New Stanek WND.com column, “No compromise on female genital mutilation”
Looking back on my days as a labor and delivery RN, deliveries of babies to Middle Eastern couples were the hardest.
There was the husband who tried to order me not to let his wife have an epidural.
And there was the 30-something-year-old married to his 15-year-old first cousin who was aborting their (not surprisingly) handicapped baby.
Then there was the laboring mother who had been the victim of female genital mutilation.
FGM is a custom found primarily in Asian and African Muslim countries… but it is coming to America.
There are 4 types of FGM, according to the World Health Organization…
The mother I was delivering had been maimed by the worst, “infibulation,” so her delivery was somewhat of a perenial massacre. It was awful.
Traditionally, feminists have strongly opposed FGM, along with all of Western civilization.
But in this new age of cultural sensitivity, attempts are being made to bridge the divide, not necessarily end the barbaric practice of FGM….
Continue reading my column today, “No compromise on female genital mutilation,” at WorldNetDaily.com.
[Photo via Benettontalk.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
UGH. Reading that made me HURT. Physically…I am just cringing.
How could any feminist go for that? But my theory is that feminists truly hate women. They hate their femininity. That is why they reject relationships with men (nothing makes you feel more womanly than dating a man. Your femininity is blaring next to his masculinity). That is why they are pro-abortion, rejecting that womanly ability to carry a child an give birth. Just kinda makes sense that they are pro-mutilating the thing they resent the most…their vaginas. Or the vagina in general.
Poor precious little girls.
Cutting of the clitoral hood is the most often practiced form of female genital mutilation. Performed in a proper surgical environment, it is a very safe procedure.
This is totally analogous to what is euphemistically known as circumcision for males. Since you believe this procedure is harmful for women, do you believe that male genital mutilation is harmful for men?
@Sydney
Spoken like someone who has never had an actual conversation with a feminist. What ridiculous assumptions you make. Who says feminists reject relationships with men? Do you think all feminists are lesbians?
If you actually read Amanda Marcotte’s article, you would see that she is NOT pro-mutilation. She’s pro-realism. Taking a hard moral stance against this harmless procedure won’t save women from the vastly more horrific prospect of having their genitals sliced apart and removed. If offering this ritual “nicking,” which is far less risky and permanent than male circumcision, will save even one woman from having her clitoris ripped off and her vagina sewn shut, it’ll be worth it.
To summarize:
Hard moral stance = zero women saved from mutilation
Compromise to harmless alternative = possibly many women saved from mutilation
It’s sad that we can’t just obliterate the practice all together, but I’d rather have a generation of women with tiny, benign nicks on their labia than a generation of women with mutilated, useless genitals.
Jill – I appreciate this undertaking of yours, you are courageously telling truth AGAIN. CJ – we, as Christians have a Biblical precedent for male circumcision, and indeed there is massive statistical evidence that cutting back the foreskin in male circumcision leads to a significant DECREASE in penile cancers. However, there is NO statistical evidence that female genital mutilation reduces cancer.
Jill – when we went through our first round of abortion ban battles here in South Dakota, we learned that statistically, there was only a very slight increase in abnormalities in children born of incest, even in closest relationships (father/daughter and brother/sister). 97% of children born of incest are normal in every way. This is why we were able to exclude incest in our original abortion ban.
For those who are interested in arming themselves with some amazing information; really the gold standard, go to this PDF of the SD Task Force report on abortion and download it. Much of this information has made it into US Supreme Court cases, and information from this report was also used in the Carhart decision upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
http://www.voteyesforlife.com/docs/Task_Force_Report.pdf
Sorry – this is why we were able to INCLUDE incest in our original abortion ban.
CJ says This is totally analogous to what is euphemistically known as circumcision for males.
I disagree. In prenatal development, the genital area begins as a protusion with highly sensitive nerve endings. In women, that protrusion becomes the clitoris; in men, it becomes the penis (not just the foreskin). The male equivalent of FGM is chopping off the entire penis. There are valid reasons to oppose male circumcision, but it just does not compare to the trauma of female genital mutilation.
Amanda…most of the feminists I know are lesbians. The few I know who aren’t lesbians are terribly demeaning to their boyfriends and ridicule all men in general. They seem to resent anything at all feminine about themselves. I stand by my opinion. It is MY opinion based on the feminists I know. I can’t claim its FACT, just my opinion though I believe it to be true.
And CJ I am absolutely against all forms of genital mutilation. There are a lot of complications from male circumcision also. I know a lot of people here will disagree with me, this is just my personal opinion. I circumcised my son because my husband wanted it and I felt since I don’t have a penis I didn’t know or care either way. But someone shared information with me later about its harm and I shared it with my husband. We now know that we will not circumcise again if we are blessed with another son.
“In prenatal development, the genital area begins as a protusion with highly sensitive nerve endings. In women, that protrusion becomes the clitoris; in men, it becomes the penis (not just the foreskin). The male equivalent of FGM is chopping off the entire penis. There are valid reasons to oppose male circumcision, but it just does not compare to the trauma of female genital mutilation.”
…I’d say it is different in degree, but certainly similar in type. And both are barbaric.
It’s sad that we can’t just obliterate the practice all together, but I’d rather have a generation of women with tiny, benign nicks on their labia than a generation of women with mutilated, useless genitals.
Posted by: Amanda at May 12, 2010 10:49 AM
Inane, loser attitude. Western civilization managed to obliterate plenty of disgusting primitive practices by rightly calling them the destructive and campaigning against them and enforcing penalties. It actually works. Accommodating idiots renders more idiots
@Sydney
I think your idea of what a feminist is says more about you than it does about feminists.
Speaking as a feminist, as a straight woman in a long-term relationship and as a woman currently wearing a dress and high heels, it is MY opinion that your opinion is ill-informed.
CJ, First, provide support for your contention, “Cutting of the clitoral hood is the most often practiced form of female genital mutilation,” and explain its merits. Your rationale doesn’t jibe with the fact that FGM is committed purely to suppress sexual pleasure.
FGM is not analogous to male circumcision unless you’d like to redefine male circumcision as removal of the penis.
We will not be the first or last to argue the merits of male circumcision, but it has hygienic merits at the very least. FGM has no merits, only catastrophic consequences.
Amanda, likewise, please back up your daring claim, “Hard moral stance = zero women saved from mutilation.” You’re misnaming education as a “hard moral stance.” I thought feminists were all about education. Make up your mind.
Amanda Marcotte is standing pretty much alone – even among most feminists – in supporting a compromise FGM. The FGM she supports is Type 4 on WHO’s list and is illegal in the US.
Sydney,
Spoken as a woman who is not at war with her very nature.
Feminists have been rightly outraged at the extent to which women have been marginalized, dominated and repressed by men. What they have done is to set out and do the same to men… dominate, marginalize and repress. It corrects nothing and destroys everything. Such misguided, reactive anger cannot help but consume the very individuals in whom it rages uncontrolled.
Hence the apologists emerging for a compromise with female genital mutilation.
Jill presciently points out the following in her article:
“there is a call to stop using the offensive term ‘mutilation’ in favor of ‘female genital cutting’ or ‘female circumcision.’ ”
This is the verbal engineering that always precedes social engineering. It’s the same tactic that has been employed in making abortion sound reasonable, turning a baby into ‘the product of conceptus’.
Regarding Amanda’s invoking male circumcision, that’s so pathetic as to not really merit comment but I’ll indulge this once.
The male foreskin harbors microbes and leads to greater incidence of UTI’s and STD’s. It is a purely hygienic decision to remove it, and does not at all impede sexual function. It’s great relationship to female circumcision is that some idiot used the same word to describe two entirely different realities.
Leave the genitalia of both males and females ALONE!
It’s great relationship to female circumcision is that some idiot used the same word to describe two entirely different realities.
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 12, 2010 11:15 AM
Bravo.
Not surprising to see that some are completely confounded by a word as the try to fool others by the euphemism “choice” when promoting the brutal killing of innocent kids.
Too bad that you appeal to logic for a solution. Unless there’s a sufficient economic inducement, sophistry is the de jour method of dealing with controversial issues. It avoids resolution, it absolves all parties from any responsibility, it’s the civilized way.
A sure sign of the endgame in Spengler’s “The Decline of the West”. It’s in the genes!
Gerard, agree with hippie…. great last line.
Jill, I say that because so far the hard moral stance thing hasn’t been working too well, at least from what I’ve read. If doing that would actually be effective in saving women from the forms of FGM that are truly harmful, then I’d be for it. I support whatever method works. That’s the priority.
The main point of my response to Sydney was to point out the idiocy of saying Amanda Marcotte’s argument equates to “pro-mutilation.” This isn’t a pro-mutilation versus anti-mutilation argument; it’s pro-compromise versus anti-compromise.
