Search Results for: male genital mutilation

A reader writes:

I'm totally for confronting misogynistic bigots. Knowing how they typically respond to confrontation, and considering that it is the daughters of said bigots that are in danger here, wouldn't it be at least be worth considering that this might help some fathers that are under pressure from their families or communities to mutilate their daughters to subvert the pressure with a 'token' mutilation? I don't disagree with PZ's thoughts on this in the slightest, but the bigotry in these communities is going to take time to go away, and in the meantime if – IF – this means that a lot of girls who would have gotten the full mutilation just get a token scar instead, wouldn't that be worth the dirty feeling that even I am getting just by writing this?

Another writes:

I am a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and I lived in Kenya for two years right out of college. Jomo Kenyatta's doctoral thesis, which was published as "Facing Mount Kenya", clearly states the reason behind female circumcision among the Kikuyu: to deny women any sexual pleasure, so that they would not be unfaithful.  This practice, as horrifying as it may be, was adopted by a primitive society to maintain social order.  Kenyatta also said that an uncircumcised woman would be considered undesirable by any Kikuyu man.

As euphemisms go, it’s not as powerful as “circumcision” but its potential to legitimize the mutilation of young girls’ genitals seems horrifying to me. PZ Myers brings to light the fact that the American Academy Of Pediatrics – yes, the American Academy of Pediatrics – is endorsing a kinder, gentler version of female genital mutilation for cultural reasons in America:

Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life- threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm. PZ notes this particularly loathesome passage from the AAP’s statement:

A reader writes:

My son, who was not circumcised at birth had to undergo the procedure as a medical necessity at the age of two. He was anaesthetized, etc, and we were sent home from hospital with painkillers, ointments and instructions. Nonetheless, I still get chills at the memory of him hysterically screaming out "No, Daddy. No. No. No. Don't. Don't. Don't!" while I had to physically pin him down to change the dressing in the days afterwards. Maybe it was my inexperience at parenting. Clearly the painkillers we were initially provided weren't doing the job (fortunately the doctor provided a better solution when we complained). All I know is it reduced me to tears.

I believe that to give religions a pass on this procedure because it's a "core conviction" is to duck the issue like the New York Times. Please call it what it is and be consistent. It's evidence that some religious beliefs are just not compatible with what we know about the world.

The logic of my readers is pretty overwhelming; and my position is obviously a defensive and largely pragmatic one.

Chuck Ross corralls the research against circumcision. Numbers worth emphasizing:

In research recently published in the International Journal of Epidemiology by Dr. Frisch et al. found that circumcised men and their partners suffer from higher rates of sexual difficulty than uncircumcised men and their partners. Eleven percent of circumcised men and only 4% of uncircumcised men reportedly experienced frequent difficulties reaching orgasm. Thirty-eight percent of the female partners of circumcised men versus 28% of female partners of uncircumcised men experienced incomplete sexual fulfillment; 31% versus 22% experienced frequent sexual difficulties; 19% versus 14% experienced difficulties surrounding orgasm.

This is obvious. If you cover a sensitive glans with scar tissue, it is less sensitive. It's an attack on male sexual pleasure. But Jesse Bering thinks parents should follow the American Academy of Pediatrics's recommendation on male genital mutilation:

What is vital to understand about the AAP’s recommendation is that the Academy is not discounting, in any way, the biological purpose or function of foreskin. What the task force has implied, rather, is that the whatever the advantages to being an intact male—such as increased sensitivity of the glans, protection, lubrication facilitating better heterosexual intercourse (in addition to the lubricating properties of shed skin cells and oils that accumulate under foreskins, an accentuated coronal ridge may also retract more vaginal fluids during copulative thrusting)—these advantages are overshadowed in importance by the prophylactic benefits of removing highly receptive HIV target cells that are found on the inner mucosal surface of the foreskin. And when performed by a skilled physician on neonates under sterile conditions, circumcision is a quick, safe, minor procedure.

To circumcise, or not to circumcise? To me, at least, that’s no longer even a question.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is now pro male genital mutilation [NYT]. Full report here. Yair Rosenberg celebrates:

The importance of this cannot be overstated. The AAP is a driving force behind health policy in America, and the experts involved in its new statement are already going on record in major media outlets to advocate that circumcision be covered on public health plans like Medicaid. The statement solidifies the scientific consensus behind the advisability of infant male circumcision (noting that complications are more likely to arise when the procedure is performed later in life) and places the traditional practice squarely within the realm of sound medical science.

