There are still many people who like to pretend that infant circumcision and genital mutilation are not the same thing. Some of them apparently work at Indonesia's health ministry, the Departemen Kesehatan, who recently issued guidelines for 'safe' female circumcision and wheeled out a spokeswoman to dispense the following words of wisdom: "I would like to stress that female circumcision is not genital mutilation, which is indeed dangerous. They are two things that are very different."
This nonsense comes from the same ministry that recently pushed the idea that swine flu was an American conspiracy - a sinister plot to achieve something or other through some improbable chain of unlikely events – and it isn't surprising that logic isn't their strong point. And yet the same attitude is widespread in Britain. Thousands of people believe, against all logic and reason, that male infant circumcision is somehow not genital mutilation.
Mutilation is a loaded term, so let me be clear what I mean. I don't mean that circumcision is mutilation. If consenting adults want to modify their bodies by snipping a bit off here or adding a bit there, then that's their right, and beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Infant circumcision is a completely different matter. Infant circumcision involves performing surgery without consent to permanently alter an individual's genitals. In many cases this is done without good medical justification, for example to force the infant to conform to the expectations of a particular religion. Just as we call sex without consent 'rape', circumcision without consent or reasonable justification should be called 'mutilation'.
The practice became popular in the United States as a 19th century tool to stop boys masturbating. Female circumcision is ultimately a brutal means of oppressing women's sexuality, and male circumcision was intended to achieve the same.
Writing about the practice in 1978, Karen Paige suggested that, "When a custom persists after its original functions have died, it may be accorded the status of a ritual." Circumcision failed to stop masturbation, but became engrained in the American consciousness as a bizarre rite-of-passage, a throw-back to the burnings, whippings and cuttings still practised in other tribes around the world.
Divorced from its original purpose, circumcision has become a treatment in search of a disease, and post hoc justifications abound. Surveys suggest that the two most common rationalizations invoked by parents are hygiene and appearance. The hygiene argument is self-evidently daft – for no other part of the body do we advocate "chop it off" over "wash it more thoroughly" as the preferred option for improving hygiene. As for aesthetics, for a parent to be that concerned about the cosmetic appearance of their baby son's sexual organs is frankly a bit disturbing, but surely it should be for the individual to decide?
Health benefits of circumcision are commonly cited, but tend to evaporate when challenged, with medical professional bodies tending to dismiss it as a question of personal choice. The British Medical Association for example states that, "the medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven but there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly." PZ Myers assessed the claims in blunter fashion recently, calling them "total bullshit":
"There have been progressive excuses: from it prevents masturbation to it prevents cancer to it prevents AIDS. The benefits all vanish with further studies and are all promoted by pro-circumcision organizations."
The most recent of these excuses invokes the spectre of AIDS, used as a justification for heavily promoting circumcision in Africa. A range of studies claiming to show that male circumcision reduces HIV transmission have been seriously flawed, most recently a trio of trials conducted in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa.
Robert Van How and Michelle Storms produced a well-referenced response earlier this year that documents the issues far better than I can here, but some of the problems should be fairly easy for the curious reader to spot. The studies are host to a catalogue of clear biases - for example the short length of the trial means that men circumcised were unable to have sex (for obvious reasons) for a significant chunk of it. The authors make the flawed assumption that all transmission was due to heterosexual sex, which is a) wrong and b) makes it a poor test of the hypothesis that circumcision reduces sexually transmitted HIV.
Most damning though is the fact that if the trials are correct, and circumcision provides major protection from sexually transmitted HIV infection, then the impact should be obvious in the wider population. It isn't, and the authors cite several countries where circumcised men are more likely to be HIV infected than intact men. In fact survey data across 19 countries showed no association between circumcision and HIV risk. Even if there were, the same benefits could be achieved through voluntary circumcision of adults.
Physical merits and demerits aside, infant circumcision has had a profound psychological impact on many men. "I can't get it out of my mind how I have been mutilated against my will," reads one testimony on the website of the charity Norm UK
I spoke to several circumcised men in the course of writing this article, who were kind enough to allow me to share their experiences with you. I'll be posting more of their testimony (and that of others) in a follow up to this post, but for now a couple of quotes are worth highlighting.
