…and this is a 
Hey, I'm like a biblical patriarch!
Category: Religion
Posted on: April 18, 2007 10:00 AM, by PZ Myers
You recall that nice scarlet letter "A" for atheism t-shirt? I like it so much that I've decided to get it tattooed on my forehead. And this is so important to me that I'm also dragging my kids into the tattoo parlor to have it done to them. After all, my beliefs are important and this minor procedure will make my children more attractive, so they shouldn't object — it'll also make it easier to find partners with a similar cultural background. This is a win all around; I really don't understand why Skatje is hiring a lawyer to oppose me.
I'm lying (the kids will be relieved). I think everyone would agree that if I seriously proposed doing something like that, that I had gone insane … I'd come home to find an intervention at best, or the men in white coats at worst, and Skatje would only have to whisper a few words of complaint to get a judge to slap an injunction on me, preventing such a pointless mutilation.
So why is it so difficult to stop a man from mutilating his adolescent son's genitals against his will?
Oh, right — because it's religion. It's OK if God tells you to do it. "Morality" means an invisible imaginary man in your head gives you permission. Religions have spent millennia confusing ethics with obedience, and this kind of nonsense is the result.
Apparently, the circumcision case does not exist. Don't send money to contribute — it's almost certainly a scam!
Comments
Parents have their children (infant or otherwise) circumcized on spurious "medical" grounds all the time.
Is believing religious nonsense better or worse than using medical excuses for a cultural practice?
Posted by: Caledonian | April 18, 2007 10:09 AM
Forcing an operation without compelling medical reasons of necessity upon someone who is old enough to voice his opinion that he doesn't want it is wrong.
I agree that using medical reasons to perpetuate a cultural practice is wrong as well. But this is more wrong.
Posted by: Robert | April 18, 2007 10:17 AM
Two points:
It's my understanding that when an adult converts to Judaism, the circumcision is a symbolic pinprick. That's what I've read; obviously I could be wrong and the doctor in this case could be planning something more drastic.
I hope you'll put in a protest for the many sub-adolescent girls who suffer clitoridectomy and worse ("female circumcision," also called "female genital mutilation")to make them docile and marriageable. There are people who try to continue that custom in North America.
Posted by: Monado | April 18, 2007 10:24 AM
Monado: No, this is only the case if the person has already been circumcised in a non-religious way. In this case, the pinprick is all that's needed. If not, the full circumcision is required.
Posted by: DanielR | April 18, 2007 10:27 AM
Hey, the Bible says if a kid doesn't follow his parents' will, the parent can take the kid to the elders and arrange to have the kid stoned. So get with the program.
Oh, THAT kind of stoned. Sorry. My bad.
I still want to form a church that teaches only the bad parts of the bible. Sort of like Landover, but without the humor.
Posted by: MikeM | April 18, 2007 10:34 AM
My suggestion to the boy is twofold:
1) Be brought into the medical office kicking and screaming, requiring you to be forcibly tied up.
2) Look the doctor in the eye and tell him (or her) that once you turn 18 you will be suing him (or her) for everything they have.
That ought to throw a Spaniard in the works.
Posted by: Hairhead | April 18, 2007 10:36 AM
This is truly egregious, especially at an age where the kid is just coming into puberty. My son was circumcised at birth, just because we knew at that time he would have no memory of a foreskin. I'm circumcised and I kind of like it that way, and when my son was born the issue was not as prominent as it is now.
But I would NEVER DREAM of forcing that on him now, especially if he were to fight me on it. I still have the authority to make him brush his teeth, shower and wear clean clothes, but in no way would I have authority to mutilate his privates for my "conversion."
When people are shocked that Dawkins claims imposing religion is a form of child abuse, point them to this story.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | April 18, 2007 10:42 AM
We do not allow a parent to kill their child on the grounds that child sacrifice was a requirement of their religion, no more should parents or others be allowed to physically mutilate children on anything other than medical grounds. Any religion which encourages and performs such acts on unwilling victims should be called to account before the law.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | April 18, 2007 10:44 AM
While it is clear that this action is motivated by religion (and perhaps by spite), it may be incorrect to call it completely "medically unnecessary", as there is strong evidence that circumcision can cut the risk of contracting AIDS substantially (by approximately 70%). In this regard, it may be as effective in preventing this disease as various childhood vaccinations are, and the anti-vaccination crowd are generally viewed as loonies.
Further, just to amplify an earlier poster's point, this procedure is in no way like "female circumcision" as practiced in Africa -- that procedure usually involves partial or complete removal of the clitoris, and can involve sewing the vaginal opening almost completely shut. Removing foreskin is not at all comparable (although it is still a medical procedure). If male circumcision is objectionable, female genital mutilation is far more worthy of protest.
With all of this said, I am appalled that a father would impose this procedure on his son for purely religious reasons. I am surprised that a mohel would be willing to perform this act on someone who clearly doesn't want it.
Posted by: Tulse | April 18, 2007 10:50 AM
This is horrible. It's particularly upsetting that the father found a willing doctor so easily - if we can even use the words 'father' and 'doctor' for men so far removed from loving and healing.
