In January 2005, at the age of thirty-seven, I was circumcised. I’ll get to the reasons why later in this post, but I figured I’d start by getting your attention.
Below this post, a men’s rights advocate (MRA) calling himself "ballgame" (!), offers a long comment that concludes with a reference to male circumcision as Male Genital Mutilation (MGM, a play on the term Female Genital Mutilation, which refers to a genuinely dreadful practice performed primarily in North Africa.)
One particular strand of the men’s rights movement that I find especially distasteful is the group that insists that the removal of the foreskin of the penis is equivalent to the removal of the clitoris. The best known anti-circumcision lobbying group is NOCIRC. The explicit equivalency between male circumcision and female genital mutilation is made by the folks at (get ready) the International Coalition for Genital Integrity.
No one denies that there are "botched" male circumcisions. But the NOCIRC and ICGI folks, and their men’s rights advocate supporters, fail to recognize that male circumcision is performed for radically different reasons than is female genital mutilation. While the latter operation is designed to safeguard women’s purity (and make pleasure nearly impossible), circumcision is done for a variety of reasons, including increasingly legitimate health ones.
Though it is problematic to quote President Clinton in regards to this part of the male anatomy, the Guardian reported in August that
Bill Clinton called for the world to prepare to tackle the cultural taboos surrounding circumcision yesterday if, as many expect, trials show that it protects men and the women they sleep with from Aids.
Though a fuller study will not report until next year, a preliminary South African study released in 2005 made the compelling claim that male circumcision is a vital weapon in the fight against HIV. Francois Venter, the head of the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society, described male circumcision as "what may be our most important HIV-prevention strategy ever."
No such medical benefits to the infinitely more barbaric practice of female genital mutilation have ever been reported.
Though the findings remain controversial, many doctors do believe that circumcision also reduces the risk of cervical cancer in women. Warning: if you google about for information on this topic, you’ll note that non-medical anti-circumcision groups have had remarkable success in getting their results to the top of the queue of answers. Much more will be known when we get the results of the first truly large scale study on circumcision and health from Africa next year.
My brother and I were not circumcised. I was born in 1967, my brother in 1970; we were born in the United States at a time when virtually every baby boy was circumcised. My parents had to be quite emphatic with the physicians at Cottage Hospital, Santa Barbara, to prevent what was a routine operation from being performed. For my late father, the reason to avoid circumcision was linked to religion, ethnicity, and the Holocaust. My father’s father was raised Jewish, but married my Catholic grandmother and converted. When my father was born in Vienna in 1935, he was the first male Schwyzer in the family line not to have the foreskin removed. My grandfather saw not being circumcised as a sign of assimilation, something he wanted very much for his family. In Austria in the 1930s, only Jews were circumcised. With the gathering clouds of anti-Semitism already clearly on the horizon, it was thought best that my father "not look Jewish" down there.
My father was of course no anti-Semite. But like many Europeans, he retained the association between Judaism and circumcision. He didn’t understand the post-war American custom of circumcising all boys routinely, regardless of their faith. And quite understandably, he wanted his sons to look like him "down there." Many fathers, I am sure, feel the same way.
It wasn’t easy being the only uncircumcised boy growing up. Junior high locker rooms (where we had open, communal showers) were brutal. I was teased relentlessly. One memorable comment that has stuck with me since about 1979: "It looks like a pistol, instead of an apple like it’s supposed to." My mother explained why I wasn’t circumcised with a simple "Your father is European, and it’s not done over there." That explanation was all I got until I was in college, and it did little to ease the sense of being different.
In my sexual life, I found that some women were fascinated with the foreskin, others repulsed by it, others absolutely didn’t care. But I did find — and here I’m walking dangerously close to what is known as TMI — that my foreskin did not always retract as easily as I would like for intercourse. I had one very memorable, very painful visit to an emergency room when I was in college. I’ve had stitches in my knees, on my scalp, on my arms — but stitching up a little tear "down there" was no picnic. As I grew more experienced, I learned little tricks to make sure that I never had a foreskin tearing incident again, but it certainly made me worry for years and years afterwards.
The first person to recommend circumcision to me was the doctor at Cowell Hospital (in Berkeley) who took care of my "sex-related injury." He said that it would make sex much easier, but I was emphatically not interested. I didn’t consider circumcision again until just a few years ago. There were many reasons for my choosing circumcision in my late thirties. Some of those reasons are too private to get into in a public blog. One reason, of course, was indeed to make intercourse more comfortable. But there was another, profoundly personal reason as well that I will share (with my wife’s permission.)
I’ve alluded many times to a past of promiscuity. While I am not ashamed of who I was or of what I did, when I met the woman who is now my wife and fell in love with her, I began to wish that I could offer her something radically new about me. And it occurred to me one day that getting circumcised would be something tangible I could do to provide an outer manifestation of my sexual rebirth. My wife would thus be the only woman with whom I had made love with that particular penis, as it were. It was not her idea, it was entirely mine. And that desire to create something wonderfully new, combined with the desire to avoid future trips to the ER, led me to call a urologist in early 2005.
The procedure was done outpatient. It lasted just over an hour. The application of the anesthetic stung a bit, but the actual circumcision (done by laser) was absolutely painless. Dissolving sutures were applied, and I was on my way home. I was running within two days, and my wife and I were intimate again within four weeks. There was no loss of sensation or any other complication as a result of this minor, safe, medical procedure. The physical benefits I had sought were exactly as I hoped, and the spiritual benefits were tremendous as well. Every time I’m naked, my very flesh reminds me that I am not the man I once was. I rejoice in that, and haven’t regretted my decision for a single second.
So that’s my story. Hostile comments about that aspect of this post will be deleted, though you are free to take issue with my other contentions about circumcision. I write as a man who has intimate experience with the "before" and the "after", and whose "after" is physically and spiritually better than his "before." I write as a pro-feminist angered by the "victim consciousness" of anti-circumcision advocates, who equate a quick, safe, beneficial procedure that rarely produces lasting trauma to an operation performed on girls that produces lasting pain and robs them of the opportunity for sexual delight. To suggest that male circumcision is equivalent to Female Genital Mutilation is like comparing the pain of a vaccinating needle to that of being stabbed by a knife. It’s deeply offensive and indefensible to do so.
Awesome and interesting post. I’ve also been offended by those who make a connection between FGM and circumcision. While parts left me speechless, it satisfied much of my (as a birth-circumsiced man) curiosity on the topic (particularly the discussions of the foreskin’s role sexual pleasure). I had a sense of trust that God wouldn’t command something so damaging, but I also realized that hardly anyone would know for sure. Thanks for providing one of the only unbiased, first-schlong reports on the topic.
Not all female circumcision is a Clitoridectomy - the female equivalent of removal of the penis; Clitoridotomy is the same analog as male circumcision; the conflation arises from a desire for consistancy of use; if a clitoridotomy is “genital mutilation” because it is done at a young age, without informed consent, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If Circumcision is not “genital mutilation,” conversely, neither is a Clitoridotomy.
You had yours at 37. With full choice and and adult, informed consent. Sorry, Hugo - Apples and Oranges. Many adult women pierce their clitoris, which is regarded as Genital Mutilation if done in infancy or childhood.
And what if the child grows up to be gay? Circumcision to prevent “cervical cancer” isn’t an issue, then, is it? Pretty heteronormative, I have to say, eh?
