reasons. Circumcision usually has no detrimental effect on a man’s ability to enjoy sex. Complications are rare, especially if it is performed on infants (on adults apparently the situation can be a bit trickier).
There is no hypocrisy involved in accepting male circumcision and fighting tooth and claw to see female genital mutilation eradicated from the face of the planet.
What religion calls for women to be “circumcised”?
What health benefits are there for mutilating the clitoris??
What possible “esthetic preference” could you mean with regards to a little nub that most men can’t even locate???
There’s only one ultimate reason for FGM: a culture of patriarchal misoginy.
Note that female circumcision is a murky topic; I remember reading of a lady who did circumcisions to little girls brought to her by parents; she would simply nick the inside of the girl’s thigh to make them react (so the parents were satisfied the procedure occurred), and left them sexually intact. Even in areas where the practice is established, this type of mercy by the very people carrying out circumcisions is not unheard of.
“Female circumcision“ (when it’s the more comprehensive removal of clitoris and labia) is a misnomer, not at all comparable to male circumcision. Whoever thought to call the two by the same name anyway? A more rational term is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). I have never heard of any culture that removed boys’ penises, its closest male analogy would be something like castration of boys for the Byzantine court or castrati for sopranos during the Middle Ages.
A castrato (in the sense of a male whose testicles have been removed) is still technically able to enjoy sex – he does not however produce sperm and may therefore not procreate in the normal sense (on the other side of the equation, plenty of women have hysterectomies or similar procedures that render them unable to bear children). However certain eunuchs and even some castrati were known to have undergone complete penectomies.
I have vague memories of some Australian Aboriginal tribal customs involving some pretty disgusting mutilation of the penis and glans as opposed to the testicles. We’re talking cringe-worthy stuff like splitting the penis into two almost all the way to the base to let it heal into a bifurcated horror. However even these folks are supposedly still able to enjoy sex, though I can’t (and don’t particularly want to) imagine how. Apart from amputation of the glans or entire penis suffered by some eunuchs, there is no equivalent to female genital mutilation I am aware of. It truly is a man’s world, you could say.
Anyway, I tried to google for the details of the Oz male genital mutilators and I found out that there are people even worse than those who call female genital mutilation “circumcision”: apparently no shortage of morons refer to male circumcision as “male genital mutilation”.
The horrible practice of FMG is routinely given the euphemism of “circumcision” and thus lambasted, but the generally harmless procedure of male circumcision is labelled MGM and thus lambasted! Surely there is some sort of idiocy at work here.
Well. If you have the stomach for it, do a search for the words “penis” and “subincision”. And find that Australian tribe of bifurcated penises while you’re at it, I couldn’t stomach any more pictures just at this moment…
Non-politicized research of female “circumcision” invariably reveal severe damage to the female’s body and loss of sexual sensation. This is inexcusable.
On the other hand, nearly all non-politicized research into male circumcision find generally favorable outcomes:
-
In 5 major series in the USA since 1932, not one man with penile cancer had been circumcised neonatally. [i.e., infant circumcision appears to be a 100% effective preventive measure against penile cancer in the U.S.]
-
Of 33 cross-sectional studies, 22 have reported statistically significant association, by univariate and multivariate analysis, between the presence of the foreskin and HIV infection (4 of these were from the USA). 5 reported a trend (including 1 US study). The 6 that saw no difference were 4 from Rwanda and 2 from Tanzania. In addition there have been 5 prospective studies and 2 from Kenya and 1 from Tanzania reported statistically significant association. The increased risk in the significant studies ranged from 1.5 to 9.6 [e.g., the risk of contracting HIV is at least 150% greater – but could well be as much as 960% greater – for uncut men as compared to circumcised men! (In the unlikely event that you are confused by percentages, an increased risk of 9.6 means the same thing as saying a 960% increased risk.)]
-
18% of uncircumcised males underwent circumcision later in life anyway.