Philip, from London, told me how he felt when he first became aware of his status as a small child:
"I wanted it covered up. I felt mutilated. I also felt that my parents had abandoned me; why had they let someone do that to me? I had such a feeling of helplessness and abuse due to my circumcision."
His advice to parents considering it now?
"DON'T. Even if you think it may be necessary later, wait until later to see if it really does become necessary."
His thoughts were echoed by James, also from London:
"As an adult my status has always made me feel as if I have a 'condition'. Like being short sighted for example, it can be 'lived with' but is certainly something that I would much rather not have to live with. To think that well-meaning, responsible adults chose to affect in this way is a very sad thought."
If you're still not convinced, try this thought experiment. Imagine waking up tomorrow morning to find yourself tied to your bed and rendered mute, your naked genitals exposed to the harsh glare of hospital lights. Your parents have decided that some skin should be hacked from your penis; perhaps so you can be forced into their religion, perhaps because they don't trust you to clean yourself in the shower, or perhaps simply because they think your penis should look more like your father's.
If you don't like the thought of this happening to you, if this offends your belief in self-determination or the rights you have over what happens to your body, then how can you justify this practice being inflicted on infants?
Infant circumcision without medical justification should be called what it is – genital mutilation. Deliberately inflicting injury on a baby in order to enforce their conformity with a religion, or to satisfy their parents' views on what a penis should look like, is a sick act. It has no place in a modern society. Infant circumcision - regardless of gender - should be stopped.
From White Coat Underground
From Mind Hacks
Comments
6 December 2011 1:22PM
Couldn't agree more.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about preserving "religious freedom", or any other kind of freedom, if it is being pitted against the freedom of minors to not be forced to suffer mutilation/assault.
6 December 2011 1:24PM
The foreskin presumably evolved like that for a reason, because there was some advantage over not having it. Had it been a cause of infections it would not have been an evolutionary advantage.
6 December 2011 1:26PM
I wholeheartedly agree with this article. Infant circumcision is barbaric and unnecessary - and as the daughter of a (lapsed) Jewish man, I have had to bite my tongue so many times when the issue has come up following the birth of male cousins. What right has any parent to subject a baby to such an invasive and traumatic procedure at such a tender age (when frankly the world seems scary enough) without just medical cause? Female circumcision causes outrage in our society and yet when it comes to male circumcision the same people have the blinkers on, because religious tradition trumps sensible thinking. Why?
6 December 2011 1:35PM
It's amazing that people seek to justify the violent sexual assault of children. It's even more amazing that these excuses are accepted by the government.
Perhaps Gary Glitter should have tried the "It's my culture" excuse.
6 December 2011 1:46PM
Couldn't agree more. When will we learn not to toe the party line of "religions and rituals must be sacred" and start prosecuting the people who do these things?
6 December 2011 1:58PM
"The foreskin presumably evolved like that for a reason"
Analogous tissue with the clitoral hood - Blokes are just modified women - thats why we have seams running down our scrotum( modified labia) and perineum areas.
6 December 2011 2:17PM
Well done for writing this article. Infant male circumcision is completely unjustifiable. It is mutilation and should be made illegal.
6 December 2011 2:17PM
Snarlygog "The foreskin presumably evolved like that for a reason" Analogous tissue with the clitoral hood - Blokes are just modified women - thats why we have seams running down our scrotum( modified labia) and perineum areas.
Or the other way round. Women are incompletely formed men in the absence of the extra genes on the Y-chromosome.
6 December 2011 2:22PM
Yeah, I believe in self-determination, too. I'm bloody outraged my parents forced me to finish my vegetables when I was younger. After all, it's my body and I should damn well be able to choose what I eat or don't eat.
Sarcasm aside, people choose to believe in and lead their lives according to a set of values -- values that you may or may not necessarily agree with. When these people have children, they project these values onto them. Is it right? No, according your set of values, but yes according to theirs.
You don't like it? Legislate against against. Actually, I have a better idea: why not make every practice outside of my-morally-superior-Philosophy-A illegal?
6 December 2011 2:44PM
No-one complained when female circumcision was made illegal, even though some people regard it as their religious right or duty to cut their daughters.