I remember reading an article relating to circumcision in a magazine geared towards Filipino-Americans. It opened with an anecdote of a business sign in Tagalog and English (catering to Fil-Ams) that had good intentions, but was misinterpreted with humorous results. The sign was supposed to say Tuloy po kayo “please come in”, but instead it read Tuli po kayo “please be circumcised”. And then the author proceeded to describe his own circumcision in the Phlippines.
It is not tied to anything overtly religious, but it is a rite of passage that involves a river, a group of nervous pre-teens (usually - but there are accounts of males undergoing this as adults), and the local barber. I don’t want to spell out all the gory details, but once the procedure is done, the “candidates” spit a chewed wad of guava leaves onto their penises to staunch bleeding and promote healing. If anyone should freak out and refuse to have the procedure done, the person may be called sugpot, an “unmasculine” label.
I even remember a comedic Filipino movie with a river circumcision scene. The barber (played by a well-known comedic actor) had just completed several procedures that day. A grown man approaches him, requesting a circumcision. The barber examines him for a moment, then goes into the back and retrieves a cleaver (!) for the procedure. A earthier sense of humor, folks.
You can’t compare circumcision to FGM because FGM is a broad category spanning everything from minor cutting of the clitoral hood to legitimate genital mutilation (e.g.. removing the labia minora, sewing the vaginal opening shut, etc). Thus, your thesis that “To suggest that male circumcision is equivalent to Female Genital Mutilation is like comparing the pain of a vaccinating needle to that of being stabbed by a knife” is a Strawman argument and therefore invalid. Be specific; male circumcision is indeed comparable to some types of female “circumcision.”
Further, your suggestion that you have the right - let alone ability - to speak for all circumcised men on the matter is a shameless display of hubris found commonly here but practically nowhere else. Who the hell gives you the right to speak for the rest of us circumcized men, especially those of us who have lived an entire life this way? You’re truly a babe in the woods, a newbie to the nth degree, so again, where do you get off speaking on this topic. IMO you need to live a few decades as a circumcized man and then get back with us; until then, how about putting a lid on it and listen to those with more experience in these matters. For a change.
Circumcision removes excess tissue, as does some forms of FGM. Again, it depends on the procedure. Therefore, your arguments re. personal hygeine are also tenuous, as there are some valid arguments for removing excess labial tissue vis-a-vis prevention of Candida albicans infections, condylata papilloma, etc.
You say you did it for your wife and the women in sub-Saharan Africa say they do it for their husbands. Other than your monumental arrogance, what explanation can you offer that explains why your motives are righteous and theirs are not? And why is the so-called “victim arrogance” of men who genuinely feel that they’ve been wronged by never being able to understand what it is to be a ‘whole’ man vis-a-vis intact penis somehow less legitimate than than the self-righteous puffing and preening you once again offer up here?
Justaguy, if I am as uniquely self-righteous and preening as you say you find me, why do you visit? What strange masochistic urge brings you here to read what you find so objectionable? I am not so popular that I need public refutation by the likes of you, right?
You are furious because my experience (and that of other men; and in the course of going through this, I talked to many men who had done what I had done as an adult) contradicts the “victim” narrative that MRAs want to create around circumcision.
Interestingly enough, at the American Academy of Pediatrics conference this weekend, the most proactive folks I ran into at the trade show belonged to an anti-circumcision group. I was not aware of any studies showing any decreased transmission of HIV in circumcised men. For years, one of the arguments for circumcision was that it decreased the rate of penile cancer, a relatively rare disease. It’s been a while since I looked at this in any detail, but my understanding is that many folks feel that this small decrease is not enough to declare any real medical benefit to circumcision. The AAP kind of leaves it up in the air as well.
Thank you for posting this.
Great post, Hugo. I always like when you get risky.
I agree that comparing circumcision of a man under western-style medical conditions is no comparison to clitorus removal as it’s practiced in most parts of Africa (although, as Gonzman points out, those practices come in different degrees depending on the location and culture within Africa and don’t always involve removing of the entire clitorus). For myself, I was circumcised as an infant–don’t remember it, don’t know any other way of being, can’t believe it did me any real harm.
I will, say, however, that the practice of female circumcision is a long standing practice in African cultures. I find it particularly hypocritical that some ardent multiculturalists will quickly criticize the “imposing” of Western culture on the third world in most cases yet seem so determined to impose our western values on the natives and stamp out this particular traditional cultural practice….
Just prior to my twin sons’ birth, I asked my husband (who is circumcised) what he thought of circumcising our sons. I was ambivalent and leaning slightly against it. My husband was absolutely adamant that they be circumcised, and gave hygiene and better sexual function/pleasure as reasons. But I questioned how he could possibly know this… after all, like so many men, he was circumcised at birth, so how would he know the difference?
So I appreciate this post tremendously, Hugo. Thanks.
Who the hell gives you the right to speak for the rest of us circumcized men, especially those of us who have lived an entire life this way?
Sometimes I cry myself to sleep at night.
The difference is that you made a free choice to be circumcised, as an adult. Male infants who are circumcised don’t have a choice. This makes it just as much a violation of their bodily integrity as FGM. I don’t think anyone would argue that circumcising infant males is as *invasive*, as painful, or as dangerous as FGM; but it is definitely unecessary surgery performed on someone who cannot legally consent.
Bianca, do you oppose vaccinating infants for the same reason?
Although my husband is circumcised, we did not get the procedure done for either of our boys. We felt that the differences between the penises of children and the penises of grown men were sufficiently different that we weren’t worried about the comparison.
When our first was born, the AIDS thing wasn’t known, nor the possible cervical cancer connection. Of course, in the condom-available first world, I strongly advise CONDOMS, and not lack of foreskin, to be the safe sex protection of choice: AIDS has certainly not been a null issue in my largely circumcised generation. Similarly, hygiene is a necessity.
We felt that it was their bodies, and therefore their choice; we weren’t going to interfere with that which they’d been born with and was not medically necessary.
However, I am extremely happy to learn that your adult circumcision was not problematic should either want to have the procedure as adults. From the word on the street, adult circumcision sounds horrible: but from what we could tell from pre-natal research, the procedure is relatively quick, carries not great risks, and is only mildly uncomfortable.
Bianca, do you oppose vaccinating infants for the same reason?
Apples and Oranges, again, and on more than one count.
Your best posts are ones with some “TMI.” For that matter, I have to say that I’ve never seen an uncircumcised penis… nor have I heard of being circumcised in one’s 30s! By the way, I heard that uncircumcised men experience more sexual pleasure than circumcised ones, something like 60% of a man’s nerves are in the foreskin. I guess that’s just a myth - it certainly doesn’t seem to matter in my, um, relationship.
Mermade, I can put that rumor to bed without any more detail.
I will, say, however, that the practice of female circumcision is a long standing practice in African cultures. I find it particularly hypocritical that some ardent multiculturalists will quickly criticize the “imposing” of Western culture on the third world in most cases yet seem so determined to impose our western values on the natives and stamp out this particular traditional cultural practice….
Actually, the people working hardest to stamp out this particular traditional cultural practice are women from the very cultures that practice it. And they have had some great successes. And yes, I support those women out of respect for them and because my respect for other cultures does not extend to what I view as violations of human rights.
“I even remember a comedic Filipino movie with a river circumcision scene.”
…and THAT’S THE PROBLEM.
People want to argue that FGM and male circumcision are inherently different? Fine. But both mutilate the human body to some degree, and we can’t even have a conversation on circumcision in this country because there are inevitably jokes about it. Heck, if a woman does something to a man’s body a hundred times more EXTREME than circumcision, people are STILL making jokes about it.