-
21% of uncircumcised men who didn’t, nevertheless wished they were circumcised. (There were also almost as many men who wished they hadn’t been circumcised and it could be that at least some men of either category may have been seeking a scapegoat for their sexual or other problems. In addition, this would no doubt be yet another thing children could blame their parents for, whatever their decision was when the child was born.)
-
Clinical and neurological testing has not detected any difference in penile sensitivity between men of each category.
-
Slightly higher sexual activity in circumcised men.
-
Women with circumcised lovers were more likely to reach a simultaneous climax.
-
Women who failed to reach an orgasm were 3 times more likely to have an uncircumcised lover. [but some cultural considerations might be partially responsible]
-
Circumcision was favoured by women for appearance and hygiene.
-
The circumcised penis was favoured by women for oral sex (fellatio).
-
Even women who had only ever had uncircumcised partners preferred the look of the circumcised penis.
-
Only 2% preferred an uncircumcised penis for fellatio, with 82% preferring the circumcised variety.* Preference for intercourse for circ. vs uncirc. was 71% vs 6%, respectively; manual stimulation, 75% vs 5%; visual appeal, 76% vs 4%.
-
The National Health and Social Life Survey in the USA found that uncircumcised men were more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions. This was slight at younger ages, but became quite significant later in life and included finding it twice as difficult to achieve or maintain an erection. It was also discovered that circumcised men engaged in a more elaborate set of sexual practices [i.e., cut men were typically less conventional lovers]. Not surprisingly, in view of the findings above, circumcised men received more fellatio. [And if that isn’t a good enough reason to favor circumcision, what is?]
Let me quote from a few other studies in the medical literature (you can find the citations in the previous thread):
“… uncircumcised men had a higher prevalence of HIV infection than circumcised men”
“Women whose husband or usual sex partner was uncircumcised had a threefold increase in risk of HIV, and this risk was present in almost all strata of potential confounding factors.”
“CONCLUSION: Male circumcision has a protective effect against HIV infection”
“HIV infection was significantly associated with uncircumcised status”
“A logistic regression model adjusted for behavioral and historical [factors] showed that HIV-1 positivity was independently associated with being uncircumcised … Male circumcision should be considered as an intervention strategy for AIDS control.”
“The decision to discourage newborn circumcision in the UK and the resultant decrease in the number of circumcised males occurred before the accumulation of this evidence about the protective effect of circumcision against UTI and HIV infection. Particularly in the face of an expanding worldwide AIDS epidemic, these benefits are a powerful argument in favour of encouraging universal newborn circumcision.”
“Over 95% of attributable risk in men with STD was either genital ulceration or the presence of a foreskin.”
“Uncircumcised men were more likely than circumcised men to have syphilis and gonorrhea…”
“The medical benefits of circumcision appear to exceed the risks of the procedure.”
“It has been established that lack of circumcision increases the risk of urinary tract infection in infants. … Our results also support the role of the prepuce as a reservoir for sexually transmitted organisms.”
“Male circumcision consistently shows a protective effect against HIV infection. … The prevalence of HIV infection is 1.7 to 8.2 times as high in men with foreskins as in circumcised men, and the incidence of infection is 8 times [800%] as high.”
“RESULTS: There is substantial evidence that circumcision protects males from HIV infection, penile carcinoma, urinary tract infections, and ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases. We could find little scientific evidence of adverse effects on sexual, psychological, or emotional health.”
“…as the safest and most commonly performed surgical procedure in [the USA], the benefits of posthetomy [circumcision], which include a reduction in some kinds of cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, well outweigh the risks cited by those who oppose it.”
-
Clinical and neurological testing has not detected any difference in penile sensitivity between men of each category.
-
Slightly higher sexual activity in circumcised men.
-
Women with circumcised lovers were more likely to reach a simultaneous climax.
-
Women who failed to reach an orgasm were 3 times more likely to have an uncircumcised lover. [but some cultural considerations might be partially responsible]
-
Circumcision was favoured by women for appearance and hygiene.
-
The circumcised penis was favoured by women for oral sex (fellatio).