It's illegal to cut off a girl's prepuce, or to make any incision on a girl's genitals, even if no tissue is removed. Even a pinprick is banned. Why don't boys get the same protection? Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they want parts of their genitals cut off. It's *their* body.
6 December 2011 2:44PM
Completely agree, this type of mutilation on babies for religious reasons is wrong.
6 December 2011 2:45PM
I had a major argument with my husband when pregnant with our first (which turned out to be a daughter). For some reason, the males in his family are circumcised. Nobody knows why, they just are. So he was automatically going to have any son circumcised. I refused to have such a putative child mutilated- my final argument was "you wouldn't have your daughter mutilated, why mutilate your son???" He still doesn't get it.
6 December 2011 2:46PM
Excellent article - any form of genital alteration on any child - or any adult without their express consent (which doesn't include coercion or social/cultural pressure)is mutilation.
Obviously there can be medical reasons for the removal of the foreskin such as when it is found to be too tight and causes pain, but anything else is inexcusable and frankly barbaric.
6 December 2011 2:49PM
Thanks for addressing this all to often overlooked or avoided issue.
One common canard you g haven't really addressed is that the foreskin is essentially 'useless'. Although this isn't relevant to your key point of self determination, I do feel it's a myth worth dispelling, if only because it's so often repeated by those not in a position to know otherwise. It is in fact highly innervated erogenous tissue (one can look up a lot of detail about meissner's corpuscles and similar if needed). It can produce different sensations as significant as those from the head of the penis. It also has a role in providing physical motility, acting to ease movement during sex & reduce drying of lubrication. It also offers protection from temperature, drying, physical irritation, etc to the head.
It is NOT 'just a useless piece of skin' and should not be removed without very good justification.
6 December 2011 2:54PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aposthia
6 December 2011 2:55PM
How about allowing parents of African extraction to treat their children who are born Albinos as lesser human beings, expose them to constant ritualistic exorcisms and allow them to draw blood daily for ritual use? Should be ok as long as the parents choose to believe in this and lead their lives according to a set of values, even if we don't necessarily agree with them?
6 December 2011 2:59PM
A compelling article, but in the interests of friction I'll assume the position of devil's advocate.
Firstly, there's the obvious discrepancy in moral/value systems to be considered. Barbaric and all as it appears to you, the practice is nevertheless an element in the symoblism of another, perhaps competing, system. Why default to your evaluation?
Within this other value system, perhaps the majority of circumcised males don't suffer the same feelings or regrets as your quoted examples above. Moreover, they won't have any memory of pain, embarrassment/humiliation and the like that your thought experiment crucially involves.
Furthermore, appealing to basic human rights seems opaque. Is there a basic human right to be uncircumcised? Hardly. It would simply be an extrapolation from a more general right. What human being really does receive an upbringing and early life entirely free from the demands of the moral/value systems s/he is brought up in?
We are all, to varying extents, conditioned and moulded (sometimes physically, with ears pierced for earrings, teeth fenced and reigned in if too protruding, etc.) by the cultural milieu that births us, no?
6 December 2011 3:02PM
Would you also apply this argument to defend female genital mutilation, trepaning, branding, forced marriage, honour killing, human sacrifice, etc? Where do you draw the line?
Individuals unrestricted freedom to act out their personal beliefs should not extend to carrying out irreversible modification on an infants body.
6 December 2011 3:04PM
Yep, circumcision in babies is simply mutilation. Unless there is a medical reason for it, it should not happen.
The arguments for it have no foundation.
6 December 2011 3:05PM
@prostheticHead
"Where do you draw the line?"
If you were to be completely faithful to the rights of others to practice their own belief systems - you might add the proviso that they don't interfere with the system you were born into - then you'd have to say that there is no line to draw. The right to self-expression for both individual and culture should be untrammelled.
"Individuals unrestricted freedom to act out their personal beliefs should not extend to carrying out irreversible modification on an infants body."
What about doctors performing what they believe to be life-saving surgery on the body of an infant. Should that be allowed?
6 December 2011 3:07PM
It seems such a shame that a procedure that can be traced back to the Bronze Age should be outlawed; particularly when it's what God wanted.