I agree with Gonz and Bianca on this matter. If a legal adult wishes to have a surgery/procedure to alter a certain part of her/his body, all well and good. Go crazy. But doing it to thousands to millions of newborn boys without any dialogue on the matter is monstrous.
Oh, yeah. Anyone know what else might reduce the rates of HIV infection? Not screwing everything that moves. But I won’t hold my breath for someone to suggest that one. Oh, no. Cutting off part of the human body is just so much more palatable.
I have to say that this was an interesting post! I want to thank you for sharing such a personal story, but I would caution about framing the anti-circ position as an MRA interest (just as it is overreaching to compare male circumcision to FGM- clitoridotomy only accounts for 1% of these surgeries). There are a lot of people reconsidering male circumcision and the claims made to justify keeping it as a routine procedure in pediatrics (most of which you repeated in this post- namely health reasons). By the way, on a circumcision debate board I frequent several men who were circumcised as adults would absolutely disagree that their sexual function was not affected, proving yet again that the plural of anecdote is not data.
In the U.S. the reasons for continuing to circumcise most male infants is as much a cultural decision as it is in Africa- most people take it for granted that males are circumcised and assume it must be for a good (medical) reason or they believe the aesthetics of the penis are important psychologically (locker room abuse or “to look like Daddy”). No health organization recommends circumcision as a routine procedure for medical reasons (i.e. the hygiene and other supposed benefits are minimal at best: normal procedure for treating UTI’s is antibiotics, not surgery- we don’t usually remove body parts because they *might* become infected later, KWIM). Indeed, I am still waiting for the mass epidemic of health problems in Western Europe from all those uncircumcised penises!
I just had my son two months ago and my husband and I agreed that he would not be circumcised because his penis was born perfect the way it is. If he chooses to remove his foreskin, for whatever reason, we will support him, but it is not our right to remove parts of his body for non-medical or non-religious reasons.
Vaccines are completely different- decades of scientific research have borne out their efficacy and necessity in protecting one’s health, whereas recent scientific research has shown the opposite for male circumcision. Indeed, the risk of vaccines has always been far less than the risks from vaccine-preventable diseases. The study in South Africa had many flaws- an important one being the narrow population sample- and did not consider other factors that might account for reduced infection rates among circumcised males, such as behavior. Besides, if we assume that all people should be practicing safe sex (don’t get me started about Bush’s aid policies), there should be no statistically significant differences between HIV and cervical cancer rates between circ’d and uncirc’d.
Sorry for the long post.
Hugo - I’m have a strong visceral reaction to your story. I have always sworn that if I become a parent and my child is male, I will absolutely NOT have him circumcised. The idea of an adult choosing to have it done is difficult for me to fathom. However, the emotional logic of your choice makes sense to me - the idea of being a literally new person, with a clear physical sign of that difference, makes perfect emotional sense to me. I’m inclined to view circumcision unfavorably.
I do not believe male circumcision is comparable to female genital mutilation. But I’m loath to expect male circumcision should be a standard procedure. Throughout most of the 20th century, it was performed in American hospitals without consulting the parents. It’s only been within the last 20 years that parents are given an option; back in the days when you and I and our brothers were being born, parents had to be extremely proactive to avoid circumcision. Today, at least, most hospitals ask before performing the procedure.
I have a feeling there is a meaningful discussion of the connection between the way in which our society treats the human body and attitudes toward circumcision.
If the body is strictly functional then circumcision is standard practice based on the assertion of good health arising from the procedure. If the body is the primary means by which we experience the world, if it is glorious, sensual, sexual, valued and honored, then circumcision could be seen as choice or aesthetic value or personal freedom. If the body belongs to the self versus the body being an integral part of the self I think it alters the way in which we view the body.
Female genital mutilation is practiced in cultures which radically restrict women’s freedoms – the female body is not perceived as belonging to the woman; thus mutilating her genitals is approved. Acknowledging a woman’s autonomy means permitting her to live and grow as she was born and if as an adult she makes the choice to alter her body, that is her right. I don’t believe it is coincidental that the “automatic” practice of circumcision has declined in the US as we have become more aware of women’s reproductive rights, freedoms and sexuality. It speaks to me of a general improvement in the awareness of the right of persons to change their bodies once they are adults but to be unmolested as children. In some sense, inking one’s skin or piercing it is a right adults have. Men should, I believe, have the right to choose circumcision as adults. I suspect Hugo would be among the minority.
However, if circumcision is a sacred rite – as in Judaism – then circumcision would represent a care for the body as a sacred part of creation. The spirit of the act seems crucial to me. The attitude toward the body is reflected in the attitude toward circumcision – both by doing or not doing it.
Glen, the quarrel over infant/adult circumcision mirrors (for me) the quarrel over infant/adult baptism. The former is obviously a more dramatic physical procedure, but for the believer, baptism is viscerally real — and it leaves spiritual marks as enduring as those left behind by circumcision. The Anabaptist tradition to which I half belong rejected infant baptism; the Anglican tradition to which I half belong embraces it. I will have to ponder this part further, Glen:
I don’t believe it is coincidental that the “automatic” practice of circumcision has declined in the US as we have become more aware of women’s reproductive rights, freedoms and sexuality. It speaks to me of a general improvement in the awareness of the right of persons to change their bodies once they are adults but to be unmolested as children.
Let me mull that for a while.
Hugo, you should have called this post:
“It looks like a pistol, instead of an apple like it’s supposed to”.
As a woman, I’ve been mostly with circumcised guys. The one uncircumcised guy I was with freaked me out, and when the penis is soft, you’re right, it looks just like a little pistol. As far as what I felt, once I got over the weirdness of the differetn look, there was no difference in what it was like.
I’m impressed you underwent this for your wife, and it was your idea. It’s like a tatt, only more intimate.
Let’s review:
Female genital mutilation: extrodinarily painful (even if it’s “just” removing the clitoral hood), often leads to medical conditions, makes it impossible to enjoy sex, imposed by cultural dictates and you don’t have it you can become unmarriagable, and shunned by the community.
Circumsicion: very little pain, can prevent medical problems, sex enjoyment is the exact same amount, arguably imposed by cultural dictates, but if you don’t have it, you occasionally have to deal with idiot teenagers.
Hmm, yep that’s comparable. I mean, it sucks when things happen to women, but if it happens to a GUY, then stop the presses.
I’m sympathetic to the argument that it should be chosen, not imposed, but then again, if you say that you open a whole ‘nother ball of worms. Vaccines ARE comparable: I sure as heck never consented to those when I was little. Religion is another one: I never consented to go to church, it was imposed on me, as were my ear-piercing when I was 3 and getting spanked.
But both mutilate the human body to some degree
But the degree is important. Clitoridectomy–which is what is meant by “female circumcision”—completely removes the main site of sexual pleasure for women.
Clitoridotomy is the same analog as male circumcision; the conflation arises from a desire for consistancy of use; if a clitoridotomy is “genital mutilation” because it is done at a young age, without informed consent, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
No. Clitoridectomy is analogous to male castration. The clitoris is the female analog of the penis, not of the foreskin.
To clarify–clitoridectomy is what is often meant by female circumcision. There are other practices sometimes lumped in under the term.
I mean this as neither a criticism nor an endorsement, but I have to say, Hugo, that your rationale for getting circumcized is quintessentially and archetypally Schwyzerian.