But Amanda, being “pro-compromise” is being “pro-mutiliation.”
What is being compromised? Allowing mutilation. There are some things that aren’t up for discussion. You either mutilate or you don’t. Arguing degree just gives validitiy to the procedure in general.
What?! Amanda Marcotte did not use the word misogyny? She’s slippin.
Amanda,
I understand your point of view, but it is fraught with dangers that are eventually unavoidable.
In compromising, we are signing on board to the very idea of the thing. What has been compromised away is the absolutist outrage at the very idea of the thing itself. What is left is an argument over the details and competing visions. Your hands become bloodstained, and you are left in the unenviable position of arguing over the merits of having the least bloodstained hands.
It is the very idea that a girl’s genitals need to be pricked, or anything else that is at issue here, that is so outrageous. If ever there were a feminist issue, this one was tailor-made.
You will never succeed in outlawing the most egregious forms of mutilation by surrendering outrage to compromise. You will succeed only by maintaining the purity of your justifiable rage in demanding that ALL mutilation be outlawed. The minute you say SOME is acceptable, you lose.
Exactly, Gerard. It’s just like abortion. Allowing abortionfor the “hard cases” quickly turned into an abortion free for all.
You can’t compromise with evil.
How about an ad campaign to break the silence and report those who are engaging in this activity?
People need to be ashamed of such a barbaric practice.
We don’t need to be culturally sensitive to child abuse.
We need to punish it. Save the victims not the perps.
Exactly, Hippie. Cultural relatvisim degrades into accepting any practice so long as the culture finds it acceptable. We must reject these actions and call them for what they are.
@Gerard
“Regarding Amanda’s invoking male circumcision, that’s so pathetic as to not really merit comment but I’ll indulge this once.”
Were you talking about me or about Amanda Marcotte’s article? To clarify, I was definitely NOT equating male circumcision to removing the clitoris/labia or sewing the labia shut. What I meant was that a tiny nick that heals over and leaves no lasting damage is a lot less permanent and extensive than male circumcision.
Amanda,
So you would be fine with this barbarism for yourself or your daughter?
Amanda,
The circumcision comment was aimed at Marcotte.
The last post @ 11:40 AM addresses this compromise which you discuss. It will not play out as neatly as you think. Compromises never do. They are akin to the evil genie who grants your wish, but always adds an evil twist.
Whatever ‘spin’ you put in it, it’s still wrong. ~shudders~ Ain’t no one going near MY nethers with a knife…. And really?!?! ‘Nicking’ the clitoris is painless, REALLY?!?! Just thinking about it makes me want to scream in pain. That is just stupid on the face of it.
Apparently the idea of common sense went out the door years ago.
“So I don’t pretend to understand feminist logic.”
—————————————————-
You are not alone.
It is just one indication that despite their best effort feminists, feministas, and feminazis have not been able to completely divorce themselves from their femininity.
Jill,
You are correct in pointing out that the ‘politically correct’ move to employ a euphemism like ‘female circumcision’ to describe the mutilation and barbaric torture some women are forced to endure is just plain WRONG.
As long as you’re not the one getting ‘nicked’ or dismembered it’s all good, eh, Amanda? You are a little fish in an even littler pond. Tell you what, leave womanhood and motherhood to those of us who put our big girl pants on. Those who can, do, those who can’t write books about it and beat their gums and their genderless chests. We are NOT impressed. As a midwife, I’ve seen the real strength of women, and you don’t measure up. Feminism and ‘womyn’ will never defeat motherhood and WOMANhood. IN YOUR FACE.
When I was circumcized I was just an infant.
It was probably just one more discomfort/indignity/injustice added to an ever growing list that began the day I was birthed.
After having witnessed 5 natural births, I have to conclude being birthed has to be as traumatizing as giving birth.
We only had one son so the circumcision question only had to be addressed the one time.
It was not a particularly religious decision on my part.
If I had to make the decision today for a new born son I might choose differently.
As in no after market modifications please.
Or let him choose for himself when he is mature enough to make an informed choice.
Sydney: The vagina refers solely to the internal cavity. Female external genitalia is collectively called the vulva.
I don’t think anybody should be removing, cutting, or otherwise altering the normal, healthy body parts of babies, whether it’s male circumcision, FGM, or even ear-piercing, although of course ear-piercing isn’t sexually problematic. If as adults people want their foreskins removed, clitorises removed, ears pierced, nose reshaped, arm tattooed – whatever, they’re adults. When they’re babies or kids, they shouldn’t have their bodies permanently changed in medically unncessary ways because of decisions their parents made.
Marauder,
We really need to separate male circumcision from female genital mutilation. That God required it at 8 days for all Jewish males as a sign of entering into Covenant with Him is the best moral argument against the objections to the practice.
Medical Microbiology bears out the many health benefits of doing so. It is simply wrong to lump these two issues together, unless we want to accuse God of requiring mutilation as the precondition for a Covenantal relationship.
Gerald
The male foreskin harbors microbes and leads to greater incidence of UTI’s and STD’s. It is a purely hygienic decision to remove it, and does not at all impede sexual function. It’s great relationship to female circumcision is that some idiot used the same word to describe two entirely different realities.
I have 9 brothers and the only one that wasnt circumsized after birth had to get circumsized when he was around 13 years old, something to do with infections. I wasnt that old when he had to be circumsized.
I too have work in L&D and have seen the pain and “perineal massacre” from FGM. It’s a horrific site to see, as the patient’s perineum literally almost explodes as the baby delivers. I distinctly remember a 21 year old pt with her husband, who had her clitoris removed and vaginal opening sewn, and she begged the doctor to not sew her back up after she delivered. Due to the haneous manner in which her FGM was performed, there was so much scarring, it was impossible not to sew. The doctor did, however, refer her to a speciality surgeon who could help.
Should it really suprise me that the same people who want our children dead, also want to make it more difficult and dangerous to give birth?
Thank you for this article, Jill, and for calling attention to infibulation. Many women in our immigrant communities underwent this procedure before coming to this country. When defibulation is medically indicated, it can be difficult for these women to obtain spousal consent. For anyone interested, here’s a chart displaying prevalence and type of female genital cutting practiced around the world.
nurse4life,
That just makes me cry… American doctors/hospitals should have the right to object if it goes against their conscience.
This is disgusting and wrong. But one can’t help wonder where the equivalent article about male genital mutilation is.
Male circumcision has nothing to do with hygiene or HIV prevention. It was introduced in the US 180 years ago to decrease sexual pleasure and prevent masturbation (basically the same logic behind FGM). The hygiene myth was invented recently (after WWII) in order to justify this barbaric procedure.
It’s only in circumcising cultures people wrongly think genital mutilation has merits (hygiene, cancer, STDs etc…). For each american study claiming male circ has medical benefits, I can find a african one claiming the same benefits for FGM. The truth is genital mutilation (male or female) has no medical benefits. If circumcision can decrease HIV by 60%, why the US has both the highest rate of circumcision and HIV among industrialized nations ? The benefits for genital mutilation don’t manifest in the real world. The rest of the world is just doing fine without circumcision.
And no, the clitoris isn’t equivalent to the whole penis and that’s not even close. A better analogy would be the head. Not to mention, not all types of all FGM remove the clitoris, some types are equivalent or less invasive than foreskin amputation.
Anyway, it’s not a competitive suffering. Genital mutilation is not an issue of severity, it’s one of sovereignty. If eradication of FGM were based solely on the notion that it harms health, one would expect people to support a reduced form of female cutting (clitoral hood), comparable to male foreskin amputation, under hygienic and anesthetized medical conditions. That they are virtually unanimous in their opposition to even a “nicking” of the female foreskin indicates that the issue goes beyond severity and is one of sovereignty.
HSB:
“Male circumcision has nothing to do with hygiene or HIV prevention. It was introduced in the US 180 years ago to decrease sexual pleasure and prevent masturbation”
I can assure you HSB, it has done neither ;-)
“If circumcision can decrease HIV by 60%, why the US has both the highest rate of circumcision and HIV among industrialized nations ? ”
The decrease in HIV transmission is for heterosexual couples. It has not been examined for homosexual couples. The vast majority of HIV infections in this country are still found in homosexual populations.
Second to homosexual populations, non-white urban couples have the next highest incidence of HIV. The men in this subset also have a lower rate of circumcision than do white, suburban men.
What should be examined is the HIV rate among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men in America. I would be willing to bet that the evidence would be similar to the findings in Africa.
In reponse to Amanda: I don’t think it’s fair to label all feminists. Not all are crazed man-haters, etc. Are all prolifers crazy right-wing clinic bombers? No.
Nurse4Life, I felt like crying, too when I read your post. I have a solution to this whole nightmare: kidnap some men, cut open their b___s with no anesthesia, and let them walk around bleeding and in horrendous pain for awhile. Then this horrible practice will stop. And i don’t give a damn about cultural relativism, it SUCKS!