The main advantage of permanently mutilating the infant penis is that studies claim to have shown that the subsequent scar tissue helps prevent HIV-infection from woman to man in heterosexual sex. This is a major issue in Africa, but is far less common in the US. Some details from the NYT:

Circumcision does not appear to reduce H.I.V. transmission among men who have sex with men, Dr. Diekema said. "The degree of benefit, or degree of impact, in a place like the U.S. will clearly be smaller than in a place like Africa," he said. Two studies have found that circumcision actually increases the risk of H.I.V. infection among sexually active men and women, the academy noted.

Other studies have linked male circumcision to lower rates of infection with human papillomavirus and herpes simplex Type 2. But male circumcision is not associated with lower rates of gonorrhea or chlamydia, and evidence for protection against syphilis is weak, the review said.

The Times also estimates that around 117 infant boys die in mutilation procedures in the US per year. So mercifully, the report is not as clear-cut as Rosenberg wants it to be. It doesn't mandate routine circumcision as has happened in the past – instead placing it clearly as an elective procedure to be decided by the parents. That would still mean millions of human beings involuntarily mutilated in ways that dull their sexual sensitivity for a small gain in not getting HIV from a woman – proven only in Africa under radically different circumstances.

I remain of the view that this is best decided by the human being whose body is being permanently mutilated – before he becomes sexually active. But the religious and cultural traditions are too deep to be banned in a free society. My goal is simply to raise awareness of this residual barbarism and its minimal benefits. Fortunately the numbers are dropping:

A reader writes:

Thank you for helping to bring attention to the issue of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). My hero, Edna Adan, has made it among her life missions to help to eradicate this evil. In Somaliland, the breakaway independent republic in the Northeast of Somalia, she has built a maternity hospital that educates local women about FGM in the hope that their daughters will be spared. In this region, as elsewhere, it is the women who enforce and carry out this practice.

I was present when Edna spoke last year to several hundred students at the University of California in Santa Barbara. Edna shocked the audience when she told of an 11-year-old girl brought to Edna’s hospital. The child, born with Down Syndrome, was near death.

Robin Wright spoke with Dalia Ziada, an Egyptian survivor of female genital mutilation. A staggering 97 percent of Egyptian women between the ages of 15 and 49 have suffered some sort of genital mutilation:

In 2006, when she was 24, Ziada had a long debate with an uncle about her seven-year-old cousin Shaimaa, the family’s youngest female child. “We talked most of the night. He was shocked at the blunt discussion,” she recalled. “I told him that he had no right to circumcise her. I said I’d cut off Shaimaa’s finger if he went through with it. He looked at me with surprise and said that would ruin her life—and I said, ‘Now you get it.’ I thought I’d lost. But he called me the next day and said I’d convinced him. …

A reader writes:

You wrote that male circumcision "is not as drastic or as hideous as female genital mutilation, where sexual feeling is removed, rather than merely blunted by scar tissue."  But there are more than one type of female circumcision (FC), just as there are more than one type of male circumcision (MC).  That is why, for example, the American Academy of Pediatrics' stance on FC [pdf] is that it "opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm" (the linked-to AAP paper discusses four types of FC).  To be sure, some of the FC procedures are significantly more drastic than some of the MC procedures, but the reverse is also true.

Eugene Volokh rejects the notion that circumcision bans are "motivated by hostility to Jews":

[I]t’s true that circumcision bans are likely to affect Jews more deeply than others, because Jewish parents are more likely to feel strongly about circumcising their children. But it would still be the odd anti-Semite who so wants to hurt Jews that he’s willing to try to in the process forcibly change the practices of over 50% of the population — overwhelmingly non-Jews — and thus to incur the political opposition of that big chunk of the population.

Also: Muslims. My position on this is based on a very simple principle that people's bodies should not be permanently altered without their consent. But I would still include a religious exception to this law, that would protect the rights of Muslims and Jews to retain this barbaric act because they sincerely believe it is integral to their faith, and is not as drastic or as hideous as female genital mutilation, where sexual feeling is removed, rather than merely blunted by scar tissue.

More TMI. I think many readers assume that being British, I was never put under the knife.

Shaun Raviv reports on male genital mutilation efforts in Swaziland, where just "under 20 percent of Swaziland’s 1 million people are HIV positive." The data is there that it can help stem HIV transmission, but, as always, there are unintended consequences: