Proposed legislation to equate male and female circumcision in the US.

[IrisHope]

Proposed legislation to equate male and female circumcision in the US.

"The proposed legislation, written by San Diego based MGMbill.org, would make current U.S. female genital mutilation laws gender neutral so that boys are legally protected from circumcision the same way that girls are protected."


http://www.hush-hush.co.uk/news/publish/article_112.shtml

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050406.html

http://www.mgmbill.org

What do you think?

*Saw this topic in an LJ

[SingleWhiteFemale]

What about those who are observant Jews? Their religion says to circumsize--are we going to prosecute them?

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I was reading Wikipedia's discussion on female circumcision, and some African Muslim groups believe that it is required by Islam. (Of course, many Muslim groups believe it isn't, as well.)

[kris97]

Admittedly, I don't have strong feelings about male circumcision, but I'm confused as to how the removal of the foreskin can be equated with FGM, which results in, if I recall correctly, the removal of the clitoris? The former, while perhaps unnecessary, doesn't prevent a boy from experiencing sexual pleasure or cause nearly the devastating effects that FGM has. I don't think this advances the anti-circ movement.

[msnicolea]

Admittedly, I don't have strong feelings about male circumcision, but I'm confused as to how the removal of the foreskin can be equated with FGM, which results in, if I recall correctly, the removal of the clitoris? The former, while perhaps unnecessary, doesn't prevent a boy from experiencing sexual pleasure or cause nearly the devastating effects that FGM has. I don't think this advances the anti-circ movement.

That's my issue, too--female circumcision is a MUCH different animal than male.

[IrisHope]

...how the removal of the foreskin can be equated with FGM, which results in, if I recall correctly, the removal of the clitoris? The former, while perhaps unnecessary, doesn't prevent a boy from experiencing sexual pleasure or cause nearly the devastating effects that FGM has. I don't think this advances the anti-circ movement.

That is EXACTLY my opinion. How can you possibly compare the two?

[msnicolea]

Some important information here--notice that it is most often referred to as "female genital mutilation," not circumcision.

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2313097.html

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm

I am inclined to believe that any medical procedure which draws the attention and ire of Amnesty International is not a GOOD thing!

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

There are 4 different "types" of female circumcision. Some of it does not involve the removal of the clitoris or labia, and some is really just symbolic.

I'd imagine- but I don't know, and would be interested to know- that the law against female circumcision does not include the symbolic kind or the kind that doesn't negatively effect the clitoris.

[curlyjr]

I never had strong feeling about male circumcision until I had to witness and assist in several of them, after that I am against it but I still do not think it is right to equate male circumcision with FGM at all.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Compare =/= equate.

[Quartercentury]

...some is really just symbolic...
I'd steer away from calling any procedure that removes a part of the body (of the genitals, no less) without the benefit of anaesthesia "just symbolic."

I for one would like to see laws against removing body parts without the consent of the individual whose body parts are being removed across the board.

[jnettie]

Hmmm...I don't know. While the long term sexual and psycological effects for male circumcision isn't the same as FGM, it certainly doesn't sound pleasant for the baby boys that have to go through with it without anathesia. I don't feel comfortable saying this should be illegal, though, as it doesn't directly effect me or my religious beliefs. Any boy children I might have wouldn't be circumcised anyway.

I'd like to know more about the symbolic female circumcisions, though. Is nothing removed? Because FGM, from what I know, is a horrendous practice. If there is a non-harmful alternative, what is it like?

[Quartercentury]

I'd like to know more about the symbolic female circumcisions, though. Is nothing removed? Because FGM, from what I know, is a horrendous practice. If there is a non-harmful alternative, what is it like?
I think what LittleFred is referring to as "symbolic" FGM involves removing the "hood" of the clitoris.

There are two good books about FGM that I can recommend, although they are hard to get through: Possessing the Secret of Joy by Alice Walker (a novel) and Warrior Marks by Alice Walker and Pratibha Parmar (a non fiction work about FGM, mostly in Africa).

[jnettie]

Thanks. Hmmm...removing the hood only? That's still surgical.

I'll put those books on my "To Read" list. I know a couple places to go to find obscure books.

ETA... Lots of copies of Warrior Marks on Half.com! (http://product.half.ebay.com/Warrior-Marks_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ47051)

Also on half.com - Posessing the Secrets of Joy. (http://product.half.ebay.com/Possessing-the-Secret-of-Joy_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ57780)

[PG-rated]

I don't have any real medical knowledge on the subject of FGM (although I have studied it in a human-rights context), but I know that the procedure described in Possessing the Secret of Joy is a very extreme version of FGM that isn't practiced everywhere. While it certainly does happen to women, I wouldn't take it as an account of every FGM procedure. And I'm completely against FGM, but I think that if that's your only source of info about FGM, it can be misleading.