Posted by: MissPrism | April 18, 2007 10:54 AM
Nobody is saying that female genital mutilation is acceptable. The whole point is that while most people seem to find that female genital mutilation is highly objectionable as a simple truth, male genital mutilation is "acceptable" because of tradition or religion. That makes no sense, and it's time to stop this barbaric practice.
If people want to remove their foreskin, let them do it themselves when they're old enough, the same as other forms of self-mutilation (piercings, tattoos, etc.)
Posted by: frank | April 18, 2007 11:03 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 18, 2007 11:08 AM
If it goes through, the son should have his foreskin preserved and go around the country exhibiting it.
Step right up!
See the foreskin!
Forcibly removed to satisfy someone else's religious beliefs!
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 18, 2007 11:09 AM
Religion shouldn't be the only thing that should be taking a hit for this.The US government was big on this procedure in World War2.My father was circumsised by the US Navy in 1943 at the age of seventeen.He never was to happy about it.
Posted by: spartanrider | April 18, 2007 11:14 AM
As usually practiced, female genital mutilation is profoundly worse -- the equivalent for men would be cutting off the head of the penis and sewing the remainder flat against the body. Many women die while undergoing this procedure, and those who survive are often incapable of normal sexual relations, or of experiencing pleasure from sex. And the motivations for the practices are far different as well. The whole intent of female genital mutilation is to prevent women from having sex before marriage -- it is profoundly misogynous. There is simply no comparison between female genital mutilation and male circumcision.
The adjective "barbaric" gets thrown around, but I think it is excessive. There are demonstrable medical benefits from circumcision, and the negative impact on the individual's health (in terms of sexuality) is at best slight. There certainly are arguments to be made regarding the autonomy of the individual, and I think these are valid, especially in the case of a 12-year-old. But I don't think that renders the practice as a whole as "barbaric".
(Just to be clear, I consider myself an Uppity Atheist, and was a former Catholic, so I don't have a religious dog in this fight.)
Posted by: Tulse | April 18, 2007 11:21 AM
Silly Wabbi! Foreheads aren't genitals!
There's some symbolism in the idea of forehead multilation, though, given that a full committment to the religious way of life does require a figurative cutting off of the head.
(am not ignoring or dismissing the very real issue of genital mutilation of both males and females, I just can't handle it today... traumatic week.)
Posted by: Kseniya | April 18, 2007 11:39 AM
That ought to throw a Spaniard in the works.
That's spanner. Or I'm missing a pop culture quote again. But we got a chuckle out of it and appreciated that. :)
Posted by: Speedwell | April 18, 2007 11:43 AM
You're missing a pop culture reference. Philistine!
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 18, 2007 11:55 AM
There is no reason to mutilate infants, or adolescents. There is no medical reason for the mutilation!
the AIDS prevention factor is not a valid reason, if the child wants the protection, he can choose to be cut when he comes of age. Besides, condoms offer superior protection.
And the analogy to female circumcision is not far fetched. Some versions of female circumcision only removes the skin surrounding the clitoris, which is comparable to the same abuse against infant boys.
Posted by: Soren | April 18, 2007 11:58 AM
...
...
I always think of it like this:
Imagine performing unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery on a child to make her ears pointed, so later in life she'll be popular and cute.
Do it when she's a baby, so she "won't remember the pain later." (And hey, after all, babies are like dogs; they don't really feel PAIN like we do.)
Do it blithely, without a thought, without even considering her own later will, because you own her. She's YOUR child, you can make these decisions FOR her.
And tell yourself that SURGERY is nothing at all. No chance of infection, no chance of complications. And besides, studies show pointed ears are really cleaner and less prone to problems.
Plus, everybody else is doing it. Why should my little girl be singled out and different?
Besides, they just look better. When she's grown up, it'll all be behind her and she'll be glad we had it done.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 18, 2007 12:17 PM
Hank Fox for the win!
Posted by: Robert | April 18, 2007 12:24 PM
Circumcision, even for non-religious reasons, seems to get people riled up almost as much as religion itself. See "The Cruelest Cut" at kuro5shin.org and the ensuing 981 comments.
As for the whole idea of it helping to prevent AIDS, I am deeply sceptical. I don't recall ever seeing a satisfactory theory of why it would work. Moreover, didn't AIDS first appear in the USA, a country where practically all males are already circumcised? There's circumstantial evidence for you!
Moreover, the idea of performing unnecessary genital surgery in situations where hygiene may not be guaranteed (to say the least) strikes me as a disaster just waiting to happen.
And yes, clitoridectomy is orders of magnitude worse than male circumcision, but both are barbaric in my opinion.
Posted by: John J. Rynne | April 18, 2007 12:34 PM
Hank, and bind the little sweetie's feet while you're at it. We all know that men prefer women with dainty feet. Dainty feet, and an aversion for big books.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 18, 2007 12:40 PM
Actually, various forms of FGM are exactly comparable to MGM (or, 'female circumcision is comparable to male circumcision'. You can have either, but no mix & match).