PS Can I still slaughter my sheep without stunning?
6 December 2011 3:07PM
Since when has chopping bits off your children been a projection of ones "values". (Unless it's a particularly dodgy set of values...)
6 December 2011 3:09PM
Well, I disagree with the "value" of mutilating the penis of a baby boy. What about you?
Values don't result in the removal of a body part, do they?
Frankly, you put forward bizarre justifications for this act.
6 December 2011 3:10PM
@fronkensteen
"Since when has chopping bits off your children been a projection of ones "values"."
Don't parents sometimes get their children's hair and nails cut, often when, ultimately, it is not required? This is a projection of aesthetic values onto the bodily form of the child. As I mentioned earlier, you could include getting a child's ears pierced, teeth straightened and so in in this bracket.
6 December 2011 3:11PM
Agree one hundred per cent with this article. Male circumcision is child sexual and physical abuse. There are no justifications for it - just excuses.
6 December 2011 3:13PM
Whether you want to hear this or not, male circumcision has no real impact on anything. Anyone who's actually tortured about having had it done to them needs to look around at the world and get over themselves. So the English don't do it. Good for you. Now go find something important to froth over.
6 December 2011 3:13PM
I'll try and make this as simple as possible. Yes, IfThen, obviously if there is a medical reason for surgery, then surgery is preferential.
Just as the removal of a breast might be the best option for a woman suffering from breast cancer. But no one suggests removing the breasts at birth!
Capiche?
6 December 2011 3:15PM
Argh, nice one Martin! I was fine with it until I read this. Now I think my parents are perverted monsters and I'll have to be in therapy while they're carving the turkey... wait... 'carving the turkey'...
nooo!
6 December 2011 3:15PM
Come back when you've been forced against your will to have your foreskin cut off.
6 December 2011 3:16PM
Actually, many circumcised adults are angry at not having a say in the matter. Further, there are other parts of the body we could remove at birth, which have "no real impact" on anything.
Your whataboutery reveals the fact that there is no reason for circumcision.
6 December 2011 3:16PM
The cruelest cut, why deprive a child of choice?
Remove religion rather!
6 December 2011 3:16PM
I know the article is titled lay scientist, but this is an odd article - such anger backed up by so little evidence it seems more of a pub conversation. Citing wiki as a source to claim trials have shown circumcision doesn't reduce HIV - whereas actually even Wiki sources show it does!
This article reminds me of the furore around the MMR triple vaccine - albeit it does seem some men do not like circumcision and I can respect that.
But attacking the issue with falsehoods is not impressive - that circumcision reduces HIV is not spurious as this author claims
I cite from same wiki source the author used!
"All three trials were stopped early by their monitoring boards on ethical grounds, because those in the circumcised group had a lower rate of HIV contraction than the control group.[7] The results showed that circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of HIV by 60%, 53%, and 51%, respectively".
I am writing this from a meeting on HIV/AIDS in Ethiopia this week - there's a device being promoted called the shang ring. It's non surgical - circumcision doesn't require invasive surgery as the author keeps claiming.
And I circumcised my own son at birth - for his sake - HIV may well still be here in 15 years and I wanted to protect him.
I don't doubt the authors good intentions and some valid concerns, but the line of attack seems a little haphazard and undermines his arguments and other truths.
That's shoddy.
6 December 2011 3:18PM
Great Article. I remember talking to Dr Chris Smith of the Naked Scientists about this. He was very pro- it for combating AIDS. I didn't have time to check his rational but as informed scientist I really hope it wasn't based on the flawed trials you cite.
Might be interesting to get his feedback on it since the Naked Scientists now have a show in South Africa.
6 December 2011 3:18PM
I could have sworn hair and nails grow back. Maybe that's just my mistake!
I know the justifications for circumcision are very poor, but we really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here, aren't we.
6 December 2011 3:22PM
@BigNowitzki
"I'll try and make this as simple as possible. Yes, IfThen, obviously if there is a medical reason for surgery, then surgery is preferential. Just as the removal of a breast might be the best option for a woman suffering from breast cancer. But no one suggests removing the breasts at birth."