My understanding of the "symbolic" version of FGM is that it involves small cuts that don't interfere with normal sexual and reproductive functioning, not removal of part of the clitoris. But like I said, I don't have specific knowledge of this.

[camberne]

My son wasn't circ'ed originally (even though it was more an issue of the insurance not paying for it, than me not wanting it done), but then had to go through it when he was five due to medical necessity. Even though there are religious connotations associated with male circumcision, there are also common medical reasons for having it done. I've never heard of a female "circumcision" done for medical reasons. And, honestly, the thought just gives me chills.

[LyLMyssChaos]

I am surprised that more people aren't opposed to this law purely on the basis that it violates the 1st Amendment. I may not agree with female circumcision, but I am also not a practicing member of a religion that supports it. The same with Male circumcision. These are things that are important tenets of individuals religions, and I most definitely think this would be a case of the government creating a law that would in some ways be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

[flygirl]

The legislation hasn't been proposed in Congress. It was written by a very anti-circumcision group that is grasping for a reason to make circumcision illegal. They haven't found a single member of Congress to support the bill.

I think it comes down to the difference between mutilation and circumcision. Is female circumcision, just the removal of the hood, concidered mutilation and against US law? If not, then MGM doesn't have a leg to stand on.

This bill will never be introduced by any Congress. The most that might come of this is a better distinction between female mutilation and circumcision (assuming the distinction isn't clear). Practically speaking, male circumcision is a widely practiced and accepted ancient religious tradition. Female circumcision's relationship to religion is sketchy at best.

[IrisHope]

Flygirl, thanks for clearing that up. I'm glad it's not close to becoming law.

[keska]

I may not agree with female circumcision, but I am also not a practicing member of a religion that supports it.

I am not either. However, I have seen asylum cases while working in the immigration court of women who were put through FGM. It is done to young girls, usually in early teens, and often against their express wishes. I do not consider this to be free exercise of religion. If an informed adult wishes to undergo this procedure free of coercion, then I have no problem with it, but that is often not the case with FGM. Moreover, it is a painful procedure. The most common form practiced in Africa is infibulation, the partial or total removal of all external genitalia. It is not performed in a medical setting or by trained medical personnel. The complications that can arise from it are horrifying, including infection, blood loss, urinary retention (leading to frequent UTIs), incontinence, infertility and problems with scarring - not to mention the sexual side effects some other posters mentioned. Moreover, the lasting emotional trauma is truly devestating.

Honestly, you can think what you want, but when you see a teenager get up in front of a judge and start sobbing, pass out and fall to the floor when she is asked a simple question about what happened to her during the FGM process, I guarantee you will change your mind. I've seen people who were political prisoners and survived torture who were not as traumatized.

If anyone is interested, the immigration case that changed the law to allow grants of asylum in the U.S. to women who want to avoid being forced into FGM is called In re Fauziya Kasinga. Fauziya has written a book about her experience and her struggle to gain asylum that is very, very good. It's called Do They Hear You When You Cry (she spells her name Fauziya Kassindja).

[msnicolea]

Amen, Keska.

[Delta]

I absolutely agree Keska.

I am not equating FGM to the routine male circumsicion that happens today in the US, but I think it is important to note that routine circumcision on male infants is something done to them, and not with their full or informed consent, either. I'm sure the parents think they are doing the best thing for their child (at least, those who even give it a second thought) but from my experience, the that 'best thing' is usually done for social reasons (when not for religious reasons.)

And yes, philosophically I do actually have a problem even with the Jewish custom but really, who am I to try to change that?

As for the legislation mentioned in the OP, I just don't think that is the way to go.

[keska]

Delta,

You have a point about male circumcision. It's not a subject I know a lot about, but I can say that seeing that FGM case has definitely made me think harder about these types of issues.

[msnicolea]

Infants and very young children cannot posibly give "informed consent"--parents can order all sorts of tests, procedures that they deem in their child's best interests.

[greenbunny]

Infants and very young children cannot posibly give "informed consent"--parents can order all sorts of tests, procedures that they deem in their child's best interests.

I was going to say something similar to this. While obviously I know it's not even close to the same issue, immediately I thought of the other things parents can electively do to their infants--such as pierce their ears.

[artist]

Interesting!

I'll have to read those links and think about this issue more (but am heading out the door) but I do think this is interesting.

I plan NOT to circumsize any sons I may have.

(Did you know there have been grown men who have sued their parents for loss of sexual feelings/pleasure from being circumsized?)

I am personally anti-circumcision in general, but I guess you do have a point that the male and female versions are different. I also have no relgious reason for circumsizing my child.