The clitoris is a more-or-less indiscrete, largely internal organ. You couldn't 'remove' anyone's entire clitoris without taking a sharp melon baller under their public bone. Plenty of women that have been circumcised say that there's nothing wrong with their sexual response, that they're JUST FINE, thank you.
And anyone that chooses, as an adult, to get their own genitals hacked at is fine by me.
You just don't get to choose that for other people. Even if the voices in your head tell you to. (Or the voices in other people's heads a very long time ago. Allegedly.)
Posted by: Susan | April 18, 2007 12:40 PM
Hank, you're so close. It's already being done, very commonly, with just a slight twist on your description.
Ear piercings. Haven't you seen them on babies? Maybe more common in the Midwest, but I used to see them all the time. The only way I can see it as at all justified is when there are multiple identicals who need to be told apart easily (different color earrings and all).
Posted by: Carlie | April 18, 2007 12:42 PM
Isn't the clitoral hood the female analogue of the foreskin? Why is it then that removal of the clitoral hood counts as genital mutilation and is illegal but the removal of the foreskin is not?
Posted by: gotaku | April 18, 2007 12:48 PM
"Moreover, didn't AIDS first appear in the USA,"....
No. People didn't get excited about it until then, but AIDS had been killing Africans for twenty years or so before.
Posted by: Coragyps | April 18, 2007 12:55 PM
Just to be clear, I am by no means defending performing purely elective surgery on adolescents against their will. In the specific case PZ raises, I think it is horrific that the father would force his son through the procedure for what are clearly religious and personal reasons, unrelated to the boy's health.
However, I think that, in certain environments (such as Africa), the reduced risk of AIDS might well justify the procedure, just as the risk of various childhood diseases justifies the risks associated with vaccination (which are not zero). As for the validity of the AIDS protection claim, the Beeb says it is so, and this source (with an admitted religious interest in the matter) says there are over 40 studies showing this, along with summarizing the potential mechanisms involved. In places like Africa, I think it is arguable that infant circumcision is just as supportable as vaccination against smallpox -- perhaps more so, since the likelihood of coming in contact with HIV is vastly greater than exposure to smallpox.
As for the comparability of male and female genital mutilation, I will re-emphasize that they are done for radically different reasons, that the female procedure is often (although not always) far more invasive and radical, and that women are vastly more likely to die from the procedure than men. In my book, that makes them incomparable.
John J. Rynne is correct -- people get extremely emotional about male circumcision, and in my view, often all out of proportion to the actual issue. (I think that's in part because, these days, it is chic to be a victim, and it's a way men can grab a piece of that.)
Again, just to be clear, a 12-year-old should get to decide what happens to his foreskin.
Posted by: Tulse | April 18, 2007 1:00 PM
"I will re-emphasize that they are done for radically different reasons, that the female procedure is often (although not always) far more invasive and radical..."
Tulse, in cases where it is not "far more invasive" but on par with the male version would you then support it?
Posted by: gotaku | April 18, 2007 1:06 PM
Since the recent study on AIDS infection and circumcision I've changed my position somewhat. I used to be completely anti, in all circumstances except a voluntary, adult decision. Now I'm swayed in favour of involuntary circumcision of infants in some circumstances, at least in areas with very high incidence of AIDS. But it certainly should be anaesthetised.
"the AIDS prevention factor is not a valid reason, if the child wants the protection, he can choose to be cut when he comes of age"
Yes, but it's not all about the person getting cut, is it? What about his sexual partner(s)? In many parts of Africa at least, women aren't in a position to refuse their husbands' sexual advances if they don't want to use a condom, even if they are available. Combined with cultural acceptance of multiple partners at the same time, you've got a recipe for rapid spread of STDs. You can't rely on the men to get cut as adults, because as their other behaviour demonstrates, they're not (as a group - obviously this isn't universal) sexually responsible. Once the culture has been changed so that responsibility becomes ingrained, as they're trying to do in Uganda for instance, then you could probably phase out circumcision.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | April 18, 2007 1:16 PM
But there are also demonstrable medical benefits from abstaining from circumcision [bold addresses the above topics]:
- Is circumcision beneficial?
It depends.
Apparently it will protect millions of people from death in areas with a massive HIV infection and low condom use. The WHO decision to support this on pure medical grounds seems correct.
There are also small investigations (not so much interest there) that uncircumcised males are efficiently protected against chlamydia. This would be a concern in other areas, not least because untreated chlamydia lowers fertility. On the same grounds as above, and considering the risks, circumcision here should be acted against.
- Is circumcision a mutilation?
By default it is a body alteration. And male circumcision removes functional tissue.
First, the foreskin presents antigens to the immune system. [I'm not going to provide references to all of this - and they are easy to google.] It could even conceivably prepare sperm for impregnation as much as sperm prepares the female body, but I'm not aware of any published research here.
Second, sensitivity changes. There are some reports of loss of sensitivity.
Third, the mechanics of sex changes appreciably when the penis can't slide inside the foreskin. IIRC presented data such as it is seems to say uniformly that females reports less satisfaction.
Fourth, protective tissue is removed.
...
There are a few remaining issues as well:
- Should circumcision be done in presexual and/or dependent individuals?
No and no.
- Is circumcision an esthetic operation?
In cultures where it is seen as mutilation it seems to be mostly seen as unesthetic.
In other cultures, religious and esthetic purposes seems conflated. It is also hard to understand why the corresponding female 'light' circumcision of labia isn't likewise considered to be default religious and esthetical.
...
A recent thread that seems to have cover these issues comprehensibly is http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2007/03/circumcision_and_clean_syringe.php . It contains some specific criticism on the HIV report and WHO decision.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | April 18, 2007 1:19 PM
For aesthetic or cultural or religious reasons? No, but I don't support forced male circumcision in those cases either. I think both practices are only defensible if there is evidence of health benefits. I think there is such evidence for male circumcision in certain environments, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
And sure, there are likely downsides to male circumcision (as there are with almost any medical procedure or body modification). My point is not to defend circumcision at all costs, but merely to point out that one can be rational about this issue, rather than emotionally labelling it "barbarism".
(And, again to be completely clear, when a father tries to force his 12-year-old boy to undergo the procedure purely for religious reasons, that is indeed barbaric.)
Posted by: Tulse | April 18, 2007 1:29 PM
Newborn girls with a family history of breast cancer should have their "breasts" immediately amputated. You know...for health reasons.
Posted by: dave | April 18, 2007 1:35 PM
OK, I'm just a little disappointed that P. Zizzy isn't really going to have a big 'A' tattooed on his forehead. That would be like totally radical.
BTW, as someone who underwent the operation when I was ~10, circumcision hurts like hell.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | April 18, 2007 1:41 PM
"I think both practices are only defensible if there is evidence of health benefits."
When you look into the non-religious history of the practice it's quite shocking to discover just what the promoters actually claimed circumcision "cured".
"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."
(John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295)
"It (self abuse) lays the foundation for consumption, paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless, negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds; others, when grown, commit suicide.... Don't think it does no harm to your boy because he does not suffer now, for the effects of this vice come on so slowly that the victim is often very near death before you realize that he has done himself harm. It is worthy of note that many eminent physicians now advocate the custom of circumcision..."
(Mary R. Melendy, MD, The Ideal Woman - For Maidens, Wives and Mothers, 1903.)
Posted by: gotaku | April 18, 2007 1:57 PM
My favourite funny circumcision story (everyone has one of those, right?) comes from my discussion with my wife on the issue, around the time our son was born, and we were mulling pros and cons...
My wife is of Arab/Moslem background... realizes early in the conversation she didn't actually recall if she'd ever even heard that particular religion's argument for circumcision...
So I look into it. I find out it comes from one of the Hadiths... stories of the life of Mohammed. Seems the practice is regarded as a good thing principally because a Hadith says Mohammed had said, at some point, that Abraham had performed his own circumcision...
At the age of eighty.
With an adze.
(An adze, as I expect some of you might know, is a sort of axe with the blade mounted horizontally, so the axis of the shaft is perpendicular to the plane of the blade. You generally swing it overhand, sorta toward your feet... between your legs...)
I tell this to my wife. I can see we're both thinking the same thing. She says it first:
"At eighty? With an adze? Maybe he just slipped!"
So I figure they're reading the Hadith entirely wrong. No, it doesn't mean circumcision is a good thing...
It means that, when you get to eighty, you should probably leave the heavy woodworking to someone younger, with steadier hands.
Posted by: AJ Milne | April 18, 2007 2:02 PM
Regarding circumcision and aids in Africa - I agree this MIGHT be a possibility, but what has that got to do with circumcision in the US (or western Europe where I am placed)?
Posted by: Soren | April 18, 2007 2:12 PM
Is this case for real? The story itself is very skimpy on details, and the links provided as "verification" provide no information about the case. A Lexis-Nexis search in Oregon news sources for "Misha" or "Boldt" (apparently, the parents' surname) or various forms of "circumcize" retrieve no relevant hits. Google searches only retrieve various repostings of the "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" story. And why are donations going to that organization, instead of some fund set up by the attorney and his client?
The story is terrible if it's true, but before I start sending my lunch money to "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" I'd like to know a little more.
Posted by: Billy | April 18, 2007 2:37 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember that female circumcision is a preadolescent rite in Africa that involves not only a clitoridectomy but also cutting of the labia, which are then sewn together, leaving a single small opening for urine and menstrual fluid to escape. In addition, it is often performed not only without any anesthesia, but with any sharp object that happens to be available, like a brokend piece of glass. The ritual is done by a designated woman, when the girl is beginning to develop, but before menses, with relatives holding her down because that has significance to the ritual as well. of course, the labia will tear apart during intercourse, assuring her husband that she was a virgin, and also causing further pain that would discourage her from adultery. When she gives birth, the opening is again torn, often leading to infection and sometimes death, but if the woman survives, the labia are sewn back together.
Yeah, it's a little bit different.