Jill, I will not be upset if you delete this post.
Lauren, actually I should ammend my comment a bit. The reduction in HIV transmission is found in vaginal intercourse. It has not been established for anal intercourse. It’s an important point because there are many heterosexual couples who engage in anal intercourse. From what I’ve read, this is a big cause of HIV transmission in hetersexual couples.
Actually I should ammend my comment a bit. The reduction in HIV transmission is found in vaginal intercourse. It has not been established for anal intercourse. It’s an important point because there are many heterosexual couples who engage in anal intercourse. From what I’ve read, this is a big cause of HIV transmission in hetersexual couples.
“The decrease in HIV transmission is for heterosexual couples. It has not been examined for homosexual couples.”
Yes, it has been examined and it didn’t show any benefits.
“The decrease in HIV transmission is for heterosexual couples.”
Basically just for heterosexual men, not women. Thsese same studies show circumcision INCREASE HIV by 50% among women.
http://hivthisweek.unaids.org/2009/08/11/male-circumcision-20
“What should be examined is the HIV rate among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men in America. I would be willing to bet that the evidence would be similar to the findings in Africa.”
It can be examinded very easily and if it hasn’t been so far, it’s probably because circumcision has been a total failure in the US as regards HIV prevention.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0345545120071204
Anyway, the value of these studies is very debatable. They have deliberate methodological flaws (the circumcised group didn’t have sex during the first 6 weeks after the procedure and was given condom). And when you look at the background of these researchers, the scam is almost obvious…
And if at the end of the day you still need to wear condoms, circumcision become pretty useless. If an adult wants to have a circumcision because he strongly support these dubious heath benefits, he can go for it. But babies don’t have sex and I’m not really sure that the first thing a baby needs a few hours after birth is genital surgery. Any sort of genital mutilation, no matter how much you cut, isn’t the way to go.
@Jill, I disagree with your statement, “FGM is not analogous to male circumcision unless you’d like to redefine male circumcision as removal of the penis.” With your statement, you are lumping all 4 types of FGM together and making a blanket statement.
FGM includes, from severest to less severe: infibulation, clitorectomy, hoodectomy, and bloodletting (nicking). Sure, male genital cutting does not compare to infibulation or a clitorectomy. Male circumcision removes the male prepuce, which is analogous to removal of the female prepuce (hoodectomy). The AAP Policy Statement says that male circumcision is more severe than bloodletting (nicking). Regardless of severity, cutting the genitals of any child, male or female, is indefensible from a human rights standpoint.
You also state, “FGM has no merits, only catastrophic consequences.” Unfortunately, that statement is not entirely correct, either. I am not condoning mutilating anyone, but facts are facts. Researchers found that women with mutilated genitals have a lower risk of acquiring HIV. This is a similar result that was found for circumcised men. http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
Also, another common misconception is that female genital mutilation prevents women from enjoying sex. A study found that the majority of women with infibulation, the most severe form of FGM, were still able to orgasm. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496293/abstract Many women who were mutilated justify FGM and sing its praises: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123192872/PDFSTART
Too often our culture and our gender biases our thinking. Forget the gender of the child and just think of the unnecessary surgery being performed. Cuting the genitals of any child is wrong. Every child should be able to enjoy having their whole body.
“We will not be the first or last to argue the merits of male circumcision, but it has hygienic merits at the very least. FGM has no merits, only catastrophic consequences.”
This is incorrect. Genital mutiation doesn’t have any merits, especially when children or babies are involved.
The benefits for circumcision are very debatable and no medical organization in the world supports circumcision.
The AAP is just talking about potential benefits, they use the word potential because there still aren’t any known benefits.
For FGM, The Academy is absolutely opposed to this practice in all forms as it is disfiguring and has no medical benefits.” Please understand that I do not support the cutting of female genitalia, however, the truth is that the AAP cannot prove this statement. In their zeal to take a strong stand against a practice in which their members have no vested interest, they have made a serious leap in logic. The AAP has not tested this hypothesis and has zero bases for their “no medical benefits” conclusion.
HSB, however this study found that “the male’s HIV viral load was
Restoring Tally, I was comparing FGM to removal of the penis only as it pertains to the ability to orgasm. I had previously read one of the articles to which you linked and it made no sense.
For instance:
The group of 137 women, affected by different types of FGM/C, reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 mutilated young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%; after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm….
This would seem to indicate that women minus clitorises appear to orgasm at a higher rate than your typical woman. Something’s not right. And how do we know they experienced orgasm anyway? How would they know? How can they say they’re sexually satisfied when they’re missing the primary mode of receiving orgasm? (And yes, I’m aware of vaginal organisms.) They have no idea what they’re missing. I read this, which sounds about right:
First, we all know (well, most of us do) that the clitoris is the analogue organ to the penis in a man. It is the seat of the nerve sensations known as orgasm. Asking a woman to have an orgasm without direct stimulation or contact to the clitoris is exactly, precisely the same as asking a man to have an orgasm without stimulation or contact to the penis. It CAN be done, but keep in mind that it is unusual and may not be particularly rewarding.
Don’t forget the reason for FGM, to have the opposite of your theorized ends. If through the ages oppressive men found FGM somehow made no difference, or even strangely increased a woman’s sexual satisfaction, the practice would have been abandoned long ago.
Lauren,
It seems you don’t know the history of circumcision in the USA. Here are some of the diseases circumcision was supposed to cure :
1832 Nocturnal Emissions
1845 Masturbation
1855 Syphilis
1865 Epilepsy
1870 Proof that circumcision cures epilepsy
1870 Spinal Paralysis
1873 Bed Wetting
1875 Curvature of the spine, Paralysis of the bladder, and clubfoot
1879 Abdominal Neuralgia
1881 Unspecified “eye problems” due to masturbation
1886 Crossed Eyes
1888 Circ as punishment for masturbating
1890 Blindness, Deafness, Dumbness
1894 Keeping blacks from raping whites
1894 Urinary and Rectal Incontinence
1900 Discourage Sexual Immorality
1914 Tuberculosis
1915 Clitoral Hood is the source of neuroses, female circumcision is recommended (Yes. This is the USA)
1918 Female Circ will curb Masturbation
1926 Penile Cancer
1930 Claim of Epilepsy cure from a circumcision (notice the 65 year gap between claim and supposed proof?)
1942 Prostate Cancer
1949 Venereal Disease and Cancer of the Tongue
1951 Male circumcision prevents Cervical Cancer
1954 Cervical Cancer again
1058 “the same reasons that apply for the circumcision of males are generally valid when considered for the female.” CF McDonald
1959 Making Clitoris easier for husband to find
1966 Masters & Johnson claim no difference in sensitivity between intact and severed penises. No proof given.
1969 Nervousness, and of course masturbation (Still with the masturbation and we’re in Viet Nam by now)
1971 Rectal Cancer & Bladder Cancer
1973 Carcinoma
1975 AAP declares circumcision has no medical indications, and does not recommend it
1976 Benjamin Spock: “I strongly recommend leaving the foreskin alone. Parents should insist on convincing reasons for circumcision — and there are no convincing reasons that I know of.”
1985 Urinary Tract Infection
1986 AIDS
1988 Group B Streptococcal Disease
1989 AAP Reverses circumcision policy, and recommends it when Dr Edgar Schoen (known circumcisionist) presides over board.
1991 Schoen tries and fails to get European countries to circumcise en masse
1991 For sand in soldier’s foreskins (Desert Storm time)
1997 Schoen once again tries and fails to chop off european dicks
1996 JR Taylor finds that the average amount of removed foreskin is nearly half of penile skin.
1997 Janice Lender discovers that circumcision without anesthesia is traumatic.
1999 JR Taylor: foreskin “… a primary erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function.”
It seems obvious that circumcision is just a cure in search of a disease.
Almost all those posting comments here are MISSING THE POINT in comparing circumcision to Female Genital Mutilation. The things you must consider are the doctrines and ideology behind it.
Male circumcision marked a Jewish boy as a participating member in the covenant between God and Israel.
FGM springs from a disordered view of females; misogynistic to its very core though I am sure you will find imams and mullahs to deny this. Taqqiya! The view is that the male is led to sinful behavior by the woman. The doctrine of free will is not part of the Islamic teachings. The women and her mystic wiles must be controlled. As a lesser creature she is unable to control herself chastely. Her morality must be enforced by incisions and sutures lest the family be “shamed”.
None of this is the view of women in Christ’s church. Christ was quite clear that women had to answer to God for their own behavior (“go and sin no more”) but as moral equals with the same free will to CHOOSE right or wrong as men have.