[pocket]

My understanding of the "symbolic" version of FGM is that it involves small cuts that don't interfere with normal sexual and reproductive functioning, not removal of part of the clitoris. But like I said, I don't have specific knowledge of this.

I had a Bruneian girlfriend in high school who had this done. She reported sexual feeling and orgasms, though who can really tell about the quality or impairment. Obviously we would circumsize a boy no matter what and would move to another country if it were banned here with no religious exception. That would infringe on my ability to freely practice my religion.

I think it's more similar to piercing the ears of a baby girl, also something we'll do.

I know it's cultural, but I have always found the circed penis MUCH more attractive. The uncirced penis....not my bag, baby. To each their own.

[Delta]

Infants and very young children cannot posibly give "informed consent"--.
Which was exactly my point.

parents can order all sorts of tests, procedures that they deem in their child's best interestsOf course, but cutting off their son's foreskin for social or cosmetic reasons is a lot different than a medical test or other 'procedure.'

And ear pierce and circing are just not the same thing. Foreskins do serve a purpose.

ETA: And I personally am not a fan of infant ear piercing, either.

[Sarah]

Hear, hear. I don't think FGM and circing are the same, but I think they are both totally unacceptable. I would be comfortable with a religious exemption for Jews, though. I don't believe in doing cosmetic surgery on babies, w/o their consent, and that includes ear piercing, tattoos, and circing. Most people who circ don't do so because they think it's in the kids best interest, they do it because they want Jr to look like Dad, or to be more attractive, it's because because foreskins are "gross." And honestly, I find it offensive for people to titter about how "gross" or unattractive foreskins are, or uncirced men are, because if men laughed publicly about how gross vaginal lips are, or how yucky clitorises are, they'd be called misogynists.

[camberne]

ETA: And I personally am not a fan of infant ear piercing, either.Me either... and I do not have my ears pierced at almost 36 years old and have no intention of ever having my ears (or anything else, mind you) pierced.

[wendalah]

I find it offensive for people to titter about how "gross" or unattractive foreskins are, or uncirced men are, because if men laughed publicly about how gross vaginal lips are, or how yucky clitorises are, they'd be called misogynists.


Eh, just a note: Women titter all the time about how ugly penises (and testicles) are in general. Dozens of threads on here to that effect.

[curlyjr]

Compare =/= equate

true, bad choice of words, my bad.

[amew]

These are things that are important tenets of individuals religions, and I most definitely think this would be a case of the government creating a law that would in some ways be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.


But the government can make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion as long as they can demonstrate a compelling state interest for doing so. Legally, Rastafarians can't smoke pot, Fundamentalist Mormons can't practice polygamy, and the children of Christian Scientists can be given life-saving treatment without their parents consent despite the fact that all these laws prohibit someone's free exercise of religion because courts have decided that the government has a compelling interest in restricting free exercise in those cases. I am sure that a court would uphold a ban on FGM for the same reason, despite the fact that such a ban might violate someone's free expression of religion. IMO, the government clearly has a compelling interest in protecting its young citizens from the terrible ordeal that keska described. But I think male circumcision (and perhaps symbolic female circumcision as well) is a different matter--it's not something I would want to do to my kid, but I don't think that the government has a sufficiently compelling interest in prohibiting Jewish or other religious use of the practice.

[ellybelle]

Both DH and I have agreed that we will not circ any boys we may have, as it is a body-altering procedure done without their consent that is not medically necessary. DH feels very strongly about it, saying that he's angry about having been circ'd.

That said, when he equated circumcision with FGM, I about exploded! The two are so different in degree that it's ridiculous! I said the equivalent of FGM would be if there was a procedure that cut out all the feeling in the penis (in fact, made sex hurt, since many forms of genital mutilation sew up the vagina and make sex painful), but still made it possible to ejaculate and reproduce. And as mentioned, female genital mutilation often leads to health problems.

They are not the same! As I said, while I don't agree with male circumcision, I wouldn't outlaw it, anymore than I'd outlaw a lot of other current practices with children.

[LyLMyssChaos]

I am staying far, far away from the arguement that infants and small children cannot give implied consent as I think it will lead things down a very nasty path here. I do however think that amew made a very valid point. I think that there needs to be a clear distinction between FGM and "symbolic female circumcision." I believe that relates more equally to how I perceive male circumcision. Although, one thing that I dislike about the practice of even symbolic female circumcision is that it is not done when the child is an infant, but much older and from what I understand, boys that have had circumcisions at an older age have had more issue than those that had it done as an infant. I think that there is a lot of psychological stuff that goes along with the physical that the child will experience.