No Grouch, castration is removal of the testicles, the male gonads. A hysterectomy removes the female gonads. Clitoridectmy removes the clitoris entirely - like removing the penis. Clitoridotomy removes the hood over the clitoris, which some women report as enhancing their sexual pleasure - always with the YMMV caveat. The latter - and the latter alone - is the true “Female Circumcision.”
‘Bianca, do you oppose vaccinating infants for the same reason?’
Vaccination is a step taken to protect from proven, real threats that can kill or paralyze and infant or small child. It can be life-saving. I cannot say the same for circumcision.
What percentage of current HIV sufferers in the US are circumcised? Circumcision only started to die out in the US in the 70s…it would stand to reason that HIV infections would not be prevalent in men reaching reproductive age before that…is this so?I find that hard to imagine as almost all males in the US were routinely circumcised until parents started to question the procedure…approximately 77% of American males are circumcised.America should have one of the lowest HIV rates in the world, it does not…on the contrary it has one of the highest.
They have just started this circumcision campaign in Africa recently…has it been in place long enough for it to be said without much doubt that it protects from HIV? Cultural practices, hygienic conditions, and customs that prevail in Africa and cause the spread of HIV may not be the same factors that cause it in the US…can we really take a dubiously affective preventative measure from another culture and apply it to our own,unquestioned especially when it involves surgery?
The old stand-bys of condom usage and other safe sexual practices would seem much more likely to have an effect.
We had my son circumcised, because the perinatologist suggested that it would give him the best chance of not getting a UTI (due to a narrow ureter) which would potentially lead to the loss of a kidney. I knew that this may be a very narrow risk, but given the negatives that would be involved in losing a kidney, we made the choice to not give him a choice later in life.
And hey - he didn’t have a single UTI until the day his ureter was pronounced normal. So the circumcision worked! As does this stick which keeps the tigers away.
To clarify:
He didn’t have a UTI _on the day_ he was cleared, either, nor since. That was a badly worded sentence.
Antigone said: “Circumsicion: very little pain, can prevent medical problems, sex enjoyment is the exact same amount, arguably imposed by cultural dictates, but if you don’t have it, you occasionally have to deal with idiot teenagers.”
I believe that you are a woman, right, so you know this how exactly?
The level of ignorance, hubris and hyperbole from most all in the ‘non-MRA’ camp here is utterly astounding.
The procedure was done outpatient. It lasted just over an hour. The application of the anesthetic stung a bit, but the actual circumcision (done by laser) was absolutely painless.
Yeah, I’m sure that that’s exactly how it’s done over in a lot of African countries. With anesthetic, and a laser, in a sterlized hut.
I am with a lot of the other MRA posters here (ok, all of them, as I can’t think of a single point of theirs which I disagree with on this thread). If you think that the fact that genital mutilation without consent is all bad, then you should take major issue with the circumcisions on infants taking place in this country (the USA) today. If you think that merely the scope of damage is what makes these procedures so bad, then not only should you be jumping on these women in the US who wish to pierce or cut anything fleshy or cartilaginous, but these men who are getting extreme bodymods which include castration and penis nullification.
In your zest to thumb your nose at the MRA movement, you forgot two things: 1) I’m not aware of the MRA who endorsed the genital mutilation of anyone, male or female, against their will. Furthermore, your position that MRAs’ positions are invalid because of the direct comparison between the removal of the foreskin and the removal of the clitoris seems to be a bit weak in and of itself. Never mind that the chart at icgi.org seems to equate external destruction of skin and sexual organs fairly accurately (though I disagree with the type III HGM: the equivalent of destroying a man’s testes would be a woman’s ovaries. The chart actually biases sex mutilation in favor of women). I did not know that there were certain kinds of genital mutilation that we should consider “OK” as oppossed to others. The next time people here start shreiking that “any abuse against a woman is wrong,” in mandatory sentencing arguments, I hope someone brings up this particular thread, to remind you that there’s a difference between the guy who slaps his wife to get the frying pan out of her hand, and the guy who breaks into a Dempsey Roll on some woman on a nightly basis. 2) As I mentioned to above, your luxry of living in the United States of America keeps you nice and inured from the reality that in most places, circumcision is not an exact science. People in third world countries aren’t so lucky as to be able to go to two doctors, get numbed up, and cut with a lazer scapel. As some other brothers on here mentioned before, most of the time, someone gets a sharp rock or dull meat cleaver, gives you some salve to try and help with the pain, and goes to work, and damn sterility or the Goliath beetle hunched in the corner.
Hugo, I must admit, when I reached the injury paragraph, I had to stop short because my brain was screaming “ow, ow, ohmygosh OW” so loudly I couldn’t concentrate.
I haven’t had much reason to think about male circumcision for quite a long time, but this post brought me back to some conversations between my parents that I remember from childhood. Of course, my parents ended up with four daughters, but they badly wanted a boy and, especially in my mother’s last two pregnancies, felt certain that they’d end up with a boy. If I remember correctly, they spent quite a long time discussing whether or not they would circumcise the baby if it turned out to be a boy. It was not a foregone conclusion for them, even in the late 80s, and they had no religious customs to factor into the decision. For the life of me I can’t remember what they eventually settled on. Although I guess they never had to settle on anything, since they ended up with four tomboy daughters and not a penis in the bunch.
Thanks for sharing a personal story with an interesting and unique perspective - it got me thinking!
A very interesting post, Hugo, and congratulations on your outward-and-visible sign of your inward-and-spiritual new self. No criticism of your decision here. Do be careful, though, in extrapolating from your individual experience to cover “everybody.”
Circumcison done by a trained physician or surgeon, or by a Moel, or by the village barber (shudder) is a diverse phenomenon. It is seldom, even in its crudest, most “barbaric” form, at all comparable, in severity or personal impact, to the range of practices subsumed under the rubric of “Female Genital Mutilation.” It is asinine of MRA’s who do so to pretend that there is no difference of kind and degree involved, type being assumed to make equivalence. Bullshit. Female Genital Mutilation is in its very design and intention a far greater violation than anything other than a grotesquely botched circumcision could ever be.
Now, to anecdotes… I was routinely circumcised by my GP shortly after I was born. I don’t remember the experience. I was not aware of another way of being until I was a teenager. And very dimly so long after that.
I remember in my early twenties feeling odd, even a little put-down when, in erotic talk during sex, my (English) then-girlfriend made breathy mention of “drawing back [my] foreskin.” I was clueless prig enough to say “um, I don’t have a foreskin.”
More recently, a lover attributed her (Scandinavian) husband’s crude hyperexcitement and tendency to premature ejaculation to hypersensitivity because he was uncircumscised.
My point, such as it is, Hugo, is that your not noticing a lack of sensation is a *personal difference. A right-handed person will miss her right hand more than her left. The focus of sensation is different on *every man’s penis (women of experience have confirmed this intuition). Yours may not have been in your foreskin. Another man’s may be.
As with everything, ymmv. Let humility reign.
Where to begin?
*sigh*
First, I don’t self-identify as a men’s rights advocate, and am not real happy about having the label stuck on my ass on the basis of the grand sum total of three comments I’ve posted on your blog, Hugo. I’m pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, adamantly in favor of equal pay for equal work, adamantly in favor eliminating gender penalties which prevent people from being the productive, creative and loving people they were meant to be or which deny them the respect they deserve, and for that I get spray painted with the “Don’t listen to him! He’s teh enemy!!!” label? Is anyone who acknowledges that the male gender role contains penalties as well as privileges an MRA in your book, Hugo? Because I think that means Happy Feminist is an MRA. (Who knew?)