Posted by: Alison | April 18, 2007 2:37 PM
SCAM ALERT
The story is a scam. "Misha" and the forced circumcision story come from the novel "Absurdistan." The Oregon Courts show no records of any such case. And finally, "Doctors Against Circumcision" appears to be two or three people, one a lawyer, one or two doctors, pushing this everywhere. It was pretty thoroughly debunked over at Daily Kos in January. I tried to post more detail, but comments were rejected.
Posted by: dhonig | April 18, 2007 2:38 PM
Well, it does beat an ice pick lobotomy... still reeling over this NPR interview from more than a year ago. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5014080
Posted by: PaulC | April 18, 2007 2:50 PM
While circumcision is nowhere near the horrible female mutilations which have been recorded it is a form of genital mutilation and most assuredly has an effect on sexual function Why the hell do you think ancient people did it. Especially in light of the danger of infection, why would they cut away at their sons penis if they did not expect some beneficial change to come from it?
Exposing the part of the penis normally protected by the foreskin is deleterious to sexual function, even if it has no effect on reproductive capability.
You could get by with half your lips cut away, but what do you think kissing would be like, with the tissues which normally kept protected areas moist and, well, protected, gone and the inside of your mouth all dried up?
Circumcision is a barbaric and deleterious to the individual. I should know- they did it to me! (and if I ever catch that motherf**king mohel I'll circumsise him, but good.
Posted by: Mooser | April 18, 2007 3:03 PM
While it is clear that this action is motivated by religion (and perhaps by spite), it may be incorrect to call it completely "medically unnecessary", as there is strong evidence that circumcision can cut the risk of contracting AIDS substantially (by approximately 70%).
Tulse
Wow!!! Only one problem; the link you gave substantiating this piece of fantastic prophylaptic therapy doesn't seem to work. Could you give it to us again? Please?
Posted by: Mooser | April 18, 2007 3:14 PM
The adjective "barbaric" gets thrown around, but I think it is excessive. There are demonstrable medical benefits from circumcision, and the negative impact on the individual's health (in terms of sexuality) is at best slight
I'm sorry, but the citations for those assertions must have gotten lost in the computer. Could we have them again?
Posted by: Mooser | April 18, 2007 3:21 PM
My God! I mean, if we are made in his image and all, who was God's mohel? Is He a Self-circumciser? Is that what the clouds are made of, God's foreskin?
So God made us so greviously imperfect we need to cut off part of our son's penis?
Of course, medical science has advanced to the state of perfect knowledge about every part of our body, so if they say c. is beneficial, or at worst, the foreskin is just an extra, why, off it goes. The thought that maybe we could leave well enough alone must be banished.
Once again: my ancestors were, among other things, very practical people; If they were willing to start hacking away at their son's whacker, they expected results! Now, take a look at those pratical people and their concerns (Thou shalt not commit adaultery) and ask yourself: 'What the hell do you think they were looking for when they hacked off a part of the penis? (Yeah, hacked, they may be glat kosher but I've never seen a set of sharp cooking knives in a Jewish home, and I've saw plenty, before I got excommunicated)
Posted by: Mooser | April 18, 2007 3:37 PM
Excision or, worse, infibulation, isn't practised everywhere, nor am I sure it is only done on preadolescents. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision )
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | April 18, 2007 3:37 PM
Odd, the links seem to work for me when I click them. Here are the raw URLs:
The BBC story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm
Summary of a British Medical Journal article on the mode of protection:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0999/is_7249_320/ai_63089402/print
And yes, given that circumcision seems to protect primarily by toughening the vulnerable skin on the penis, I will grant that there may well be an impact on sexual pleasure for the male from the procedure.
Some high-risk adult women have chosen to do just that for themselves, so your example isn't that far off. And we routinely vaccinate children for diseases that are now relatively rare and where there are non-negligible risks from the vaccine itself.
Again, I'm not defending circumcision as a religion practice. And even in the case of potential health impacts, there are negatives as well as positives, and it is really only defensible in those environments where there are significant health risks. My only point is that, as rationalists and scientists, we should actually consider all the evidence rather than condemning a practice with emotional arguments.
Posted by: Tulse | April 18, 2007 3:49 PM
My anthropologist SO did a major paper on Genital Cutting/Mutilation and one of the interesting this is that the nature of the discourse changes depending on who is doing the cutting, and to whom. (Did I get that who/whom thing right? I can never remember...)
She contrasted and compared "traditional" FGM with non-gendered specific surgeries done as part of "sex reassignment" to babies in the developed world. Many FGM activists are unwilling to accept such comparisons, probably because the FGM discourse pretty much rejects genital surgeries if approved by (Western) doctors.
This, even in the face of sexual reassignment drastically (I can't remember the number, but it was much larger than one might expect) in favour of male-to-female surgeries because of so-called "micro-penises". That is, the overwhelming majority of sexual reassignments done were doctor recommended procedures to reassign healthy, genetically male babies to physical females, even though there is little evidence that a baby's penis that happens to be in some lower percentile of size actually corresponds to gender issues or reproductive problems as an adult. That is, genitals will only become their adult size with the onset of puberty, and there is no correlation between adult genital size and the size at birth.