Here is a good information site from The Cleaveland Clinic about Female Circumsion (http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/docs/2400/2428.asp?index=9146&src=news) if anyone is interested. It does a really good job of explaining what the various types of FGM are, the risks and the reasons why it is done.

[msnicolea]

Well, having slept with both circumcised and uncircumcised mean I can say this without a doubt--penises ar funny looking in either state!

That being said, do you think there is pressure to circumcise because of our culture's predisposition (on the whole) to prefer that "look?" I actually worry that if we have a son and choose not to circumcise him (which is the way we are leaning) that there will be a social stigma attached (ie, gym class taunts) --thoughts? Is non-circumcision becoming more normative, because almost all the mean I know in my age group (old) ARE circumcised.

[jnettie]

Well, having slept with both circumcised and uncircumcised mean I can say this without a doubt--penises ar funny looking in either state!
He he he! Yes, I agree. Also, I wouldn't say women's genital area is the most gorgous thing in the world either. ;)

To get back on track, I think there is something to the intent behind male circ and FGM. FGM is used in the most opressive religions toward women, with the idea that women shouldn't feel sexual pleasure and that virginity must be preserved and the woman can't be trusted to do it on her own.

Meanwhile, male circ is generally cosmetic. Possibly there is pain in young babies, maybe some loss of sexual feeling, but not to the same extent.

Now, I can understand men being upset later in life that their parents did this to them, especially if it is only cosmetic and not religious in origin. But somehow, restricting circ as a religious practice is not necessary at this point in time.

This is an interesting topic. It deserves careful thought.

[IrisHope]

I wouldn't mind not circumcising my hypothetical son but wonder if is sacrilegious. (Jewish)

[kiddo]

While I am totally against male circumcision and would like to see it outlawed with exceptions for religious beliefs, I don't think it's fair to put it on the same level as FGM.

That being said, do you think there is pressure to circumcise because of our culture's predisposition (on the whole) to prefer that "look?" I actually worry that if we have a son and choose not to circumcise him (which is the way we are leaning) that there will be a social stigma attached (ie, gym class taunts) --thoughts? Is non-circumcision becoming more normative, because almost all the mean I know in my age group (old) ARE circumcised.

I absolutely think circ in our culture is based on the 'look' and that really makes me sad. My DH is uncirc-ed and I asked him about comments in the locker room. His reply, 'Dude, if they're looking that close at my 'junk' to know I'm not cut, that's their issue, not mine.' He said it was a non-issue.

When DH and I went to visit my nephews at the hospital when they were born, we left just when the boys were being taken to get circed. DH was very upset about it and in tears in the elevator as we were leaving.

[SingleWhiteFemale]

Is non-circumcision becoming more normative, because almost all the mean I know in my age group (old) ARE circumcised. I'll have to pull up the article/source, but in the 1970s, approximately 90% of baby boys were circumsized. Today, only roughly 60% are. So it is really becoming a total toss-up.

There is actually an ongoing court battle between a mother and father (divorced) of an 8 year old son regarding circumsizing. She wants him snipped, dad doesn't.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060218/ts_afp/healthuscircumcision

[ellybelle]

In the Muslim world, circ'ing is done on older boys. It's a special "rite of passage" day, when they get dressed up and carry a pretend sword.

As for the rates for circumcising boys, it depends on the region in the U.S. In the West, I think the rate may be falling BELOW 50%. I believe the same is true in Canada.

[ellybelle]

Here are the rates. The rates of circ'ing is highest in the Midwest and lowest in the West. In Western states, only 33% of boys are circumcised.http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

[greenbunny]

And ear pierce and circing are just not the same thing. Foreskins do serve a purpose.

ETA: And I personally am not a fan of infant ear piercing, either.

Hence why I said "While obviously I know it's not even close to the same issue".

I think PPers are discussing it in relation to the age/consent ability of the child, not in relation to its physical effects or social implications.

[suzubeane]

That being said, do you think there is pressure to circumcise because of our culture's predisposition (on the whole) to prefer that "look?" No evidence, but my gut feeling is, yes - it is done for either the look, or because the family doesn't think about NOT doing it.

That said, I'm not surprised at the statistic a PP posted that it's becoming more common. Among my own friends, only the Jews have circ'd their sons. I can't think of a single one of my non-Jewish friends whose sons are circ'd, and these are boys ranging in age from infant to twenty-ish.

I wouldn't mind not circumcising my hypothetical son but wonder if is sacrilegious. (Jewish)Having seen your thought process on other questions around Jewish practice, I'm guessing that if/when you're faced with the question, you'll do what I did: Research it fully, and then ultimately decide on circumcision and ritual bris.

[IrisHope]

suz, you're probably right.