The issue of male circumcision is really a bundle of issues. Perhaps if we take them one at a time? (Apologies for cross-posting some of the excellent points by crella, history_mom, and the_Gonzman, btw.)
1. Is male circumcision equivalent to female genital mutilation?
No (except possibly for some very rare mild variations of FGM referred to above). FGM is clearly much worse, and I’ve never maintained otherwise. I’ve used the analogy that it’s like the difference between losing a hand and losing a couple of fingers. Perhaps it should be likened to losing an arm versus losing a few fingers. Either way, just because FGM is a sick and horrifying tragedy to visit on a human doesn’t mean that MGM is trivial. MGM is damaging and, when practiced on infants without anaesthesia — which is how it’s been practiced on the majority of American males walking around today — is also a pretty horrible thing to do to someone, as doctors have begun to recognize.
2. Should adult men be prevented from having themselves circumcised?
No. I defend the rights of people to make decisions about their own bodies. For me, adult circumcision is a complete non-issue and a bit of a red herring.
3. Is adult circumcision the same as infantile circumcision?
Uh, no. There are major differences. Other than the obvious (the baby cannot give his consent), there are some important medical differences. For one thing — and many people don’t know this — the foreskin does not typically separate from the head of the penis until the boy is several years old. This means that not only does a doctor take a razor to one of the most sensitive and psychologically important parts of the baby’s body, he must literally tear the nerve-rich tissue away. Obviously, this is not something you would have experienced, Hugo.
For another, the glans of a circumcised infant’s penis dries up from its natural moist state and its skin thickens as a reaction to the unnatural constant exposure. As a result, in addition to the loss of sensation from the now-absent ‘excess’ foreskin tissue, the head itself becomes less sensitive. This happens with adult circumcisions as well, but if I take Hugo at his word that his pre- and post-circumcision experience is the same, that suggests that in some adult men the desensitization impact is much less than the physiology would suggest it is in cases of infantile circumcision. (There are certainly cases of adult circumcisions where the opposite is true, and the diminution of sensation is pronounced.) Oriscus may have a point about the variation of people’s erotic focus.
4. But it’s painless, right?
I am aware of no study which provides evidence that infantile circumcision without anaesthesia is painless and such an idea contradicts our evolving understanding of how the human body works. In fact, this medical professor discovered just the opposite, that babies produce stress hormones consistent with experiencing trauma when they undergo medical procedures without anaesthesia. I am aware of no study that establishes that infantile or childhood trauma leaves no lasting psychic scars. The only study I’m aware of that tried to investigate pain and male circumcision was halted because the doctors involved realized they could no longer continue to perform the procedure in good conscience without anaesthesia.
5. But what about the health benefits?
There are no proven medical benefits to infantile circumcision, as Hugo himself acknowledges in his post, only a lot of ‘people believe’ or ’studies will show’, etc. There are a number of scientific flaws in past and proposed studies, and there is a great deal of evidence that is consistent with the notion that infantile circumcision causes lasting harm. This particular issue deserves a more thoughtful review than I can give it tonight. I will return to it, Hugo permitting.
I agree completely that my circumcision was done under better conditions than those in third world countries. But that’s true of any medical procedure. It’s true of childbirth and appendectomies and everything else. That’s an argument for improving the quality of Third World medical care, not for doing away with circumcision.
I’m actually going to jump on the bandwagon as a feminist against child circumcision. Pretty much for the reasons ballgame outlined here.
My understanding is that the studies show a slight increase in protection against HIV for circumcised versus uncircumsized, and certainly not enough to warrant the modification of a child’s body when they cannot give meaningful consent. No, it’s not comparable to FGM, but that doesn’t mean that a parent should have the right to do it without a damn good reason.
And, for the record, it would take a lot of medical evidence that said that it prevented HIV to make it anywhere comparable to innoculating children against diseases. And I don’t really think anything else qualifies as “a damn good reason” when it comes to another person’s body. When the kid grows up if he wants it done, then he can get it done. But it should be his decision, not someone else’s.
I don’t think male and female circumcision are even remotely comparable. My ears were pierced as a baby (in India a baby girl’s ears are usually pierced when she is quite young for wearing earrings). I’d compare male circumcision to ear piercing. Very little pain, unnecessary, permanent.
I agree completely that my circumcision was done under better conditions than those in third world countries. But that’s true of any medical procedure. It’s true of childbirth and appendectomies and everything else. That’s an argument for improving the quality of Third World medical care, not for doing away with circumcision.
If only anyone on here was arguing for the complete ban of circumcision, you would have a point.
Hold on a sec, let me see who has argued for the complete ban of circumcision so far:
Well that was quick. Furthermore, I can’t think of any MRA sites which are advocating the complete ban of circumcision. What is being advocated is the ban of circumcisions performed against one’s will!!!
I really don’t see where the mental disconnect here is. If it’s your body, and it’s against your will, then the majority of the time, doing bodily harm to it is wrong. I suppose there are exceptions, such as going to jail and such. However, I believe that in a rational society, the above stands more often than not. I did not know that there were certain “degrees” of wrongness that had to be fufilled before a practice became abhorrent and immoral. By your argument, no one should complain about anything if there is something comparatively worse which can be done to them. So, the next time anyone here rambles on about “verbally abusing” or slapping a woman, someone please remember to link to this thread, because as so many male feminists on here have informed me, you’re not suffering abuse unless you’re suffering the very worst kind of abuse possible from an assaliant (Ironically, if you actually stuck to this view, it would probably end the feminist movement, as the vast majority of women in this country don’t have anywhere near the problems of a woman growing up under shia law, or some Fauln Gong pesant woman in China).
If a person has some anatomical oddity that might make sex painful, and they want to have sex, it makes sense to have this surgically fixed ahead of time. Am I the only one who’s been majorly creeped out by how young girls are told that their first sexual experiences might hurt, but are seldom given any advice on how to make sure it won’t?
This said, other reasons given for modifiying living flesh sound creepy in the extreme. I don’t know enough about male circumcision to be sure whether or not there’s any benefit to doing it to infants. But a father who does so because he wants his son to be healthy sounds a lot saner than one who just wants the kid to look just like him–or for some religious reason, when the boy might grow up to not want anything to do with religion. I sometimes suspect that a lot of medical procedures are done not to make people healthier or their parts actually more functional, but just to standardize them, and that stinks a mile. And so with FGM, which is done under barbaric conditions to boot. Would it be a derailment to mention stuff I’ve read about among some Australian tribes, where they used to knock one of a boy’s teeth out and/or split his penis open like a hotdog? Eeeeeuughhh.
Some practices are just plain pointless and harmful. But so are some rationales, for practices that might be benign.
From what I’ve been told, male circumscion does give a boost to not catching (and hence spreading) HIV as much because the penis is callused, so it’s less easy to get the microtears which can permit the virus to enter. It’s more effective in the Third World than the First because the First World has far better access to condoms, which will cut down rates of transmission much better than any sort of circumcision can.
It’s good to know that the pleasure in sex can be as much as it was beforehand. I’ve heard from people who’ve had the foreskin reconstructed and they reported that the sex was much better. But then, there’s also the people who develop what they feel is premature ejaculation because the penis is so sensitive.
It’s rather interesting to be on the pro-circumsion side in this debate. I can’t say that I much disagree with the anti-circ crowd, and while I prefer penises circumsized, I realize that that’s because that’s what I’m used to. I’m pro parents opting into circumsion, rather than the opt out that’s available today. But I wouldn’t want to see it banned.
