Oh, the hypocracy!

[Ann-Marita]

I get so tired of the whole "FGM is horrible but circ is good" argument! Genital cutting is genital cutting. It doesn't matter if the victim is male or female, it's all still horrible.

The USA has absolutely no moral leg to stand on when dealing with FGM. Pot, meet kettle.

The issue with the AAP and doctors performing a "ritual nick" on girls... I've heard people get all up in arms about "even" a nick that draws blood is akin to torture and must be stopped. And yet, these people think nothing of amputating a baby boy's foreskin.

How about we judge genital cutting on the severity of the damage, instead of the sex of the victim?! If a nick that draws blood is not OK for girls, it shouldn't be OK for boys either. If removal of the prepuce and labia isn't OK for girls, then removal of the foreskin shouldn't be OK for boys.

[annablue]

I totally agree with you. But unfortunately, it seems like whenever circumcision is discussed, some people get all riled up about how wrong it is to compare circumcision to FGM, and how it's "not the same thing." I was told by a rather militant feminist, "how dare you compare them, that is flat out insulting to victims of FGM."

Cutting genitals is cutting genitals, regardless of gender or severity. I feel confident that in the future, society will look back on routine male circumcision with the same horror and disgust with which everyone views FGM today.

[dianakaye]

I think most americans are pretty clueless as to what the foreskin is all about. They have no idea what it's for, why it's there.

I would ask what FGM they're talking about. If they're talking clitoris removal, that takes away about 8,000 nerve endings. If we're talking an American circumcision of the foreskin that removes 10,000-20,000 nerve endings. So in that regard it's worse.

Ask them WHY FGM is so wrong. Then relate it to MGM. They'll soon see it's really not all that different, morally speaking. The anatomy may be different, but that's about it.

I think aversion to FGM will only help people realize MGM is wrong, if they're really honest about looking at the issue. Problem is, most people aren't really willing to explore the issue. THAT is what really bothers me. Not being able to sit down and hear a calm, rational argument about MGM being morally wrong.

[Ann-Marita]

Yes! I know smart, educated, responsible people - good parents! - who absolutely will not look squarely at the issue. (Fortunately, they have only girls.)

It's like this huge blind spot in the American culture.

We accuse other countries of human rights abuses, and yet we commit them ourselves!

[brant31]

It's not the parents not getting it that worries me, it's the doctors refusing to see it. The US medical profession continues to contend that there is no proven function to the foreskin whatsoever -- sexual, developmental or cosmetic.

It's a topsy-turvy world when you have to prove that something evolution has designed so exquisitely and extensively has a function. Can't we presume it does, like we do with other body parts, and then at least try to scientifically disprove its functions before we automatically cut it off?

It's all easier to accept if you just look at it like this: most Americans like the pretty head. They're used to seeing it, and foreskin freaks them out. They also like female genitals just the way they come.

All the talk of hygiene, and disease, and teasing, are smokescreens for the bottom line: doctors and parents alike want a bare glans. Want proof? If one could circumcise and then surgically attach a foreskin-like structure that was proven to prevent all disease, would parents and doctors go for it? No. It fails test #1, which is: Can I always see the head? If it were scientifically proven that Europe has less than half the hetero HIV transmission rate of the USA [and it does] because they have foreskins (with lysozymes, more extensive and efficient in vivo Langerhans cells, and more mobile skin for less abrasion), would that sway most American parents? No, because they want to see the head. It's important to them, culturally.

That's the hurdle we have to overcome.

[Tiana]

Great post, brant31! I completely agree with everything you've said. I'll never understand the inherent need many (most?) Americans seem to have with being able to see the glans. I think it's a bit disturbing, honestly, to see babies and young children looking so sexual.

Originally Posted by annablue

I totally agree with you. But unfortunately, it seems like whenever circumcision is discussed, some people get all riled up about how wrong it is to compare circumcision to FGM, and how it's "not the same thing." I was told by a rather militant feminist, "how dare you compare them, that is flat out insulting to victims of FGM."

I hear these comments more times than I can count. The absolute hypocrisy of it drives me batty!

How exactly is unnecessary genital surgery performed on a non-consenting minor different from unnecessary genital surgery performed on a non-consenting minor? Different genders do not make it a different thing! The amount of people I've encountered that still don't get it even after having it broken down and explained makes me want to . It's very frustrating.

[Mama Metis]

I could not agree more that circumcision is wrong no matter who is subjected to it. I would never ever ever defend RIC of any child. To be honest, I have often compared male and female circ in conversation to make a point.

BUT I understand there are reasons why feminists would be upset by the comparison (besides just cultural ignorance, of course.) Fundamentally, FGM is a tool to subjugate and oppress women, whereas it is not used this way on males in the US. I think we have to consider the social significance behind the practice rather than just the practice itself.

Just another perspective...

[MommytoB]

Anyways , I totally agree with brant31 that medical professionals should realize after so many decades their is no benefit for their patients getting circumcised and more likely more problems from being circ'ed but I just wonder why doctors continue to say hey it reduces/prevents etc to mislead parents into circ'ing their son's .

The husbands who have been cut some of them may end up saying No and realizing it's bad after they seen what it is all about but for a few of them to not be phased by seeing the circumcision procedure it's like how can they not see that their son is being harmed especially if he had been screaming his head off is it that those husbands feel like a must or are they secretly acting out like as revenge of what they went through but allowing it to be taken out on someone they love more than to be taken revenge on doctors to allow them to be hurt for no reason .

For a mother to allow someone to take her baby away for 5 -10 minutes just to get his foreskin removed to come back with a Wound on his penis that will scab in a week or two.

It's like if doctors or parents removed any part of skin to cause bleeding to form we would all go to jail but so why is it allowed to have a body part removed that is Physically attached to the body just like the fingernails are attached to our fingers of course they will grow back if broke off but a foreskin won't because once it's gone it's gone .

Plus, sometimes I think with males having their glans exposed all the time and for some reason some women get a need to see the glans out all the time hence when a male is intact his glans is not out until when he's ready to be intimate so I think in a sense that sigmund freud had a point of how some things can bring out sexual stimulation for the wrong reason because I'm for sure our women natural map has some feeling of attraction to the glans because it's supposed to be acting as something sexual so then our women mind been trapped in a sexual state just like how a boy when he's circ'ed he's forced into a sexual state .