But what if the medical reason is not (pardon the pun) clear-cut? What if there are alternative solutions being suggested? Isn't the insistence on surgery at least equivalent in its nature to the contexts of male circumcision? (i.e. a dominant narrative that justifies its use, itself embedded in a prevailing set of beliefs and values that together offer further justification)
If the essence of male circumcision lies in permanent modifications to an infant's body, then medical procedures also have to be considered in the same way, before one takes use, benefits, justifications, etc into account.
6 December 2011 3:23PM
@ifThen
Seriously... you're comparing a hair-cut to genital mutilation?
In case you weren't just trolling I'd note that hair and nails grow back, such that if a child really, really dislikes a particular hair style they can wait a few weeks and the "harm" disappears.
Personally I'd place ear piercing somewhere along the slope - i.e. definately unsuitable on a 3 week old baby, slightly unsettling on a 3 y/old, less worrying on an 8 y/old - but it's clearly less invasive and a pierced ear will heal over if left alone.
And teeth-straightening in children is usually done for health reasons, not simply for aesthetics. Plus it's usually older children (normally mid-teens) who are in a better position to give their feedback.
All totally different to inflicting irreversible harm on new-born babies.
6 December 2011 3:23PM
@BigNowitzki
"I could have sworn hair and nails grow back."
Is that the overriding consideration then for male circumcision? If it grew back, everything would be okay? Hardly a cast-iron rebuttal of a seemingly self-evident barbarity!
6 December 2011 3:23PM
Did you remove his appendix at the same time? The most effective way of protecting your son against HIV is to make sure he knows about contraception.
Do you support the removal of the labia and vulva in women - they are just as conducive to bacteria and dirt as the foreskin!
6 December 2011 3:25PM
Circumcision became extremely necessary to a good friend of mine...
He, a Christian, a virgin, married a girl. On their wedding night, which should've been the happiest night of their lives together. They simply couldn't have sex - too painful. Circumcision successful, and about 3 weeks later, no problem.
In my case, it was diagnosed when I was 8 (I ran screaming from the classroom, because I thought - probably my first erection) - that I'd been stung by a bee in my pants.
6 December 2011 3:27PM
@BigNowitzki
"Do you support the removal of the labia and vulva in women"?
Appeals to emotion won't do here. Frankly, it doesn't matter if you don't support such acts. The question is, can they objectively be said to be wrong in themselves?
6 December 2011 3:31PM
I've always thought it as cruel and inhumane, in the same league as burning women in Africa because they were "witches", and dumping baby girls in China and India because they were unwanted... but when I first came across male circumcision, I was surprised that people - many "reputable" people, with status and in the "developed" countries - were supporting male circumcision, some might say with a zealous passion. It completely surprised me - how can something so naturally gross and going against instinct be actually practiced, approved and supported by seemingly civilised folk?
Only recently has the practice in USA been seen as non compulsory - and that's outside religious circles. It's made me realise that what governs what is inhumane isn't based on your gut feeling, but what "tradition" and the society you live in dictates, and thus how its media spins it. Worrying.
6 December 2011 3:33PM
OK then.
So if I were to come round your house and cut your hair off, and then remove your foreskin (presuming you had one), the two acts would be equal. Would they?
If I recall, I don't remember needing anesthesia or time off work when I had my hair cut and nails clipped.
Is this really the best arguments for circumcision - that IT IS THE SAME AS HAVING YOUR HAIR CUT! Read that last sentence again, and weep and howl with laughter.
But let's get serious for one moment. A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year.
6 December 2011 3:34PM
Agreed.
It is the sexual mutilation of a child and defended on the grounds of religion, as if religion is sufficient reason to be given licence to sexually mutilate children.
They'll be demanding the right to sacrifice their children to Moloch next.
6 December 2011 3:35PM
I have some sympathy with your position on the ethics of circumcising infant boys, but like moonie73 I have to say that your interpretation of the science with relation to HIV is very weak, and it actually weakens your argument to misrepresent it in this way. Similarly it's unbecoming of an article about science to quote a few circumcised men as evidence of your point.
You can find a more comprehensive overview of the evidence on the WHO website.