So, yes, experienced, non-politicized medical researchers generally favor male circumcision while decrying the female procedure.
(Sorry about the repitition)
Then why does the American Academy of Pediatrics no longer recommend the practice on the basis that there is no proven health benefit to it?
I’ll go on record as being opposed to both.
catsix: Reading their position paper on the subject http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3B103/3/686 I get the distinct feeling there’s a lot of hemming and hawing going on. They concede the health benefits of circumcision, though usually with caveats along the lines of “it’s not fully understood” and “there are a lot of variables here.” It seems to be a political (or politique) document more than a scientific one. I think they’re reacting to public sensitivity about medical edicts from on high. There’s probably a strong fear of malpractice between the lines, as well.
In short, I’d take this thing with a grain of salt.
catsix:
Because the benefit in question is a negative one, not a positive one. Most of those diseases (e.g., HIV) can be avoided without circumcision. So it does not behoove the pediatricians to positively recommend circumcision as a strategy for prevention of later-life disease.
However, they certainly don’t recommend against it.
Because in addition to what cmkeller said, the “decreased risks” are risks that are pretty slight to beging with. The benefit is there, but whether or not its meaningful is very debateable.
I’m not against male circumcision–I just think some people are too quick to tout the medical benefits. I am not disputing that there are some–but let’s be realistic about how much weight they should really hold in the decision-making.
Maybe, but your username used to be “Eight”.
Just kidding.
If the risks are actually decreased. I’ve not yet seen conclusive proof that they are decreased to a statistially significant degree.
I think there are believed benefits, whether those benefits actually exist or not is another story. Then again, I’m one of those people who finds the process as appalling as removal of the clitoral hood. So, not someone that the OP was referring to and I should probably just shut up now.
To answer the OP, yes; apparently most people in the US.
I think in a purely logical sense they’re both examples of ritual mutilation, along with ear piercing and tattoos. Moreover, both are involuntary (in the typical case of infants or children), which makes me a little uneasy about both. I vaguely wish I’d had the choice (as a male), but can’t say exactly why - don’t even know which I’d have chosen.
But female circumcision sounds so much worse than any of the others above that, practically, it’s in a league of its own. For me “a little uneasy” becomes “horrified”.
Calling it “circumcision” could in effect be a back door way of trying to legitimize it. Does anybody know how it came to be called that? For example, could the origin of the term derive from the Latin “cutting around”, without regard to the “male” version, and the back door effect inadvertant? Or are we sure the term was chosen specifically to suggest analogy to “male circumcision”?
Is it hypocritical to address an instance of some wrong without addressing all instances of that wrong? I guess. But surely that should not prevent us from stopping the most horrible instances first.
At the risk of boring the people who find statistics and research design snoozariffic, can you explain a little more? I don’t have a good background in the medical field, so I can’t always discern what information is good or not. In our case, it wasn’t the benefit or alleged benefit that made up our minds (as explained above I didn’t put much weight on it), so I didn’t pursue it but took the stuff from the Mayo clinic et al at face value. What’s flawed about the findings?
Ahhh…it’s nice to get past the election and get back to the circumcision debates. 
Isn’t there somebody missing from this thread?
Not necessarily flawed findings, but that the decreases in risk for things like penile cancer are usually (from the articles that I’ve been looking at) typically quoted as ‘may reduce’, such asthis article or that I’ve found it really difficult to find any numbers on what percentage of circumcised vs. uncircumcised men get penile cancer.
As for the prevention of HIV, I think the thing that bothers me most about suggesting that this may prevent the transmission of HIV is that so much less drastic measures have so much better prevention properties.
Eventually I came to the conclusion that the risks involved in the procedure, the side effects of it, and the totally involuntary nature make circumcision something that should be decided by the individual whose penis it is.
Other arguments about foreskin retraction and such are almost always attributable to attempting to retract the foreskin too early, before it is ready to be retracted. There are, I can admit, rare circumstances in which it would be necessary to excise the tissue. I just can’t see anything I’ve read pointing to a clear, overwhelming benefit.