Come on people. It will be 9 years come September. Plenty of time to check out or buy books, conduct online research, go to former Muslims’ speeches, investigate. When someone insists you “SUBMIT” (islam = submission) or die aren’t you just the least bit curious to know more of their doctrines, history and motives?
Circumcision is always touted as being the panacea against the most feared disease of the day, and so it was inevitable that HIV would be wheeled up. There are many reasons to doubt the science behind such claims.
“I have never seen any evidence for any benefits of FGM.”
No study has been performed yet to study “potential” benefits. And it would be unethical to perform such studies, no matter how good FGM could fight against againt HIV. Considering female and male prepuce evolve from the same embryologic tissue and share more anatomical similarities than differences, it would make sense to suppose clitoral hood amputation could decrease HIV. But this still wouldn’t be a reason to circumcise girls. If circumcision were being proposed today without its extraordinary cultural baggage there’s no way it would ever be accepted as ethical
I don’t get what’s supposed to be so horribly difficult about uncircumcised men keeping themselves clean. By the same token, you might as well just remove the labia minora so women don’t have to push it back while washing between their legs.
All the stuff about circumcision as a Jewish ritual is irrelevent when it comes to circumcising boys who aren’t Jewish.
Regardless of reasons behind it or impact on sexaul function, both male circumcision and FGM involve removing normal, healthy body parts from babies and children who have no say in the matter.
I think we could make a real difference if we explain to countries that allow it that if they want to receive any financial aid from us this practice must stop. And tell them to spend it on something else that has cultural significance that does not include mutalation of their greatest national treasure, their women.
Lauren: “What should be examined is the HIV rate among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men in America. I would be willing to bet that the evidence would be similar to the findings in Africa.”
Findings that circumcised men have a lesser incidence of HIV is very likely a correlation without causation. Worldwide, most of the men who are circumcised are Jewish or Muslim, and devout Jews and Muslims are less likely to engage in sex before marriage, which is more likely the cause of the lesser HIV transmission.
Jill, you are a simple, (I certainly do not mean simple-minded), voice of reason in a world gone mad. Why something so horrible as this is even a topic that has pros and cons in the minds of some is baffling to me.
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 12, 2010 1:34 PM
We really need to separate male circumcision from female genital mutilation. That God required it at 8 days for all Jewish males as a sign of entering into Covenant with Him is the best moral argument against the objections to the practice.
It is simply wrong to lump these two issues together, unless we want to accuse God of requiring mutilation as the precondition for a Covenantal relationship.
————————————————–
Gerard,
I believe you already know most of this stuff, but it was a good exercise for me to review the material.
Feel free to not read or read and to reject any or all that does not survive your scrutiny.
This Abrahamic covenantal requirement of circumcision pre-dated the ‘Law’.
Gen 17:9-14 9 And God said to Abraham, As for you, you shall therefore keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.
10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your posterity after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token or sign of the covenant (the promise or pledge) between Me and you.
12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male throughout your generations, whether born in [your] house or bought with [your] money from any foreigner not of your offspring.
13 He that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money must be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the male who is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant. AMP
Gen 17:23-27 23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son and all who were born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among [those] of Abraham’s house, and circumcised [them]
the very same day, as God had said to him.
24 And Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised.
25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised.
26 On the very same day Abraham was circumcised, and Ishmael his son as well.
[I wonder if the son’s of Ishmael still practice the rite of circumcision?]
27 And all the men of his house, both those born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised along with him. AMP
I do admire Abraham’s faith [faith equals walking in obedience to what you have heard God say.]
The consequences of not complying with this requirement are so severe that one would be persuaded to believe the Jews continued the practice even throuth 300 years of slavery in Egypt.
Ex 2:1-2 2:1 NOW [Amram] a man of the house of Levi [the priestly tribe] went and took as his wife [Jochebed] a daughter of Levi. [Ex 6:18,20; Num 26:59.]
2 And the woman became pregnant and bore a son; and when she saw that he was [exceedingly] beautiful,
she hid him [Moses] three months. [Acts 7:20; Heb 11:23.] AMP
Moses was probably circumcised as well on the eighth day, ‘before’ his mother set him adrift in that basket.
Josh 5:2-9 2 At that time the Lord said to Joshua, Make knives of flint and circumcise the [new generation of] Israelites as before.
3 So Joshua made knives of flint and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth.
4 And this is the reason Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way after they came out of Egypt.
5 Though all the people who came out were circumcised,
yet all the people who were born in the wilderness on the way after Israel came out of Egypt had not been circumcised.
6 For the Israelites walked forty years in the wilderness till all who were men of war who came out of Egypt perished, because they did not hearken to the voice of the Lord; to them the Lord swore that He would not let them see the land which the Lord swore to their fathers to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
7 So it was their uncircumcised children whom He raised up in their stead whom Joshua circumcised, because the rite had not been performed on the way.
8 When they finished circumcising all the males of the nation, they remained in their places in the camp till they were healed.
9 And the Lord said to Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you. So the name of the place is called Gilgal [rolling] to this day. AMP
The previouls passage might add some context to this next passage.
Ex 4:24-26 24 At a lodging place on the way,
the Lord met [Moses] and was about to kill him.
[Whoa Nelly! What is the rest of this story?]
25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched [Moses’] feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.) NIV
Moses was raised as an Egyptian in Pharoah’s house but he had probably already been circumcized on the eighth day, before his mother set him adrift in that basket. (Joshua 5:5)
Maybe Moses was ridiculed by the Egyptians because he was ‘different’. Maybe Moses did not want his son to experience the same mistreatment.
Maybe Moses was ashamed of the sign of the covenant in his flesh.
But God is NOT ashamed to be called our God.
Jesus said, If you deny before men, I will deny you before my Father.
Moses was God’s representative, not only to Israel, but to the surrounding nations. God was not satisfied with just Moses voice. HE wanted his whole hearted obedience as well.
Leaders do lead best by example. [A lesson lost on b.o.)
Circumcision sure seems to have been a big deal to GOD. It was a detail HE was not willing to suffer being left undone.
But today, unless you are a Jew, circumcision does not appear to be of any value in improving your standing and relationship with GOD.
Rom 4:9-1 9 Is this blessing (happiness) then meant only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.
10 How then was it credited [to him]? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
11 He received the mark of circumcision as a token or an evidence [and] seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised — [faith] so that he was to be made the father of all who [truly] believe, though without circumcision, and who thus have righteousness (right standing with God) imputed to them and credited to their account,
12 As well as [that he be made] the father of those circumcised persons who are not merely circumcised, but also walk in the way of that faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13 For the promise to Abraham or his posterity, that he should inherit the world, did not come through [observing the commands of] the Law but through the righteousness of faith. [Gen 17:4-6; 22:16-18.] AMP
Circumcision may provide some personal hygiene or health benefits, but unless you are a Jew who has not yet received Jesus, circumcision is just going thru the motions.
Just read Paul’s writings on circumcision.
Male circumcision is not mutilation any more than having your ears pierced, unless you are the unfortunate victim of an incompetent ‘mohel’.
“Worldwide, most of the men who are circumcised are Jewish or Muslim, and devout Jews and Muslims are less likely to engage in sex before marriage, which is more likely the cause of the lesser HIV transmission.”
This isn’t necesarally the case in America.
@Sydney M.
Both of your posts are excellent! You are clearly pro-male. Thank you!
@Amy1
Jews have a Biblical precedent for male circumcision, not Christians. For centuries, Christian males were not circumcised. Unfortunately, in the 1800’s, it became a popular method to prevent masturbation: http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html
Also, there is no “massive statistical evidence that cutting back the foreskin in male circumcision leads to a significant DECREASE in penile cancers.” See this article from The Journal Of Family Practice: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/vanhowe/
Further, by using your logic, since breast cancer is much more prevalent than penile cancer, we should perform radical mastectomies on infant females to prevent it.
@Kelsey
Your ignorance of the human sexual organs is alarming. If you want to educate yourself, start with this article from the British Journal of Urology on the prepuce: http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/
@Gerald
Women get more UTIs by a large margin than men. By your logic, women should be circumcised to prevent UTIs.
Also, here’s a study published in The Lancet that shows that a foreskin can actually help prevent newborn UTIs: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/winberg-bollgren/
And, Gerald, male circumcision absolutely impedes sexual function. See: http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
Your ignorance of your own anatomy is even more alarming than @Kelsey’s.
@CJ, from “A Child is Born,” by Lennart Nilsson and Lars Hamberger, 4th Edition:
“The genitals begin to form at the embryonic stage, in weeks 8 and 9, although at that point the sex glands and organs are identical for boys and girls. A little bud forms between the legs; in boys it develops into the penis, in girls into the clitoris. Gradually two little bulwarks take shape on either side of the crack. In a boy, they merge to become the scrotum, while in girls they structure the vaginal walls.”
