Acksiom,
You asked me to respond to the question about the expansion of the Female Genital Mutilation law to male children. In the post you referred to, you quoted the statute, and asked the following question:
The main operative section of the statute provides: “whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
I believe that the principles behind this legislation should be extended to male minors. I believe it should be equally criminal to circumcise, excise or infibulate the labia majora or minora or clitoris of a male minor, just as it is to do so for a female minor.
Somewhat less facetiously, the principles behind the legislation are intimately tied in with the biology. The male and female sexual organs are different (and viva la difference). As a result, “surgery” on those organs will have different effects on sexuality.
Whatever the effect of male circumcision, it is clear that both uncircumcised and circumcised men can have full, satisfying sexual lives. I cannot discuss the scientific research (or absence thereof) detailing the precise difference between sexual response between circumcised and uncircumcised men. However, it is clear from the empirical research conducted by people who have had sex with men of both types that there isn’t much difference as a whole in the sexuality of the men of each type.
On the other hand, it is equally clear that infibulation and similar female sexual surgery significantly reduces the sexual response of those who have had it. Indeed, the primary purpose of such surgery appears to be to diminish female sexual response. I have heard no claims that such surgery has little or no effect.
So, the difference in biology causes the difference in principle. Although anti-circumcision advocates may argue vehemently that circumcision impairs male sexual response, the evidence is, at best, disputed. On the other hand, the female genital surgery prohibited by the FGM statute undisputedly diminishes female sexual response. Accordingly, it is appropriate to prohibit FGM, but not male circumcision.
Should there be a broad consensus of scientific research indicating that male circumcision similarly impairs male sexual response, it would be time to consider whether male circumcision should be prohibited. However, considering the millennia-old experience with male circumcision, it is unlikely that a significant impairment will be found. In contrast, both the study of female sexuality and the awareness of the practice of FGM are relatively recent, and the results of the study of the practice are unequivocal.
I understand why anti-circumcision advocates compare the practices, but broad evidence that the results of the practices are similar is just not there. (I will not be drawn into a discussion about the specifics of the research, but simply reiterate that a broad consensus of harm is not there). Moreover, I believe that for some of the most vehement advocates against circumcision, the fixation on the effects of circumcision masks deeper problems with their own sexuality.
Therefore, because the biology of males and females is different, I believe the “principles” of the FGM law should not extend to male circumcision.
Bill
[P.S. I am sorry to see that you were banned, Acksiom. You were a rational advocate for the anti-circumcision side, though you were tripped up by your tendency (which we all fight) to make personal attacks here in Great Debates. This board has a forum, The BBQ Pit, where such personal statements (within reason) are permitted, and there are several related threads there in which it would be appropriate to voice your opinions about other posters (though without rising to the level of direct personal insult).
There have been some other posters who have been initially banned and then, upon a sincere promise to follow the rules, have been allowed to return to the boards. I would suggest that you wait several days and then e-mail Gaudere and David B (and TubaDiva as well) explaining that you understand that you transgressed board rules, describing your understanding of the rules and pledging that you will follow them thereafter. Then they may (and I stress may) allow you to return.
One other thing that I caution you about is that you should under no circumstances sign up with another screen name and begin posting (unless specifically permitted to do so by board administration). The no multiple user names rule is one that the board takes very seriously.
In any event, I enjoyed your posts and think they added to the discussion. Good luck.]