Hugo, I’m not “furious,” but am taken aback by the brazeness of this post because it not only scores a Hat Trick with the Schwyzer triumvirate of arrogance, narcissism and ignorance of the topic at hand, but also because it was written deliberately to provoke MRAs (see your aside to ballgame in a previous post). And when you get the expected, desired response, you wax indignant. Sheesh.
Re. circumcision and FGM, you’re not even comparing apples and oranges, you’re comparing apples and snow leopards. FGM is an extremely rare event, practiced in a few tribes in a small number of sub-Saharan African countries, while male circumcision is practiced worldwide on millions and perhaps billions of boys and men. Others have pointed out the issues of consent, changes in sensitivity of the penis, etc., so I won’t reiterate that here. However, let’s do a little ‘back of the napkin’ exercise using real data rather than personal anecdote and/or feminist stereotypes.
Male circumcision rates in Nigeria were measured to be ~87%, of which 20.2% had complications and 3.1% suffered amputation of the glans, which is comparable to a clitorectomy (Okeke, LI., et al., BMC Urol. 2006 Aug 25;6:21). The population of Nigeria was ~131,530,000 as of 2005. Let’s say about ½ are male, i.e., 65,765,000, and that the sample in the study is representative for Nigeria; this means that 2,038,715 male children had a circumcision that resulted in amputation of the glans. This is not an insignificant number, and IMO probably far greater than the type of FGM that you and your ilk wail about. And because this data is for Nigeria, which is a relatively advanced country for the region, IMO this is probably a ‘best case scenario’ for sub-Saharan Africa, the region where FGM is most common.
I don’t come here to try and influence or even educate you – I’m afraid that you and your feminist cronies are beyond reason or hope. I come here to hopefully educate some of your readers, particularly if they’re young men who might be toying with the idea of feminism or “pro-feminism,” so that they can see what your politics and philosophy is really about. Once in a while you make reasonable points, but most of the time you’re as wrong as a penguin in the Sahara so I don’t bother to respond, instead choosing to recognize that the Empress has no clothes and thus respond appropriately by pointing and laughing at you. However, in this case the appearance of the above-mentioned Schwyzer Triumvirate requires a strong response.
Well, I will say this, justaguy: you’ve given me an idea for a title for my next blog home: Arrogance, Narcissism, and Ignorance: the Schwyzer Trifecta. I freely admit I was blogging about two things that are only partially related: the health benefits of male circumcision, and my own reasons for getting circumcised (which were primarily not about health.)
Will my wife and I have our sons circumcised? You bet. Do I condemn those who make a different choice? Absolutely not.
Is there a reason why I am the Empress without clothes and not the Emperor, btw?
Oops, I messed up: The number of Nigerian boys/men who would be predicted to have had circumcisions where the glans was amputated - and thus would be comparable to a clitorectomy - would not be 2,038,715 as stated above; it would only be 1,773,682. Surely slightly more than 1.7 million Nigerian boys/men is insignificant, at least if you’re a feminist/pro-feminist.
Hugo, can’t wait for your next blog home, but I did mean “triumvarite,” as in the “See-no-evil,” “Speak-no-evil,” and “Hear-no-evil” critters. You can use the imagery for your logo if you wish - I would consider it an honor. ;)
I have to agree with the MRA contingent. Cosmetic surgery on infants is a bad, bad thing.
Also, you of all people should know better than to generalize your experience it everyone else. You had a circumcision, and it wasn’t so bad, therefore circumcision is good?
How about this one– I am a gamer. My circle of gamers includes a girl. She has not been the subject of any (obvious) sexism. Therefore, prejudice against female gamers is only a myth.
Gah!
Malachi, calling circumcision “cosmetic surgery” is tremendously insensitive to millions and millions of Muslims and Jews (male circumcision is religiously mandated in both faiths; female circumcision, contrary to public opinion, is not.)
Where did I say every uncircumcised man should get circumcised? I made two points: there are legitimate studies that suggest a positive health impact derived from circumcision, and that in my experience, the fears of the negative consequencs of the procedure (loss of sensation, etc.) were a myth.
Where did I say every uncircumcised man should get circumcised?
Right after that part you quoted us MRA’s as saying that circumcisions for all, child or adult should be banned, and that female circumcision was a good thing.
So long as we’re putting words into people’s mouths and all.
If that was the implication of my words, RR, I am sorry.
I must say, between “ballgames” and “thechiefs” and “reckless ronins”, it’s really hard to take MRAs seriously. Must you all deliberately adopt these ultra-macho handles? Can’t you just be Bob or Mike or Billy Joe?
How important is it for boys to “look like Daddy down there”?
I have a friend (yes, it is a friend — I’m circumcized from birth as I am Jewish … btw, how much of the anti-circ. stuff is really motivated by anti-Semitism?) who’s not circumcized. He is actually rather squeemish about getting circumcized, but he does feel that being un-circumcized is problematic because of the hygene issues and wants any son of his to be circumcized. His wife, OTOH, thinks it’s important that the boy “look like Daddy” and doesn’t feel circumcision is really necessary (she’s an MPH, so you’d think she’d know a thing or two about what’s good health-wise).
Who’s right here?
Hugo, what is an MRA anyway? I know it means “Men’s Rights Activist” but that’s about it. What do they believe in? Why are they frequently “trolls” on your page? Any famous MRAs?
Many famous MRAs. Check out their favorite bulletin board, Stand Your Ground. Check out their chief hero, Warren Farrell. Check out my friend and foil, Glenn Sacks.
Hugo said “I made two points: there are legitimate studies that suggest a positive health impact derived from circumcision, and that in my experience, the fears of the negative consequencs of the procedure (loss of sensation, etc.) were a myth.”
Heh, tell that to the, e.g., 1.7 million plus males in Nigeria males who had their glans amputated that negative consequences from male circumcision is a “myth.”
It’s easy for a privileged white boy in a First World nation who is a professor and thus (likely) has health insurance covering his surgery performed in a first-rate hospital by a well-trained and experienced surgeon using state-of-the-art sterilized instruments and other facilities to preach to others about how “safe” and easy such things are.
Tell you what Hugo, why not put your money where you mouth is - next time you need surgery, how about going to Nigeria, Uganda, Mauritania, or some other African nation to have it done? Surely it’s comparable to the care you recieved in Pasadena, right?
Oh, and Mermade, do come over to the Stand Your Ground forum and engage in the conversations - we welcome all persons, especially feminists. However, unlike feminist BBs, we don’t censor opposing viewpoints, so please be prepared to have most all feminist dogma and stereotypes challenged. We don’t ban people for strong language and arguments - either MRAs or feminists - but we will ban those who engage in personal attacks, negative global generalizations, etc., so please read our Board Rules before posting. We treat all members the same regardless of gender identity, membership status (e.g., newbie vs. established), etc., and even ban longtime members who break the rules after three warnings, so IMO we’re much more fair and balanced than any feminist BB I’ve ever visited, including this one, which is IMO the most fair feminist BB on the web.
You may not be comfortable hearing our side in a space that isn’t censored the way feminist BBs are, but if you have the backbone to stay there, listen, and engage us in a thoughtful and logical manner you will get to understand what we’re all about. And indeed, IMO we’re not really as bad as most feminists make us out to be.
If that was the implication of my words, RR, I am sorry.
I must say, between “ballgames” and “thechiefs” and “reckless ronins”, it’s really hard to take MRAs seriously. Must you all deliberately adopt these ultra-macho handles? Can’t you just be Bob or Mike or Billy Joe?