Like I said, there ARE valid reasons to oppose male circumcision. Go ahead and debate the health benefits or lack thereof, the need for the child’s informed consent, and all of those important issues. But comparing it to the removal of the clitoral hood is hyperbole, and is frankly dismissive of the suffering that victims of FGM go through.
Oh, and here’s some good news for anti-FGM activists: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5137/text
And there was the 30-something-year-old married to his 15-year-old first cousin who was aborting their (not surprisingly) handicapped baby.
Marrying 1st cousins is really not uncommon outside of the US. The risk of genetic defects is not significantly higher for cousins.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html?pagewanted=all
CJ, I am pro-male because I have a husband and son I love very very much. I am pro-woman because I am one. :-)
I know people feel strongly about male circumcision. But the thing that was pointed out to me by another Christian is that MODERN WESTERN circumcision is NOT the same as in the Bible.
The Israelite males would pull the remainder of their foreskins down to look uncircumcised to be like the pagan cultures in the land. God said this was not good. They could do this because only the TIP of the foreskin was removed. In western circumcision the ENTIRE foreskin is removed. The foreskin has most of the nerve endings that make the penis so sensitive. You are taking away part of a man’s sexual pleasure when you circumcise his entire foreskin.
The doc even told me there is no health reason to do it. If you keep your baby boy’s foreskin clean there are no risks for UTI or any infections. He said in fact the foreskin is a PROTECTION for the penis. But he recommended it on the basis of cosmetic appearance, that my son’s future wife would want him circumcised and my husband didn’t want him to be made fun of in the locker room. I kick myself now wishing I had said NO! I still remember hearing his little cries as they cut him down the hall. That tore my heart out!
Fortunately, rates of circumcision are falling. More and more moms and dads are saying NO to mutilation of their son’s penises.
My husband had scarring because of his circumcision. It causes him pain periodically. How is this godly or good for him? How would I know any differently if he wasn’t circumcised since I didn’t sleep around and therefore don’t have any intimate knowledge of other men’s penises? Cosmetic is such a stupid reason to cut your son.
That being said, I know I’m never gonna convince everybody but I hope some people will do their own research and just think on it. I will never circumcise another son again.
And certainly, what is happening to these little girls is wrong and horrific. I googled it read more about it and the images that popped up just left me in tears. Its so inhumane!
CJ,
“And, Gerald, male circumcision absolutely impedes sexual function.
“Your ignorance of your own anatomy is even more alarming than @Kelsey’s.”
I think that Mrs. Nadal would beg to differ with you ;-)
‘Nuff Said!!!
Get well soon.
Jill,
I haven’t followed you much lately. Even though you don’t want to compromise on FGM, I know at one time you were willing to compromise on some preborn child killing via the incremental approach. Is that still the case for you?
Scott
CJ – Statistically significant – http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/e36
And WE, as Christians, have a Biblical precedent regarding circumcision. I didn’t say a Biblical mandate.
Male circumcision does not belong in the same discussion as female genital mutilation anyway. Red herring.
I’ve been listening to feminists and leftists “unplugged” on the internet for years now…… speaking their minds with the safety of anonymity.
My conclusion is that most of these people obtain their mindset and ideology as a result of being abused in their earliest formative years. The leftists are the set of people so severely wounded and without outside assistance, that they could never recover from the early damage. Understand that these people are a SUBSET of those who suffer early abuse. Some others recover rather well.
The leftie feminists are generally programmed in early childhood to survive by surrendering to their abusers. In later years, these people continue to surrender to the abusers, EXCEPT THEY DO IT BY PROXY!!!
So now they continue in their social policies to give over the children of other people, and any women at disadvantage, as well as the weak and the helpless.
Hence there is the propensity for the lefties (abortionists) to hide sex crimes, for planned unparenthood to support the UN powder blue heads with their brothels, and to regulate the production of females in India, China, by means of killing them, etc. Most recently pointed out is the support of female genital mutilation. There is also the driving need for the leftists to turn over as much control and authority as possible to the abusers. In this they fulfill the early childhood programming which remains throughout their life.
@Jill Stanek
“CJ, First, provide support for your contention, ‘Cutting of the clitoral hood is the most often practiced form of female genital mutilation,’”
See http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/fgmintro.php
“explain [female circumcision’s] merits.”
I never claimed it had any. I’m against the sexual mutilation of both sexes.
“Your rationale doesn’t jibe with the fact that FGM is committed purely to suppress sexual pleasure.”
Which is also why male genital mutilation was introduced: http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html
And I never stated a reason for female genital mutilation. So your statement about my rationale is not rational.
Stating this again to be clear, I am against the sexual mutilation of both sexes.
“FGM is not analogous to male circumcision unless you’d like to redefine male circumcision as removal of the penis.”
No. I’m using the standard definition for Type I FGM–removal of the clitoral hood. See http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/world.php#definitions
And here’s a great comparison of the two: http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html
“We will not be the first or last to argue the merits of male circumcision, but it has hygienic merits at the very least.”
No, it does not. See http://www.circumstitions.com/Clean.html
Also, the hygiene argument can just as easily be used to advocate female circumcision. Maybe even more so than for men because the area producing smegma, as the article I pointed to above mentions, is much larger for women than men.
And male genital mutilation does not prevent AIDS:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040138
http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193
“FGM has no merits, only catastrophic consequences.”
Underlying this argument is your unstated assertion that male genital mutilation has no catastrophic consequences for men. And you’re wrong again. See
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3/
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
The last one refers to the significant loss of sexual pleasure suffered by circumcised men. Apparently, you don’t consider this a big deal.
Jill,
It’s a strange and silly season. CJ asserts that circumcision “absolutely impedes sexual function”. I really wonder how these “scientific” studies are done. Do they get experimental subjects to all share the same woman as a control and then rate the experience on a scale of 1-10? It’s really laughable.
“…significant loss of sexual pleasure suffered by circumcised men. Apparently, you don’t consider this a big deal.”
Newsflash CJ, most males in my generation were circumcised as a matter of hygienic routine. Their wives haven’t exactly gone flocking after the subjects in your studies for relief from this terrible burden conjured up in your fertile imagination.
You lost me when you asserted my sexual dysfunction and lack of awareness of my own anatomy. May I suggest the care of a very sensitive and competent therapist? Your dour assessment of my sex life, built upon the presumption of my anatomic configuration, and in the absence of any self-reporting on the part of Mrs. Nadal or myself, leads me to suggest that you need a new hobby.
Get well soon.
CJ is certainly right that cutting the clitoral foreskin is one of the most common forms of FGM/C – check out the 2008 interagency statement on FGM/C if you disagree – this was produced by the WHO and UN which we must presume to be at least as knowledgeable as any of the angry people on here. They say 90% of female cutting is either type I, II or nicking.
In Indonesia and Malaysia most girls have their hood cut – this may mean snipped off or slit but it’s by no means comparable to removal of the penis. That’s simple nonsense Jill and to create myths like that damages the campaign against FGC/M.
In fact NO form of female cutting is analagous to male penile removal because in all cases the woman still has >90% of her clitoris left. The clitoris is a mainly internal body part and if you don’t know that I suggest you stop posting about this subject until you’ve read and absorbed some information on basic anatomy.
Children at risk deserve better than to have people make stuff up about the reality they endure. ALL forced genital cutting is wrong, whether it is cutting her sensual hood (as many Muslims around the world do), the removal of 15 square inches of sensual penile tissue (as North Americans do) or the wholesale excision and sewing up of the vulva (as NE Africans do).
CJ is certainly right that cutting the clitoral foreskin is one of the most common forms of FGM/C – check out the 2008 interagency statement on FGM/C if you disagree – this was produced by the WHO and UN which we must presume to be at least as knowledgeable as any of the angry people on here. They say 90% of female cutting is either type I, II or nicking.
In Indonesia and Malaysia most girls have their hood cut – this may mean snipped off or slit but it’s by no means comparable to removal of the penis. That’s simple nonsense Jill and to create myths like that damages the campaign against FGC/M.
In fact NO form of female cutting is analagous to male penile removal because in all cases the woman still has >90% of her clitoris left. The clitoris is a mainly internal body part and if you don’t know that I suggest you stop posting about this subject until you’ve read and absorbed some information on basic anatomy.
Children at risk deserve better than to have people make stuff up about the reality they endure. ALL forced genital cutting is wrong, whether it is cutting her hood (as many Muslims around the world do), the removal of 15 square inches of penile tissue (as North Americans do) or the wholesale excision and sewing up of the vulva (as NE Africans do).