Of course, the WHO don't always get everything right. But on this occasion, after many years of wailing and gnashing of teeth, WHO, UNAIDS and PEPFAR (the US HIV programme) are all backing it as one of the primary approaches to HIV prevention - as this new strategy document shows. There may be some conspiracy lurking behind this but, having hung around HIV prevention debates including this one for over a decade, I think this is probably a case of Occam's razor. I'm more prepared to believe that these agencies have decided the potential ethical problems related to male circumcision are a price worth paying for reducing HIV incidence than anything else. Though I also have a feeling, which I talk about a bit here, that it is being implemented in a rather simplistic way.
6 December 2011 3:35PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
6 December 2011 3:39PM
Well here I am! It was done to me and my entire generation, and we had our son circumcised as was virtually his entire generation, Christians, Jews and otherwise. I don't remember a thing about it, nor does my son. Do you remember what happened to you the day you were born? As far as I ever knew, the way I was was the way I always was and that was fine with me. Since the vast preponderance of comments here speak to something of which they have only anecdotal experience, it seems worth it to actually take into the account the feelings of the millions who have had this procedure rather than just listen to the fragment. It's not at all comparable to female circumcision, nor is it comparable to actual abuse and saying so is actually rather sickening....
6 December 2011 3:40PM
Such idiocy. It REDUCES the chances of transmission because there is less skin that can carry the seminal fluids that, in a HIV man, can infect their partner. You know what reduces the chances by 100%? Having protected sex. Or heaven forbid, going to a sex clinic with your partner before, and not indulging in 1 night stands. Chopping some flesh off the tip of your penis, if the other partner has HIV, will not stop your son getting HIV. Maybe he'll get lucky if having a 1 nighter with an infected woman. But it has zero guarantee.
The reason it is proposed in Africa is because, despite multiple campaigns, no-one hardly ever uses condoms or other forms of protection, and HIV is such an epidemic over there. Furthermore, the drugs used to help those in developed countries have a normal life cannot be given to every infected person in Africa, it is economically and logistically impossible.
6 December 2011 3:41PM
Great article, thank you, on a criminally neglected topic.
Has anyone looked into the prevalence of female genital mutilation and whether parts of the world where it is practised correlate with areas that also practise male circumcision? I am not comparing the two procedures directly, and accept that FGM is far more radical than removal of the prepuce, but do wonder whether some cultures that permit one form of genital surgery on children find it easier to justify or permit another.
@Moonie73. So you had your son circumcised at birth for his sake? If you believe (and that's all it is, as the evidence from clinical trials is not conclusive) that circumcision may be protective against HIV/AIDS, then why not wait until your son is older, explain this to him and allow him to decide? There is no justification whatsoever for doing this in infancy.
6 December 2011 3:42PM
@BigNowitzki
Again, the premises to your arguments are weak. Let's assume (as in fact is the case, I think) that the majority of 'value-motivated' circumcisions are done in infancy. The pain would, therefore, be irrelevant, since you'd be in no position to remember it.
Thus, aside from the pain and the lack of a newly-grown replacement (!), cutting nails, piercing ears and trimming hair are equivalent in theory (at least) to male circumcision. They are all unnecessary acts perpetrated on the body of an infant to satisfy the (aesthetic or otherwise) culturally dependent evaluations of adults.
I'm still waiting for a conclusive argument that provides a context in which it is both justified and preferable for one value system (such as our own, 'liberal democratic' one) to pass sentence on another system, using the criteria that it alone (i.e. the system that judges) provides.
There's no objectivity in such an action, and therefore no objective wrong has been identified.
6 December 2011 3:42PM
Well, that is an issue for a doctor to decide, isn't it? Very simple, my friend. A doctor would not have to recommend a circumcision if there was no medical reason to do so, just as so many medical associations themselves recommend.
More whataboutery. There would have to be a medical reason for a doctor to recommend surgery. A doctor is unlikely to pop round your house and perform brain surgery. There would have to be a reason for any brain surgery to happen. Sinking in, yet?
Yes, IfThen, each surgery is weighed up by a doctor first, and only carried out if deemed necessary. You know, I thought this was common sense, but maybe that's just me.