Well there is a reason for the crazy psuedonyms: reckless ronin, thechief, etc can’t have their cars keyed, their academic prospects blocked, and their houses plastered with spare placentas and bloody tampons that feminists have just lying around. Not that there aren’t ways for webmasters and such to get such info from ISP, but I’m not making it any easier than it already is for any aspiring Valerie Solanas who wanders by your page to gun me down in my sleep.
Beyond that though, your statement highlights a bit of hyporcisy in your world view. Does it really matter if the speaker’s name is hyper masculine if they have a point? If this situation were one of a woman coming into a blog with a scientific theory or hypothesis, and the owner said “well you know, I can’t take anyone who has a name like ‘Jenny’ seriously,” that argument would go on for days, with people crying sexism and trying to segue into accusations of racism, nazism, and devil worship. But here, because the naysayers are sporting masculine names, they aren’t to be taken seriously?
Reckless Ronin, take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. This short of hyperbole will get you banned pronto.
Just think, Mermade! You too can have long discussions - without negative global generalizations - with guys just like Reckless Ronin! Without negative global generalizations! What a great time will be had by all.
Without negative global generalizations.
And quite understandably, he wanted his sons to look like him “down there.” Many fathers, I am sure, feel the same way.
The “look like daddy” pro-circumcision argument has always baffled me, and as a rationale for circumcision, it seems particularly empty. I’ve never considered whether my daughter and I look alike down there…the idea seems laughable. I have breasts; my daughter does not. Does anyone think I’ve wasted on minute worrying about the fact that she and I do not look alike “up there”?
It’s narcissism, at best.
Um, DAS, they both strike me as a little foolish. Genitals come in all shapes and sizes and configurations, so it’s a bit silly to worry about “looking like daddy”. As for hygiene, duh, you wash. It’s a damn shame that many circumcised men also share your friend’s misimpression that you don’t need to keep a circumcised penis clean.
“Must you all deliberately adopt these ultra-macho handles? Can’t you just be Bob or Mike or Billy Joe?” —Hugo
‘Cos SR sounds so much cooler, and actually has significance.
‘”well you know, I can’t take anyone who has a name like ‘Jenny’ seriously,” that argument would go on for days, with people crying sexism’
He has a legitimate point, Hugo.Our sign-in names shouldnt matter. And I doubt ’silly’ sign in names are limited to MRAs…
Mermade, MRAs are not trolls. They are men with views different from Hugo. Period. Trolls are people who log on to websites and deliberately cause trouble with the aim of disrupting a site. Simply having an opinion different from the majority of those on a board does not constitute trolling.
Reckless Ronin, take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. This short of hyperbole will get you banned pronto.
If I can get banned for taking reasonable steps to protect my anonymity, then oh well. Fact is, the reasons I just gave for being semi anonymous are a specialized subset of reasons given by legitimate agencies and publications such as Cyberangels, Wired, and the FBI. Quite frankly I don’t wish to be harassed by any stalker or sickopath, but seeing how feminists are violent and abusive toward men anyway, I figure why give a violent group a bigger stick to beat me over the head with than they already have.
If I can get banned for mentioning the names of feminist leaders who were open about their true goals of hate and destruction, once again, oh well. Really, I would think that you, being a collge instructor and a male feminist, would be thrilled that I mentioned Solanas’s name in any conversation at all. If your cause is just, and your leaders righteous, then why not reveal their history for all to see. Let them hear about the SCUM manifesto. Let them hear about the woman who shot Andy Warhol. And while we’re at it, let them hear about Dworkin, Steinem, and the rest of the gender facists who preach that all hetrosexual sex is rape, women can’t possibly rape, and that men are inherently inferior. Then from there they can go on to the wonderful world of sentencing disparity biased against men, false (insert crime here) allegations against men, and sexual harassment 101: everything is sexual harassment, including staying in your cubicle and not doing anything but your work all day.
Conspiracy theory? You can’t make this kind of stuff up. Crook your head out the door or turn on a TV to see the slander and derision of men on T-Shirts, on advertisements, and on crap TV shows. I have seen tons of “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them,” T-Shirts. Not that I’m for wantonly throwing rocks at anyone, but in the name of fairness, can you please show me the “Girls are stupid, throw rocks at them,” T-Shirt? I ran the term through several search engines, and the only matches I got were websites asking the same question I was: where are those T-Shirts?
I would say that the elevation of women to a protected, elite class above questioning would be a conspiracy, if it weren’t so true and self evident. Take the Larry Summers’s speech and the firestorm behind it. This man was pilloried, not for saying that women can’t cut it in the sciences and engineering diciplines, but for saying that perhaps women are different, and not as cut out for it as men. The man even made caveats that he’d like to be proven wrong. Of course, every feminist and man basher zoomed in on the phrase “issues of intrinsic aptitude.” Because of course, everyone who says that maybe two genuinely different groups of people might not be equally suited for the same things must be a closet racist or bigot or something. Had Summers’s speech been about men’s failure to successfully breastfeed babies, it would probably be a laugh riot, and everyone would probably agree: menfolk just aren’t cut out for breastfeeding. Had Summers’s speech been about women’s failure to stomp with the guys in Mixed Martial Arts tournaments, there might be a little more resentment, but the logic would be much clearer: women are obviously not built as strong, tough, or durable as men on the average (and to the guy who will invariably try to refute this observation with the old ‘well men can’t take childbirth’ rebuttal, may I ask you where the teams of all women rescuers lifting debris were during 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina?). Census results reflect this, women’s average height and weight is lower, and on average men have more muscle mass. However when a man makes a speech in which he says in effect “all other things being equal women may not be as cut out for sciences as men,” suddenly he’s a monster in need of dismissal? You know, it’s almost every week that you’re hearing about some halfbaked study wherin some researcher is postulating that women have better mental aptitude at this, that, and the other due to some randomly interpted MRI test, and you hear the women over at Women’s Day, Ms Magazine, Marie Claire, and other such rags give a sigh of orgasmic relief as they go “see, told you women were more logical/caring/responsible/mature/whatever. Here’s the scientific proof.” However, let the president of one of the most respected academic institutions in the world get up, and say, with the backing of studies, surveys, and 50+ years of empirical evidence, that it is his best guess that among multiple other factors, part of the reason that women are not as prevalent in the hard sciences as you would expect is because maybe they aren’t as naturally adept at it as men. We’ve seen the shitstorm for ourselves. And I didn’t make up one word of that. What is the old saying,
“You can say whatever you want about men
No matter how untrue
But, you can’t breathe a word about women
Especially if it’s true.”
Oh and finally, if I can get banned for pointing out the hypocrisy in the statement I replied to earlier, well that’s on you. You should be more careful what you say.
Hi Hugo, longtime reader, first-time poster - thank you so very much for this post. I am Jewish, and my husband is neither Jewish nor circumcised, but he is taking conversion classes and is nearing the point where he’s going to have to start seriously thinking about circumcision. Your discussion of your spiritual reasons for ans response to your circumcision will be a great help to him, I think, as he makes the decision for himself.
Hey Hugo, I felt like a bit of a voyeur for reading this but I did because I have had several boyfriends (including my current one) who weren’t circumsized (result of dating people from other countries). From my point of view it doesn’t matter one way or another to me, circumsized or not, but it’s interesting to hear about the health effects. I always heard that NOT being circumsized increased sexual pleasure. Also I didn’t know that it was possible to tear the foreskin either so that’s good to be aware of.