This whole thread makes me ill. Those that believe that “a nick” would somehow be “better” than the other degrees of FGM I have to wonder if you are the same crowd that think abortion should be “safe and rare.” (As though abortion could EVER be safe for the baby or the mother??!!) Would you consider a nick fine for yourself or your daughter?? If it isn’t happening to you it is easy enough to overlook, I’m sure. Just like how the pictures of what happens to a baby in an abortion should be put away. A nick is fine if you aren’t the one being nicked, abortion is fine for those that wish to get them. Just keep the photos of an aborted baby far from me. The fact that FGM even goes on in the lives young girls against their wills makes me want to scream!
Male circumcision has no place in this discussion. Completely irrelevant and moot to those who have had our own sons circumcised. Little late for all of the studies etc. etc. etc.
Just where are the feminists that are completely and totally appalled that this happens? Where is the outcry? Why isn’t this thread all about the misogyny of this barbaric, torturous practice?? The outrage at a patriarchy that demands that FGM continue?
I agree, Jill. No compromise.
Well, I disagree Carla. I think it is akin to male circumcision. Completely relevant argument/ point that CJ made.
You may not have any more sons. Maybe the point is moot for you. But one could say, “Well Sydney, you already circumcised your son.” I did. But I am glad someone spoke up and showed me the truth about male circumcision. Now I know better so I will never cut another son.
The thing that gets me is the feminists will never concede in any other argument but they are willing to concede HERE? I mean, these are the bitter women who fight tooth and nail for even BASIC standards imposed on the abortion industry and yet here they are willing to compromise and bend to those who want to mutilate their daughter’s genitalia?
Come on feminists! this is the very cause you should stick to your guns! There is absolutely no merit to FGM. You’re gonna allow your newborn “sisters” be nicked so you don’t hurt someone’s cultural feelings? pulease!
Maybe the point is that feminists just don’t care about children. period. They don’t care before they’re born or after they’re born.
I can agree to disagree about male circumcision or that you think it has any relevance here. I disagree. :)
I will agree with you though about the lack of howling from feminists. Disturbing.
The solution to unsafe abortions isn’t to abort children “safely” but to stop killing unborn children. -Live Action
The solution to unsafe FGM isn’t to mutilate little girl’s genitalia “safely”(with just a nick)but to stop mutilating little girl’s genitalia.
Scott, a reminder that what AAP recommends is illegal in the United States. It is considered a form of FGM according to WHO, even if the least intrusive.
Abortion is legal in the United States. So yes, on that I am an incrementalist. I support saving babies when we can.
That said, I also support purist strategies, such as the personhood movement. I’m for any and every effort that will lead to saving babies and making abortion illegal.
The analogy is to the Underground Railroad, which saved as many slaves as it could even while others were working (and fighting) to make slavery illegal.
Carla, some feminists, such as Eve Ensler, have spoken out strongly against FGM.
Hi Jill,
The things I see happening in this country now days are mind-boggling.
When people or nations turn their backs to the God of the Bible, they do stupid things. Or as a brother in Christ recently said, “Sin makes you stupid.”
Because in the end, this is all just one big, fat spiritual problem, and there is no hope outside of Christ.
Thanks for the article.
“But he recommended it on the basis of cosmetic appearance, that my son’s future wife would want him circumcised and my husband didn’t want him to be made fun of in the locker room. I kick myself now wishing I had said NO! I still remember hearing his little cries as they cut him down the hall. That tore my heart out!”
Ugh, what horrible reasons for recommending that a parent have her son circumcised. That’s like arguing that teenage girls should all get breast implants because their future husbands will want big breasts and this way other girls won’t make fun of them in the locker room for being flat-chested. (I don’t blame you, Sydney – I blame the doctor for recommending it.)
Besides, how is anyone supposed to know what someone’s hypothetical future wife is going to like? As far as anyone knows, a baby boy is going to grow up to marry a European woman raised with seven younger brothers who thinks that circumcision looks bizarre and unnatural.
My boyfriend and I decided that, in his words, “They’re leaving our boy’s penis alone” if we ever have a son. According to his dad, my boyfriend screamed really loudly when they were circumcising him. Poor kid was just starting to get over the shock of being born and they went and started carving up his genitals.
Forgot to add-I once saw footage of a 5 year old girl forcibly having FGM. The horror of that has never left me. She kept screaming, “No, No, No!!”
Pharmer
Wow you hit the nail on the head. I don’t believe all liberals feel this way but especially on moral issues you’ve observation contains some serious validity. This is why you’ll see them go to any extent to defend their position and I think you see it in conservatives as well. The underlying fear is the fear of rejection I think part of growing up though is when you know you’re right is sometimes not having to defend yourself and just letting an individual learn the hard way.
I’m a liberal when it comes to helping those who really need help but I’m conservative when it comes to moral issues. I’m also a conservative on environmental issues I think our planet is a gift from God and we are to be wise stewards of it.
yor bro ken: “Male circumcision is not mutilation any more than having your ears pierced, unless you are the unfortunate victim of an incompetent ‘mohel’.”
Really? Are we piercing newborn girls’ ears shortly after birth, without their permission?
You want to get yourself circumcised? Knock yourself out (not a bad idea if you’re about to have surgery). But leave alone those infants who cannot speak for themselves.
I googled protocol for circumcision and found a clinic that that is their speciality. They use emla cream and give the parent the choice of an injection of xylocaine for the baby. I wonder what the Jews used for the procedure.
Gentles All,
This thread looks like an Amtrack High Speed Derailment. This started out as a dicsussion on female genital mutilation, which does not even remotely resemble male circumcision. It simply does not. Circumcised males enjoy fewer UTI’s and lower rates of STD transmission, and despite what some pediatricians might say to the contrary, those are well-established CDC facts.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/PDF/circumcision.pdf
Circumcised males enjoy robust sex lives, limited only by the same psychodynamic and relationship factors that might inhibit the sex lives of uncircumcised males as well. I’ve never heard of circumcised males complaining of painful or unfulfilling intercourse. Mutilated females on the other hand do have such sequellae, which is the purpose of the procedure in the first place.
In the end, we have on the one hand circumcision whose intent ranges between religious identification ad hygienic practice, with no impeding of sexual function or fulfillment, and on the other hand a range of horrific mutilations meant to deprive women of sexual pleasure or fulfillment. The intent is to ensure that sex is not something a woman would seek outside of her marriage, and something which she must tolerate within her marriage.
Further, the men who administer this barbaric system care only for what THEY feel, THEIR pleasure.
To equate male circumcision with this in either intent or outcome simply strains credulity.
My theory is that it’s a lot easier to argue with Christians than it is to argue with men who subject their ladies to this inhumane treatment. I don’t remember where I read this but one Father stood up for his daughters and there was some drama but he stood his ground and his daughters escaped this barbaric practice.
Forgot to add-I once saw footage of a 5 year old girl forcibly having FGM. The horror of that has never left me. She kept screaming, “No, No, No!!”
Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 13, 2010 11:32 AM
Carla, the thing that so appalls me is that often it is the women who perpetrate this on other women and young girls.
It reminds of binding the feet of women in China – also done by women to other females.
I’ve read books that have explicitly outlined how footbinding was done in China. It too is an excrutiating, mutilating procedure that lasts years. It was done because Chinese men loved women with very tiny feet.
I just don’t understand the barbaric practice of FGM.
I praise the Lord that I and my daughters will never know this horror.
GN: “This started out as a dicsussion on female genital mutilation, which does not even remotely resemble male circumcision. It simply does not.”
Gee, I can’t imagine how anyone could think taking a knife to a girl’s genitals could even remotely resemble…taking a knife to a boy’s genitals.
Again: they differ in degree (entire body part as opposed to a piece of one), but not in TYPE. And I’m not sure the people railing against FGM while defending MGM even disagree, since they took the trouble to say they’re against FEMALE genital mutilation. I figure that if you don’t think circumcision is mutilation in any way you wouldn’t bother to be so specific. You’d say you’re against genital mutilation (period).
This is one more example of how society is needlessly specific. We don’t just say we’re against domestic abuse; we say we’re against “violence against women.” (Hear that, ladies? If you want to strike your man upside the head, have a go!”) We don’t just say we’re against genital mutilation; we go the extra mile to point out we oppose only “FEMALE genital mutilation.”
You can’t make arguments like “we need to stop identity theft against right-handed people” and then gripe when people ask to protect the lefties, too.
As someone who is against male circumcision except for religious reasons (but I am not a Jew, so it doesn’t affect my sons) can I just say that I think it’s pretty bizarre that people are derailing this thread by spaking so much about male circumcision. They are not just different in degree, I think they are different in type b/c of the inherent difference between male and female genitalia. The genitals operate differently even if they are called “genitals.”
FGM is abhorrent and has GOT TO GO. And if people will not abide by the laws of the land in this regard, then their children should be taken from them (b/c they have been abused) and the parents should go back to the shithole from whence they came.
I totally agree with bmmg39. I am against all forms of genital mutilation.
