Uncut or Edited for Content?
Good friends of mine are expecting their first child this summer. As part of all the preparation they are doing, they are reading as much information as they can. Mom-to-be came across an article that may be of broader interest so she posted a link and suggested feedback by doing so.
I found Swaminathan's anti-circumcision argument compelling but weak in two certain points. He argues that in recent years many people are questioning the reasons why men should be circumcised and how those numbers are increasing. He also points out why the medical rationale for circumcision (which makes it popular in the United States) is flawed. While I cannot dispute that circumcision is not medically necessary I will argue that it's done mainly for hygienic reasons. This is Swaminathan's first flaw; while arguing against the need for circumcision he cites examples indicating why parents of newborn boys should. He quotes a New Jersey mother warning parents to be "extra vigilant about keeping the cheese outta there." He also states adult film star Rocco Siffredi (AKA the Italian Stallion) at the age of thirty-one had himself circumcised for hygienic reasons. Doing so, Swaminathan bolsters the Occam's Razor why circumcision is hygienically necessary.
What I found most disturbing are the assertions from the people Swaminathan cites in his argument, suggesting that circumcision is akin to mutilation. I inferred this to mean that people like Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, the unnamed Atlanta woman, and several others equate circumcision to the abysmal practice of female circumcision. I frankly don't see how the removal of a boy's foreskin compares to the removal of a girl's clitoris. That is mutilation.
The most ridiculous comment comes from Intact America's (an anti-circumcision group) Georganne Chapin. When some parenting experts suggest circumcision for their newborn son because dad is circumcised, she scoffs, "If your husband was missing an eye, would you poke his [son's] eye out?" Swaminathan did not need to add a ludicrous straw-man comment to bolster his claim.
Swaminathan's weak argument against circumcision does have its merits. If you choose not to circumcise your son, the parents and the son will have to be vigilant to keep him(self) clean. Otherwise, there can be painful consequences. If you do choose to circumcise your newborn son, the hygiene is easier and when he grows up, he will not know what he missed.
I found Swaminathan's anti-circumcision argument compelling but weak in two certain points. He argues that in recent years many people are questioning the reasons why men should be circumcised and how those numbers are increasing. He also points out why the medical rationale for circumcision (which makes it popular in the United States) is flawed. While I cannot dispute that circumcision is not medically necessary I will argue that it's done mainly for hygienic reasons. This is Swaminathan's first flaw; while arguing against the need for circumcision he cites examples indicating why parents of newborn boys should. He quotes a New Jersey mother warning parents to be "extra vigilant about keeping the cheese outta there." He also states adult film star Rocco Siffredi (AKA the Italian Stallion) at the age of thirty-one had himself circumcised for hygienic reasons. Doing so, Swaminathan bolsters the Occam's Razor why circumcision is hygienically necessary.
What I found most disturbing are the assertions from the people Swaminathan cites in his argument, suggesting that circumcision is akin to mutilation. I inferred this to mean that people like Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, the unnamed Atlanta woman, and several others equate circumcision to the abysmal practice of female circumcision. I frankly don't see how the removal of a boy's foreskin compares to the removal of a girl's clitoris. That is mutilation.
The most ridiculous comment comes from Intact America's (an anti-circumcision group) Georganne Chapin. When some parenting experts suggest circumcision for their newborn son because dad is circumcised, she scoffs, "If your husband was missing an eye, would you poke his [son's] eye out?" Swaminathan did not need to add a ludicrous straw-man comment to bolster his claim.
Swaminathan's weak argument against circumcision does have its merits. If you choose not to circumcise your son, the parents and the son will have to be vigilant to keep him(self) clean. Otherwise, there can be painful consequences. If you do choose to circumcise your newborn son, the hygiene is easier and when he grows up, he will not know what he missed.
Comments
RACP policy statement on circumcision
"The foreskin requires no special care during infancy. It should be left alone. Attempts to forcibly retract it are painful, often injure the foreskin, and can lead to scarring and phimosis." (their bolding)
You might see a fundamental difference between cutting parts off male genitals and cutting parts off female genitals, but I don't, and neither do the people that cut girls. Sure, clitoridectomy is worse than the usual form of male circumcision, but some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. Sometimes there's just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with pain relief. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. When circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 79 boys died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa last year.
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."
Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?
Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against female circumcision, and I probably spend a lot more time and money trying to stop it than most people. If people are serious about stopping female circumcision though, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't (and they get furious if you call it "mutilation"). There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the exact same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself (as well as labiaplasty and breast operations), as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western objections as something more than cultural imperialism.
Georganne Chapin's comment makes sense to me. Men try to pretend that their sons will feel better if they're circumcised to match dad, but it's really about making dad feel better. The children can manage with a different hair color, eye color than dad, but somehow they'll be uncomfortable if they're not circumcised to match. Yeah, right. Boys look nothing like men down there anyway.