So, it isn't just religious situations and proscriptions that set up these cultural issues we hear about. There are indications that, at least in the developed world, established medical practice coupled with a basically unchallenged set of unfounded assumptions by a male-dominated professional class has led to similar unrealistic and unfair situations for many people.
I'm glossing over some of the details, of course (I didn't write the paper, but I was their for the many revisions!) but I definitely took away from it that when culture intersects with practice the results are not always simple to deconstruct.
For more info (I can't share the paper, because it is under peer review) you can go to http://isna.org/
Posted by: clvrmnky | April 18, 2007 4:12 PM
You know, the problem with the whole 70% decrease in AIDS infection BS *fails* to consider what problems arise from not having it, as well as, sadly, relying on the same, as near as I can tell, nonsense of, "One study says its good at this, so it must be.", type argument. Point of fact, other studies done in Europe on the subject show two different outcomes. I.e., one implies that it might help prevent some diseases, while another study found no correlation at all. Worse, still other studies showed an *increase* in childhood bladder infections and other problems, arising from the "lack" of protection that the penis normally has, in stopping things like feces or urine getting back in. One can presume that other additional diseases might represent dangers in situations, for the same reason, in earlier times when clothing wasn't so prevalent. The irony being that the prevailance of clothing *in* modern society has created other diseases, increased the exposure to some other diseases and even can arguably cause a lot of the social and psychological problems like bolemia and anorexia, as well as other less dangerous, but still abnormal, problems, which are a result of constantly comparing oneself to non-existent ideals, which are created as much by "hiding" most of the body.
The argument for AIDS is that the foreskin traps some of the virus where it has more time to infect someone. The opposite argument can be made for ***any*** other disease that has the urinary track as an entry point. And, its not at all certain, based on one sole study, that the supposed gain is even accurate, or makes up for the added risks from other factors, let alone the other issues it creates.
People are *not* being rational about it. That is the whole problem. And its not just the ones calling it "Barbaric" that are being irrational. Its the, "1,000 people surveyed said that Zinc cures the cold, so it must be true!", types that are also being irrational. Show me where multiple studies have been done that show the same valid correlation. Then show me if *any* of them might have a bias and what other issues they chose to "ignore" in favor of only looking at that one factor. Then we can have a "rational" discussion about it.
After all, we know damn well that "some" groups constantly publish supposed "studies" on just about everything imaginable, to try to prove that something they are already doing and think other people should be doing is a good thing. And most of those studies are really vague on just how did them, why, when, how, or anything else useful in assessing their validity. They simply want us to believe that video games are bad, AIDS can be prevented by some significant amount by circumcision, etc. One study doesn't count, especially if no one else can replicate it, other studies show the opposite or no real result, or they can be shown to have intentionally ignored things to make sure it came out the way they wanted it to.
At this point, we have the word of one poster, about a study we can't read about, since the link is broken, and no suggestion that anyone else has conducted a similar study. For all we know, there may be some situations where "having" a foreskin actually decreases the chances of AIDS too, but that isn't the conclusion they where looking for.
Posted by: Kagehi | April 18, 2007 4:15 PM
so... would female circumcision be ok if we only removed the labia? wouldn't that cut down on "infection" the same way a male circumcision would?
I bet most people still think that's pretty appalling. Why? because it isn't part of our culture, which is in a large part formed by our religious experiences. Yet we can come up with all SORTS of reasons to do the same thing to young boys becuase it's part of our cultural schema.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I hear this all the time, but there AREN'T any conclusive studies, never have been. This is a Judeo-Christian practice that, like Christmas, has become so widely accepted that we try to divorce it from it's religious roots in order to excuse the practice.
Whether or not we use a surgical instrument or a stone knife our INTENT, to mutilate the genitals of our young in order to comply with a norm established by religion.
We need to be reconsidering this... or at LEAST be honest about WHY it's done.
Posted by: dorid | April 18, 2007 4:39 PM
Kagehi, if you Google "AIDS circumcision", you will find any number of reports on the research I mentioned -- it's not like it's hidden. And it seems to be a relatively well-supported finding, so much so that three separate studies were stopped early for ethical reasons because the protection offered was so profound and obvious. Both the US National Institute of Health and the World Health Organization recognize circumcision as an effective component in fighting heterosexual transmission. (Just Google "AIDS circumcision NIH" and "AIDS circumcision 'World Health Organization'" if you doubt me.)
No, from the link I provided, the argument is that there are more Langerhans cells underneath the foreskin, and that these white blood cells are especially prone to infection from HIV. (Google "AIDS circumcision Langerhans" if the link to the British Medical Journal article I provided doesn't work.)
There may very well be negatives to circumcision, but the evidence seems very solid that, in environments where there is an AIDS pandemic transmitted primarily heterosexually, circumcision offers a profound level of protection.
Posted by: Tulse | April 18, 2007 4:50 PM
WHAT?
WHAT?
People, I got sick from reading this thread and had to lie down. Methinks there are even more profound cultural differences across the big pond than the idea that having a gun will protect you from being shot.
~:-|
Tract.