Even worse, however, is that not only are genitals destroyed in an abortion, but also is the entire body of the unborn child destroyed in an abortion. The greater issue in our United States is certainly abortion even though I truly am also against any form of genital mutilation whether it be done on males or females.
Circumcision and FGM are not wrong – if an adult chooses to do it to themselves.
Circumcision could be totally and completely harmless, even beneficial in some small marginal way, and I would still oppose it if it was happening to infants.
Why? Because the baby has no choice.
I lob it in with putting a tattoo on your baby’s private parts. Put an embarrassing image there and it’s bound to keep them chaste – but what’s their say? Really?
I don’t care if guys get 10x the amount of sexual pleasure from being circumcised, or if it marginally prevents HIV – it’s a disease that CHASTE men shouldn’t be getting anyway, am I right? Unless their wife had it… in which case I highly doubt he would think circumcision adequate protection.
Let them choose. If you’re worried that it will become medically necessary to remove the foreskin later in life, then leave it for that moment.
It’s not so difficult a concept.
Jill,
Now that we’ve thoroughly vetted male genitalia, any creative ideas on how to discuss female genital mutilation in any depth?
Freud would be proud. The penis has won again.
@Kelsey
This discussion is not about embryos, it is about people who have been born. Clearly, you did not read the article I pointed you to from the British Journal of Urology on the prepuce (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/).
Quoting from that article: “The prepuce is an integral, normal part of the external genitalia that forms the anatomical covering of the glans penis and clitoris.” I.e., the clitoral hood and penile foreskin are anatomical analogues.
Apparently, you never read any of the other links I posted either.
@Gerard Nadal
You’ve made three posts insisting that I asserted that you are sexually dysfunctional. What I actually asserted was that you lost sexual function when you were circumcised. There’s a difference. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Had you read the article I linked to (http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/), you would have understood my point.
Your insistence that female circumcision destroys all of a woman’s sexual feeling is thoroughly contradicted in this interview with a female anthropologist who experienced FGM personally: http://www.arts.uregina.ca/dbfm_send/637
@Amy1
“Statistically significant – http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/e36”
Then by yours and the researchers’ logic, since women suffer from breast cancer in MUCH greater numbers than men suffer from penile cancer, we should perform radical mastectomies on female infants to prevent them from possibly getting breast cancer as adults.
“And WE, as Christians, have a Biblical precedent regarding circumcision. I didn’t say a Biblical mandate. “
I sincerely doubt you ever had a man date. :-)
“Male circumcision does not belong in the same discussion as female genital mutilation anyway. Red herring.”
Had I argued for or against FGM, you would be correct in claiming ignoratio elenchi on my part. If you review my original post, what I did was ask Ms. Stanek how she felt about MGM.
The reason MGM should be part of this discussion is because arguing that mutilating females is bad while supporting the mutilation of males is one of the vilest forms of radical feminist gynocentricity. While I admire Ms. Stanek’s work against abortion, I am appalled at her hypocrisy on this issue.
I am opposed to all unprovoked violence against human beings, born or not.
Oh come off it Gerard. The two are very similar. Its absolutely idiotic all these otherwise intelligent people on this thread trying to claim they’re not.
FGM is being discussed here. But other than the crazy fems who came on here to TRY to defend it, none of us with brains and morals would even begin to think FGM is okay…but yet some on here think MGM is okay. Hence the discussion.
Its awfully like a pro-abort to try to squelch those who think MGM is part of the overall picture here of any genital mutilation. I get it. I get it. You don’t think circumcision is genital mutilation. So you’re gonna throw in Freud and male ego crap to try to shut up others who disagree with you. It was really snarky. Maybe you thought you were being funny? I don’t know. Epic fail in that area.
I am not a man. I don’t have any issues with penises. I don’t wish I had one or blah blah blah, whatever you’re getting at. As a woman and a mom I am saying the two topics FGM and circumcision in males have the very same moral issues at the heart of the matter. And others agree. You disagree. We get it.
Go to Intact America’s website. They are fighting both male circumcision and female genital mutilation. Both are barbaric.
Watch their video where they describe the pain baby boy’s feel when having their foreskin sliced off. It is BARBARIC. It is just as barbaric as the pain unborn babies feel being mutilated during abortion, except circumcision NORMALLY doesn’t kill. (It HAS killed boys in the past, though rare. Check it out)
That being said, just because some women have abortions and don’t feel it was murder doesn’t mean it wasn’t. Just because some people don’t feel circumcision isn’t wrong doesn’t mean it isn’t. I already circumcised my son. To quote Carla, I “own it.” I feel horrible that I did.
The same ignorance regarding male circumcision is what is driving female genital mutilation. It stems FROM THE SAME ROOT OF IGNORANCE.
Go to intact America and WATCH THE VIDEO then see if you can still get all snarky and think its all okay and its all about penis worship.
Hey, Sydney, I agree with everything you said at 12:21, and I think it is totally crap out-of-line passive aggression to act like the interest of people on this board in the more controversial topic (male circumcision versus female circumcision) is some Freudian bull about the penis winning. “If you were REALLY concerned about women you’d talk about what *I* (in my manly wisdom, of course) think you should be talking about!” Everyone is disgusted by FGM. Many people are similarly disgusted by male circumcision, but many are not. Which is more likely to stimulate a discussion – an echoing yes-chorus, or a legitimate disagreement? Big shock there.
I also think that saying, “Moot point for those of us who have already circumcised our sons, little late for the studies etc” is kind of sad. Are facts about abortion a moot point for those of us who already aborted our children? Little late for the studies and facts? If something is rendered unworthy of discussion merely because one person’s experience with it cannot be changed, then none of us really have a whole lot to say to each other, do we?
Also, hi, long time not-really-see, hope everyone is well, etc etc etc. :)
Gerard Nadal: “Now that we’ve thoroughly vetted male genitalia, any creative ideas on how to discuss female genital mutilation in any depth?”
If you’d just come out against any and all genital mutilation of infants or children against their will, FGM would be included in that, and we could all agree that we shouldn’t be doing any of it. Just like I told you.
Sydney, bmmg39,
In recent years I have gotten increasingly into the field of Christian Bioethics. When one has a question about a point of procedure, one must begin from an established, principled position. In the case of the Christian bioethicist, one looks for scriptural guidance. Specifically, one looks to see if the issue at hand has been outlawed. If it has, case closed.
On the other hand, if a given practice has not been outlawed and actually Divinely commanded, then that opens another series of questions. For one, though God is all-powerful, God does not contradict His own nature. God does not command us to do that which is immoral, that which is sinful, especially as a sign of entering into a Covenant with Him.
In order for an act to be immoral, it must contravene the order in God’s creation, and by extension, the will of God Himself: be that will made known through the natural order, or through His supernatural revelation in direct communication with humanity.
The practice of male circumcision is a practice Divinely commanded by God as a sign of the Jews entering into Covenant with Him. It was the sign that Mary and Joseph had performed on Jesus, and a practice that God Himself willingly undertook on Himself in His human nature. How then can it be immoral or unethical?
The New Covenant has been written in the blood of Jesus, which as Paul tells us, washes all things clean. For the Christian, there is no need for the old Covenant and its signs of promise now that we live in the age of the promise’s fulfillment. But the obsolescence of circumcision does not retroactively make it sinful. To be sinful, it must necessarily be so in its very nature.
It is simply unimaginable that God commands humans to engage in acts which are intrinsically evil, which is what mutilation is: an intrinsically evil act that diminishes the glory of God’s creation.
As science continues to discover, God’s commands to the Jews, through circumcision, through Kosher and dietary laws, through ritual cleanliness laws, all carry with them immense benefits in health and wellness.
As for my comment about Freud and penises, I was merely being flip, about Freud’s observation that the focus usually returns to the penis, and was in no way suggesting penis envy.
God Bless
CJ:
“You’ve made three posts insisting that I asserted that you are sexually dysfunctional. What I actually asserted was that you lost sexual function when you were circumcised. There’s a difference. Methinks thou doth protest too much.”
From thefreedictionary.com:
Adj. 1. dysfunctional – impaired in function; especially of a bodily system or organ
impaired – diminished in strength, quality, or utility; “impaired eyesight”
Methinks thou needest literacy after therapy.
Get well soon.
“On the other hand, if a given practice has not been outlawed and actually Divinely commanded, then that opens another series of questions. For one, though God is all-powerful, God does not contradict His own nature. God does not command us to do that which is immoral, that which is sinful, especially as a sign of entering into a Covenant with Him.”
You understand that the Bible is a collection of books written by human beings, not God, right? Shall we recount the horrific things seemingly endorsed by the Bible?
I am a mother of two uncircumcised children–one of each gender–and if I have anything to say about it no one is ever doing anything painful or harmful to either of their private parts.
