In my view, this is a thoroughly sound judgment by the court.
Most people are not aware of this, but male circumcision is fundamentally very similar to female circumcision in terms of the physiological components that are removed. This is not exactly publicized because circumcision is so widely practiced in America (usually because of tradition; fathers want their sons to look like them).
So if female circumcision is in fact better described as female genital mutilation (as I believe it is), then male circumcision is equally better described as male genital mutilation. And if you're not allowed to practice the former, despite religious freedom laws, then equally you should not be allowed to practice the latter.
Interesting side-note: from what I understand (my wife has researched this issue thoroughly for an article she wrote for a parenting magazine), Jews do not actually practice circumcision in the way typically performed as a "medical procedure". Ie, they don't remove the foreskin, but simply shorten it slightly. Not exactly pleasant for the child, but a lot better than having the end of the penis degloved in a manner likened to that of pulling out a finger-nail.
Male and female circumcision are fundamentally disanalogous. To my knowledge, the cultural motivation for female circumcision is to desensitize the female sex organ (by removing the clitoris) so that Muslim women don't physically enjoy sexual intercourse. That, in turn, is a disincentive to women indulging in premarital/extramarital sex. A preemptive way of keeping Muslim women chaste before marriage or faithful after marriage.
By contrast, male circumcision doesn't seem to decrease sexual pleasure for men.
In addition, male circumcision has medical fringe benefits.
We can still debate the pros and cons of male circumcision, but we need to frame the issue accurately.
Steve, actually male circumcision is directly physically analogous to type 1 female circumcision -- which involves removal of the clitoral hood. It removes the most sensitive nerves in the penis, which is why it was originally pushed: as a way of preventing masturbation. So in fact the analogy to FGM is surprisingly close. It does indeed decrease sexual pleasure for men, which is why premature ejaculation is a common side-effect: there is insufficient feedback during intercourse. Most men don't know this, obviously, because they don't get circumcised after already having had intercourse!
Fwiw, men who have regrown their foreskin (absent the nerves that were removed obviously) report that sexual sensitivity and pleasure goes from around a 3 or 4 to a 7 or 8. This is just because the dekeratinization of the glans is reversed, leading to far more sensitivity there. Imagine if they could have had their nerves restored as well!
Fyi, there is no medical establishment in the world to my knowledge that recommends circumcision on medical grounds.
"Steve, actually male circumcision is directly physically analogous to type 1 female circumcision -- which involves removal of the clitoral hood. It removes the most sensitive nerves in the penis, which is why it was originally pushed: as a way of preventing masturbation. So in fact the analogy to FGM is surprisingly close."
i) Sure...if you wish to play shell games with the definition, by oscillating between different connotations of female circumcision. But that introduces equivocation into your comparison.
Type 1 female circumcision is to male circumcision as Type 2 female circumcision is to castration
That's the analogy.
ii) Muslim cultures circumcise women so that women won't enjoy sex. That way women won't be tempted to commit premarital or extramarital sex.
That, however, is not the motivation for male circumcision, and that's not the effect of male circumcision. Circumcised men still enjoy sex! So that's not comparable to removing the clitoris.
"It removes the most sensitive nerves in the penis, which is why it was originally pushed: as a way of preventing masturbation."
Even if that were the original rationale (which is historically simplistic), it's totally ineffective in deterring masturbation. Circumcised males still find masturbation pleasant. So your example is counterproductive.
"It does indeed decrease sexual pleasure for men, which is why premature ejaculation is a common side-effect."
i) From studies I've read, circumcision is a common treatment for premature ejaculation. By reducing the sensitivity of the penis, the man is able to maintain an erection for a longer time. He is less prone to overstimulation.
ii) That can also increase sexual satisfaction for both the man and the woman. Because he can maintain an erection longer, he has more control. He can pace himself so that his sexual climax coincides with a woman's orgasm. There are studies that bear that out.
"Fyi, there is no medical establishment in the world to my knowledge that recommends circumcision on medical grounds."
That's an exercise in misdirection. What I said was: "male circumcision has medical fringe benefits."
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-gay-rights-advocate-arrested-over-child-porn-3662138.php
ReplyDeleteI figure this may be of some interest to you.
In my view, this is a thoroughly sound judgment by the court.
ReplyDeleteMost people are not aware of this, but male circumcision is fundamentally very similar to female circumcision in terms of the physiological components that are removed. This is not exactly publicized because circumcision is so widely practiced in America (usually because of tradition; fathers want their sons to look like them).
So if female circumcision is in fact better described as female genital mutilation (as I believe it is), then male circumcision is equally better described as male genital mutilation. And if you're not allowed to practice the former, despite religious freedom laws, then equally you should not be allowed to practice the latter.
Interesting side-note: from what I understand (my wife has researched this issue thoroughly for an article she wrote for a parenting magazine), Jews do not actually practice circumcision in the way typically performed as a "medical procedure". Ie, they don't remove the foreskin, but simply shorten it slightly. Not exactly pleasant for the child, but a lot better than having the end of the penis degloved in a manner likened to that of pulling out a finger-nail.
Bnonn,
ReplyDeleteMale and female circumcision are fundamentally disanalogous. To my knowledge, the cultural motivation for female circumcision is to desensitize the female sex organ (by removing the clitoris) so that Muslim women don't physically enjoy sexual intercourse. That, in turn, is a disincentive to women indulging in premarital/extramarital sex. A preemptive way of keeping Muslim women chaste before marriage or faithful after marriage.
By contrast, male circumcision doesn't seem to decrease sexual pleasure for men.
In addition, male circumcision has medical fringe benefits.
We can still debate the pros and cons of male circumcision, but we need to frame the issue accurately.
Steve, actually male circumcision is directly physically analogous to type 1 female circumcision -- which involves removal of the clitoral hood. It removes the most sensitive nerves in the penis, which is why it was originally pushed: as a way of preventing masturbation. So in fact the analogy to FGM is surprisingly close. It does indeed decrease sexual pleasure for men, which is why premature ejaculation is a common side-effect: there is insufficient feedback during intercourse. Most men don't know this, obviously, because they don't get circumcised after already having had intercourse!
ReplyDeleteFwiw, men who have regrown their foreskin (absent the nerves that were removed obviously) report that sexual sensitivity and pleasure goes from around a 3 or 4 to a 7 or 8. This is just because the dekeratinization of the glans is reversed, leading to far more sensitivity there. Imagine if they could have had their nerves restored as well!
Fyi, there is no medical establishment in the world to my knowledge that recommends circumcision on medical grounds.
Dominic Bnonn Tennant6/27/2012 6:51 PM
ReplyDelete"Steve, actually male circumcision is directly physically analogous to type 1 female circumcision -- which involves removal of the clitoral hood. It removes the most sensitive nerves in the penis, which is why it was originally pushed: as a way of preventing masturbation. So in fact the analogy to FGM is surprisingly close."
i) Sure...if you wish to play shell games with the definition, by oscillating between different connotations of female circumcision. But that introduces equivocation into your comparison.
Type 1 female circumcision is to male circumcision
as
Type 2 female circumcision is to castration
That's the analogy.
ii) Muslim cultures circumcise women so that women won't enjoy sex. That way women won't be tempted to commit premarital or extramarital sex.
That, however, is not the motivation for male circumcision, and that's not the effect of male circumcision. Circumcised men still enjoy sex! So that's not comparable to removing the clitoris.
"It removes the most sensitive nerves in the penis, which is why it was originally pushed: as a way of preventing masturbation."
Even if that were the original rationale (which is historically simplistic), it's totally ineffective in deterring masturbation. Circumcised males still find masturbation pleasant. So your example is counterproductive.
"It does indeed decrease sexual pleasure for men, which is why premature ejaculation is a common side-effect."
i) From studies I've read, circumcision is a common treatment for premature ejaculation. By reducing the sensitivity of the penis, the man is able to maintain an erection for a longer time. He is less prone to overstimulation.
ii) That can also increase sexual satisfaction for both the man and the woman. Because he can maintain an erection longer, he has more control. He can pace himself so that his sexual climax coincides with a woman's orgasm. There are studies that bear that out.
"Fyi, there is no medical establishment in the world to my knowledge that recommends circumcision on medical grounds."
That's an exercise in misdirection. What I said was: "male circumcision has medical fringe benefits."
Your claim does nothing to overturn my claim.