Posted by: David Marjanović | April 18, 2007 5:03 PM
I just love how the minute anyone blogs about problems with male circumcision, immediately there are a handful of 'track-jumpers' who rush in and try to knock the discussion into FGM. Like talking about male infant genital mutilation precludes opposition to and outrage over FGM.
What frakkin kooks.
Posted by: stogoe | April 18, 2007 5:07 PM
Hey, people, I was circumcised at a couple of days old, if that. At age 62, having a senior moment, I hardly can recall it. Not like female genital mutilation at all. I think of it as being streamlined. If you're not, it's kinda like your basset hound's ears flapping in the wind when it sticks its head out the car window. (Is that too icky an image?)
Posted by: VJB | April 18, 2007 5:18 PM
It would be really nice to see the myth supporting circumcision in our country brought to light, tied down, and executed like the piece of nonsense that it is.
If the beliefs promoted which support it (aside from the "I think it looks better", which just deserves a good smack in the face) were shown to be untrue, which I am pretty certain they are...
hmm.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | April 18, 2007 5:37 PM
I'm sorry, but I am just having a hard time feeling violated and mutilated because I don't have a foreskin. Sex works for me, and feels pretty good. I don't think my parents were barbaric, either.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | April 18, 2007 6:06 PM
@stogoe: Comparing cross-culturally there is some correlation between male and female circumcision. That is, among those cultures where ritual cutting of the genitals was an expression of adulthood (or personhood) extreme forms of female cutting often correspond with extreme forms of male cutting (when cutting does take place for both genders).
I think it's important to widen the net a little when we talk about this sort of stuff, because it is not at all certain that the discourse leading from Western activism and academia on (say) Africa is not clouded by other issues, such as development and neo-liberalism (in the "World Bank" sense of that word).
The fact is that male circumcision in the West comes from a particular expression of theism invented by pastoralists who were coming into conflict with agrarian cultures in (what is now) Middle East and North and East Africa. It may have been codified as a medical procedure as part of popular and governmental health crazes in the early part of the 20th century, but there are still a fair number of early cultural signifiers that reinforce the practice.
The more extreme forms of genital cutting, most obviously the forms of FGM that have been recently reframed (oops, was I not supposed to use that word?) and politicized still share some of these signifiers.
When viewed as a cultural phenomena, there is no reason to engender genital cutting /any further/. In fact, there is evidence that this actually harms the people that FGM activism intended to help. If anyone is intending to help women in the developing world over FGM, they would do well to pay attention to what they have to say, and think about what their own culture says (either tacitly or not) about genital cutting in general, and what this says about sex, personhood and gender in the specific.
Posted by: clvrmnky | April 18, 2007 6:07 PM
In most places in the US, circumcision is considered part of the standard treatment of neonates that parents must consent to in order to enter the hospital. Although many places have moved towards permitting parents to refuse it, there are many cases where it happens anyway.
It sometimes happens to adults, too. I remember one case of a man who went in for heart surgery, the surgery was cancelled after the prep had been completed, and he woke up without the operation - and sans foreskin. The doctors claimed they had to remove it in order to put in a cathether, which is grossly wrong.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 18, 2007 7:16 PM
I have an idea for a great application of stem cell technology AND framing: foreskin restoration through tissue engineering. Grow the neo-foreskins in a tissue culture frame.
Posted by: Colugo | April 18, 2007 8:23 PM
"Some high-risk adult women have chosen to do just that [have their breasts removed] for themselves, so your example isn't that far off. And we routinely vaccinate children for diseases that are now relatively rare and where there are non-negligible risks from the vaccine itself."
The key word in this sentence is "chosen." No one has a problem with individuals voluntarily choosing to be circumcised.
Several additional points:
1) vaccines are hardly as invasive as elective surgery
2) the diseases prevented by vaccines are fairly serious and are not preventable by any other means
3) If you are in favor of infant circumcision in Africa to reduce the likelihood of HIV infection then logic compels that you be in favor of infant female breast removal for infants with a high risk of developing breast cancer. Somehow I doubt anyone favors such an action.
Posted by: dave | April 18, 2007 8:30 PM
Except the people from societies in which female breast removal is considered normal, who argue that they're just fine without breasts.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 18, 2007 8:37 PM
Tulse, just saying 'they are not comparable' does not make it so.
http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-defended.html
A Nigerian doctor on the FGM Bill:
'It is not true that every type of genital ritual has the same implication or is practiced consistently across Nigeria or Africa. I am not aware of any Edo woman - for example - who has been properly circumcised whose clitoris or labia was amputated. What is removed is the prepuce - a small piece of the sheath that extends from the clitoris. That sheath has no sexual function. [There is no evidence for this claim.] It is the same sheath that is removed in males. In fact in many cases the "removal" is symbolic - and is part of a traditional marriage ceremony.'
Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that maternal and child mortality in Nigeria is increased because of properly performed circumcision. [Confining mortality to "properly performed" FGM defines it out of existence.] I challenge anyone to come out with randomized data that even remotely proves such a cause and effect relationship. [If this hasn't been studied, it certainly should be.] This is only the latest of a series of frivolous rationalizations that have been offered.