I agree with what others have said about the studies–they did not account for lifestyle differences. Circumcised males were more likely to live a moral lifestyle and that was why they were less likely to be infected. How would they control for that? “Yehuda, please go have sex with 5 more women so we can match you to a control more easily.” By the same token, females in cultures that practice female genital mutilation are probably less likely to have sex outside of marriage (or inside) because it is painful and they’d be killed for it, so they’d have less sexually transmitted diseases too.
I also believe what was said about the circumcision in biblical times not being the removal of the entire foreskin; come on, Zipporah did it herself to her son with a sharp knife. If I were Jewish I would find someone willing to do a circumcision that only cut the tip of the foreskin.
I agree that the issue is not the same as female genital mutilation. The intent is certainly very different (today at least). I don’t know of anyone who had their son circumcised so that he wouldn’t masturbate. (I do know of people who do it for aesthetic reasons). Actually it seems that today it’s the less moral who circumcise–they want all the girls to think their son has a “pretty penis” or to prevent STD (kind of unnecessary if your son will only be sleeping with one woman who never slept with another man).
Personally, I think that the male body is perfect the way that God made it and I am glad that my son and my husband have all of their parts.
bmmg39,
Yes the Bible is a collection of books written by men, but under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, making it the infallible Word of God. The hermeneutic that I employ in my study and understanding of the scriptures is a contextual hermeneutic which does not permit the cherry-picking of verses or passages outside of the context and trajectory of the rest of the scriptures.
We can indeed recount some horrific-sounding commands in the scriptures. But one must understand that God has brought humanity through successive stages of growth.
The Mosaic law of an eye for an eye was a giant step forward in that it codified a system of proportional justice over the prevailing mores of wildly disproportionate retribution.
Jesus came 1500 years later and said, “You’ve heard it said an eye for an eye, but now I give you a new commandment: Love your enemies, pray for your persecutors, do good to those who hate you.”
The necessary prerequisite to that new command taking root was the proportional justice of an eye for an eye.
Whatever commands in the OT that people take issue with today need to be understood in that light of God conditioning His people, slowly bringing humanity more into accord with His will and nature. It continues in Heaven as Paul tells us we will pass from glory to glory, an eternity of it, never reaching the infinite nature or capacity of God’s love.
I don’t know if it’s because I’m add or just lazy but often when I read an article I just skim through it and don’t read the entire article. This is the concessions we should give them. If you mutilate your daughter you will go to jail for a very long time. If you are a physician and contribute in any way to this abusive practice you too will go to jail.
@Jill Stanek
Ms. Stanek: In retrospect, I’ve realized that, in my first post, I should have acknowledged all of your great work against abortion and my appreciation of you for it. I apologize for not doing so.
@Gerard Nadal May 14, 10 10:17 AM
Yes. We all know the definition of “dysfunctional.”
In your post on May 12, 2010 9:40 PM, you brag about your ability to satisfy your wife in spite of your circumcision. Your posts on May 13, 2010 12:42 AM and May 13, 2010 2:57 PM further discuss circumcised men (which, as you have informed us, includes you) being able to satisfy their wives. It is within that context that I used the word “dysfunctional.”
Separating words from the context in which they were used is a disingenuous form of argumentation
Also, quoting an arm of Leviathan (at May 13, 2010 2:57 PM) to back up your claims is a non-starter. Leviathan supports violence against women and unborn children in the form of abortion. Given that, what makes you think it wouldn’t support violence against other groups of people? Hint: It routinely does so.
Gerard, you don’t read the links that others post to support their claims; you are disingenuous in your argumentation; you quote Leviathan to support your own points; and just like the totalitarian Soviet regime, you insist that anyone who disagrees with you needs psychiatric help. I’m done with you.
CJ,
I have not stated the current configuration of my anatomy. I’ve left that to your imagination. You made an assumption about me and I simply stated that Mrs. Nadal would beg to differ.
You have boundary issues friend. Get well soon.
Then get another hobby. You need one.
@Gerard Nadal
Gerard, it was implicit in your post at May 12, 2010 9:40 PM, though you are correct, you never stated it explicitly. Apparently, you were just being flippant, like you claimed when someone else confronted you on another of your posts.
@All the other respondents to this blog entry:
I apologize for not realizing early on that Mr. Nadal is a troll.
Dr. Nadal is no troll. He is very wise, and insightful but here I agree yet disagree with him. That being said I do respect him and wanna say sorry I got so flippy with my last post. It is a topic that hits close to home for me and makes me emotional.
CJ… I understand your points. I just don’t think we’ll ever all agree on it, at least not on this thread :-)
Sydney M,
Thanks for your kind words in defense of me. You’re beautiful.
As for our differing point of view, and your comments, it would take an earthquake to make me lose even an ounce of my estimation for you. Pro-lifers are not a monolithic community in all things, nor should we be (how boring would that be??!!).
So we disagree once in a while. It’s good for the blood, as my grandmother would say. ;-)
God Bless
CJ,
I’m trying to figure out if you’re simply immature or entirely clueless. You came on this thread and made some very personal insinuations about me. So I wrote that Mrs. Nadal would beg to disagree. In Brooklyn, where I come from, that’s called a clue.
You didn’t get it, that you crossed a line of propriety and that someone politely flipped you the bird. This isn’t Jerry Springer or Ricki Lake. This is Jill Stanek’s place.
Troll??!! Really??!!
How long have you been hanging around here? I have my own pro-life blog, am a pro-life science columnist for headlinebistro.com, Science Editor for the Center for Morality in Public Life (with a blog there as well), and will be announcing a weekly bioethics column with another large publication within a week. I have left full-time academia to devote my life and doctorate to advancing the various bioethical and pro-life causes.
We may not all agree here, and sometimes the exchanges become white hot, but nobody here has ever presumed upon the sexual functionality of another. Don’t ever do that again, or you will get a slap-down that you’ll never forget. Pro-life or pro-abort, people’s sex lives are sacred and NEVER to be the topic of opinionated drek from bottom-feeders. Mind your place!
Can you possibly swallow your foot any further than you have on this thread?? Probably yes, but quit while you’re behind.
“Yes the Bible is a collection of books written by men, but under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, making it the infallible Word of God.”
Okay.
And who said that it is, if I may ask?
@Sydney M.
Please bear with me here. :-)
Apparently, Mr. Nadal assumed I was calling him an Internet troll. That’s untrue. I was actually referring to him as a giant, as in Norse mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll). I was just being flippant like he has been.
As an internationally published author and a thought leader in two different fields, I know it’s my responsibility to write in a clear and concise manner so that my meaning is as obvious as possible to my readers. In reviewing what I wrote, I can understand that, given the context, Mr. Nadal might have assumed something other than what I actually meant. I apologize to all for not being clearer.
Just to be clear on the type of games Internet trolls play, one of them is to write something that clearly implies one thing. Instead of taking responsibility for their vagueness when someone calls them on it, they play a game called “Gotcha.”
For example, an Internet troll, after deliberately implying that he was circumcised and someone else mentioning it, might write something like this:
“I have not stated the current configuration of my anatomy. I’ve left that to your imagination. You made an assumption about me and I simply stated that Mrs. Nadal would beg to differ. You didn’t get it, that you crossed a line of propriety and that someone politely flipped you the bird.” The reason trolls don’t take responsibility for their vagueness is that they do it on purpose to play the Gotcha game.
Trolls also try to bend the meaning of language by making specious claims. For example, they might claim that a person can “politely” flip someone the bird. There is nothing polite in that gesture, nor can it ever be made polite. What it does is stop the conversation, which is what trolls are trying to do: stop the conversation and focus the attention on themselves.
Another game trolls play is to use the same phrase repetitively to demean those who disagree with them. For example, they might repeatedly tell others to “Get well soon” or to get therapy.
Trolls tend to be very disingenuous in their argumentation. This includes not reading the links that others post to support their claims yet refuting the others’ claims anyway.
Trolls also play the game of twisting others’ words to make it appear that they said something they never intended. For example, a troll might state something like “[person X] presumed upon the sexual functionality of another” when person X’s only intent was to state the scientific, medical fact that circumcised men have lost some of their sexual functionality (documented here: http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/). In reality, what has occurred is that person X got sandbagged by the troll’s Gotcha game.
Since Mr. Nadal has never done any of this in his comments above, I would never call him an Internet troll.
I am curious about one thing regarding Mr. Nadal. He wrote “you will get a slap-down that you’ll never forget.” I wonder if that’s what he says or does to his wife and children when they disagree with him or when they make him angry.
@All
The best way to fight FGM is to include it in the larger picture: We must oppose all unprovoked violence against all human beings, born or unborn.
CJ,
You say that you used the term troll to describe me as a Norse Mythological figure, then go on to describe me in terms of an internet troll.
Nice try.
I’ve come to the conclusion that you enjoy games, which is what this is not about. Play with someone else.