I didn’t read all the comments but I agree with historymom that not circumsizing doesn’t have to be an MRA thing. If I have a boy I probably wouldn’t do it either. Seems unnecessary. Unless there’s overwhelming evidence of some positive health benefit. First I heard about the HIV thing…
Interesting post.
Tim, that is beyond the pale. Insulting your host is considered bad manners wherever you go.
Ronin, you’re a conspiracy nut, and not a single poster here want’s to do anything to you. You’re first post (about bloody tampons and placenta) I thought was satire. If it isn’t, holy hell do you need some help.
Tim is banned, and Reckless needs to stay narrowly on topic.
(male circumcision is religiously mandated in both faiths; female circumcision, contrary to public opinion, is not.)
But (at least some of) the female circumcizers sincerely believe it’s mandated by their faith. Considering that you are neither Jewish nor Muslim — and hence by definition believe that they both are, to some degree, false religions — it seems a little odd for you to be drawing distinctions between “real” Islam and false Islam and demanding that we respect the former but not the latter.
I should preface my comments by saying that I’m not a big fan of body modification more broadly. I have only done two things both of which are not permanent–ear piercing and I permed my hair.
I think many people have made good points about circumcision and FGM/female genital alteration. I guess many people don’t realize this, but there is a big industry developing here in the US around altering adult women’s genitalia. It’s becoming big busniess ( href=”http://www.lasertreatments.com/labiaplasty.html”> here’s one site promoting this ).
It personally reeks of ethnocentrism that American feminists are not up in arms over this. I understand that adult women have a choice, but this is many ways is akin to the pressure to get breast implants and other cosmetic procedures.
The vaccine comparison is very bad because vaccines save lives circumsions really don’t. The whol hygiene rhetoric is BS. If that argument about HIV were true, then Europe should have much higher rates than the US because circumsion rates are much lower there. Those studies have been done by comparing various African ethnic groups, who do not have ready access to condoms, which would allow for safer sex practices.
And for all of those people justifying male circumsion with religious ideology; it is ironic that people do the same for FGM (and all sorts of other anti-female practices).
Just my two cents….
Hugo - I’ve never posted here before, but thanks so much for the informative post. I am pregnant with my first child (only about 10 weeks or so), and although I don’t know the sex of my baby yet, my bf and I have been discussing whether, if we have a boy, we will have our baby circumcised. My vote has always been yes, and my bf’s no, even though he, himself, is circumcised - but I’m sure after I tell him about the possible HIV prevention, he’ll change his mind (I had no idea…!). Thanks for the information!
Stentor, male circumcision is mentioned in the Torah, and is (to a very real extent) binding on Muslims as well. Female circumcision is not mentioned in Quran or the Torah — it’s a tribal animist custom that got incorporated into one perversion of Islam.
I would never, ever say that Muslims or Jews follow a false religion, Stentor. That’s a mischaracterization of how most serious, educated evangelicals feel.
I take it, Rachel, that you completely dismiss the cervical cancer research as well? I’m in complete agreement that altering women’s labia is highly problematic.
And folks, I note few of you have picked up on my point that ONE of my many reasons for having my foreskin removed was that it made intercourse easier without it. When I got stitched up in college for a little sex-related tear, my doctor told me that this was not uncommon in uncircumcised men. So please, acknowledge that there is another legitimate medical reason for removing this.
When I got stitched up in college for a little sex-related tear, my doctor told me that this was not uncommon in uncircumcised men. So please, acknowledge that there is another legitimate medical reason for removing this.
I think the biggest factor in tcervical cancer is HPV, and we now have a vaccine that will be readily available soon. If the research finds that men with intact foreskins transmitted HPV more readily, and that is what caused the correlation with cervical cancer. Then in the future this would be a moot point.
Oops, just saw Beste made the same point.
Interesting, Beste. The various doctors I consulted over the years only recommended circumcision, and I had not heard of frenuloplasty up until now. (I do note that frenulum breve is often treated with complete circumcision according to the article.)
Again, I am struck by how closely the whole “it should be the boy’s choice” argument (as opposed to infant circumcision) mirrors the classic arguments about baptism. To what degree our parents ought to make decisions for us about our bodies and our faiths is one of those vitally interesting topics for debate…
Questioning the desireability of circumcision is insensitive to jews and muslims?
I don’t understand your argument. Firs to all, countless US citizens are circumcised for non-religious reasons. Second, do you *really* want to imply that religious traditions are beyond criticism?
No, but religious traditions are deserving of a special degree of respect, if only for tactical reasons. I support banning FGM, but I support doing it in a religious context that makes it clear that THIS IS NOT ISLAM. FGM is to Islam what witch-burnings were to early modern Christianity: a gross perversion that can be corrected.
No, but religious traditions are deserving of a special degree of respect, if only for tactical reasons. I support banning FGM, but I support doing it in a religious context that makes it clear that THIS IS NOT ISLAM. FGM is to Islam what witch-burnings were to early modern Christianity: a gross perversion that can be corrected.
What deserves respect again, religious traditions, or Islamic ones? What makes Islam so special that its traditions should be inherently respected, and the animist beliefs of other cultures disregarded? It’s all religion, and the basis of all religion is faith in what isn’t proveable by natural methods. You may say that these animist tribes have a bunch of beliefs that are a bunch of hooey, don’t amount to crap, and are as imaginary as the Easter Bunny, but then anyone can say that about ANY religion. It’s not like Allah is any more dependable than any other god of any other religion: people pray to him, if he exists, he does as he pleases, and we here on Earth sit around talking about whether the person prayed right, or what the will of X god really was. Is it true, is it false, who knows? For all we know the one guy on this planet who is off somewhere worshipping a potato bug may have it down pat, and everyone else is going to hell. Then for all we know these people committing FGM may have it right. With religion, you just don’t know. I think that’s something to consider before one condones a practice solely because it’s religious.
Okay Hugo, I’ll take the bait, but I’m cutting the baby in half.
I grew up in a Mormon community. Within Mormonism, children are baptised at 8 years old - the argument being that an 8 year old is mature enough to knowingly accept and understand the Mormon faith. As an adult, I am a proud member of a denomination that practices infant baptism. In the past few years, my pastors have performed adult baptisms. I reject the Mormon practice for two reasons - one, the way in which it is practiced is extremely coercive, two, an 8 year old is no where near mature enough to make that kind of decision, despite all the Mormon doctrine backing it up.
About two years ago, during a baptism, I looked at my friend sitting next to me in worship. We both had tears rolling down our faces. As my pastor held the child in her arms and presented him to the community, my friend and I were holding each other weeping in joy. Neither of us was related to the child. But it was a moment in which we both experienced the absolute immanence and immediate presence of the spirit. It was a transcendent moment, a moment of community closeness, caring affirmation. The baptism of this infant was a time when our church family received, welcomed, honored and agreed to love this new member of our family. To my mind, since this baptism, infant baptism isn’t about the child solely - it is a profound symbolic moment of receiving a child into the community and promising to nurture that child as a community.
Adult baptism, however, serves a different purpose. Adult baptism, which I think is a great idea, is a very different spiritual moment. It represents a time when an adult is knowingly, intentionally adopting a new path for his/her life. He/she has chosen to become a new person and is using this rite as a time to embrace that new identity and to publicy claim their spiritual rebirth. The adult baptisms I’ve witnessed have been tearful moments for the adult - and a powerful spiritual moment for the congregation. But, it has not been the same experience of infant baptism.
I’m in favor of both infant and adult baptism - but with the understanding that infant baptism ca