First the Women's liberation movement in the West said it was a male custom done to "control" women.
Then they discovered that female circumcision was done for women by women to women. [This is a common phenomenon -"slaves come to love their chains."] Next they said it limited sexual enjoyment - a fundamental right. But it is evident that most women who do not enjoy sex are not even circumcized. There are numerous reasons why a woman may not enjoy sex - including the competence of her male partner. Many post menopausal women suffer such problems. Pessaries widely used for reasons other than circumcision cause plenty of genital damage to women in Nigeria and Africa (including gynaetresia) - but I haven't seen any legislation to ban use of pessaries. Now maternal and child mortality is being blamed on circumcision. It is just another case of intellectual fraud.'
Arguing that it was done to you & your penis is JUST FINE is not a cogent persuader to someone who's heard it all already on the other side of the equation.
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/authors/samialdeeb/Mutilate/indexhtml
Try this link by Sami Aldeeb.
There are as well many different kinds of female circumcision:
'The female circumcision called sunnah or according to the tradition of Mohammed. The religious circles in favour of this type of female circumcision do not always give details on what is done. According to a classical author, Al-Mawardi, "it is limited to cutting off the skin in the shape of a kernel located above the genitalia. One must cut the protruding epidermis without performing a complete ablation" 25. For Doctor Hamid Al-Ghawabi, it is the ablation of the clitoris as well as labia minora 26. According to Doctor Mahran, the hood of the clitoris is excised as well as the most important parts of the labia minora 27.'
African girls die from the 'horrific, brbaric practice of FGM.' African boys die during 'botched circumcisions'.
The history of masturbation in the west is clearly tied to the popularization of secular circumcision- myths that the diminished pleasure would stop boys from the practice of masturbating. This whole 'but girls are different, they do it to stop pleasure!'- how do you say this with a straight face?
Let's all stop cutting off the genitals of the unwilling, shall we?
Posted by: Susan | April 18, 2007 9:15 PM
Dave wrote:
That is certainly true, but vaccines carry a non-zero risk to health with them as well. (I don't have any figures, but I'm willing to bet that more kids in the US die from reactions to vaccines than do from circumcisions.)
You don't think AIDS is serious? You don't think that distributing condoms to the whole of the African male population, and getting them to use them, might be fairly impractical? You don't think that reducing the risk of a fatal disease by 70%, one that in some cases infects over a quarter of a country's population, is important?
Keep in mind that, with AIDS, we are talking about a communicable disease, so this is not just an issue of individual health, but public health. And if a quarter of the female population (the AIDS infection rate in some countries) could be saved from death by breast amputation, then yes, I think it would be worth at least discussing that. Do you think it would be better to let people die while some less radical alternative is developed?
Susan, as you are clearly far better informed on this matter than I am, I will defer to your expertise on the practice of FGM. And yes, I do understand that the history of male circumcision is freighted with religious and moral overtones. That said, the efficacy of the practice in preventing AIDS is so great that the largest AIDS prevention organizations have endorsed it as a key strategy. I think it would be short-sighted to let past motivations militate against reasoned consideration of possible life-saving procedures.
(Everyone seems to get worked up about naughty bits -- if we were talking about snipping off earlobes, I doubt people would care nearly as much. I wonder if that's isn't due to a holdover of our Puritan past.)
Posted by: Tulse | April 18, 2007 10:21 PM
Tulse, why did people perform circumcisions before they learned about AIDS?
Posted by: Caledonian | April 18, 2007 10:51 PM
Caledonian, on which site in Washington, DC shall the Foreskin Atrocity Museum be built?
(Don't get mad; I'm just joshing.)
Posted by: Colugo | April 18, 2007 11:17 PM
Caledonian...can you give references to these hospitals which REQUIRE parents to consent to circumcision before admitting the mother to the hospital? In my 20+ years as an OB nurse, I never came across this. Most parents have discussed circumcision and made their decisions long before they come to the hospital. I have never seen a parent coerced into signing that consent. Most docs--peds or obs--hate to do them anyway (and the insurance reimbursement sucks...it's not a moneymaker). The hospital staff doesn't give a damn if you want the baby circumcised or not, they'll teach you how to care for the baby either way, but you do need to sign a consent before the procedure if you do want it done and they need to know if you want to have it done so they can prepare things accordingly.
I'd like to see the documentation of the man circumcised because they couldn't get a catheter in, too. Except in cases of severe phimosis or meatal stenosis, ANY man is easy to catheterize. To be honest, this sounds like an urban legend.
I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I am very curious.
Posted by: Dawn | April 18, 2007 11:21 PM
You didn't read very carefully.
You're also remarkably ignorant for a nurse. Authorization for circumcision used to be part of the general consent forms for women in labor.
Try a Google for Robert Banks.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 18, 2007 11:39 PM
And once again, to be really clear: I am not endorsing circumcision as a regular practice. I am not saying that religious or cultural reasons are sufficient to justify it. I am not denying that in the past it has been performed for said reasons. I am not denying that there may be negative impacts to it.
All I