A Small (Big) Confession
It’s not an easy thing to admit to, and in fact it is an even harder thing to comprehend…for most people. I’m talking about subtle barbarianism. “Subtle” barbarianism, you ask. Of course; we hear about actions that can obviously be constituted as torture from all over the world. We read about such audacious – and horrendous – events like; beheadings, ethnic cleansing, forced starvation; so on…but there’s one procedure that has become so commonplace that it has now reached the domain of obviousness…however; it is no less barbaric.
It is now so widely overlooked that the only time it is perceived as inhuman is when it’s happening to a female (more on this in a minute). I am talking of course about circumcision. And I shall expound upon this primitive ritual. Cutting (no pun intended) to the chase and getting right to the point (no joke intended, either): the most important aspect of this practice, is that in a civilized world the most rudimentary concept of freedom would immediately prohibit any removal of the human anatomy from a non-consenting person.
If discerned for ever so briefly, this becomes a comic-style slap on the forehead, followed by a hysterical “of course.” For those not understanding the simple “two plus two equals four” logic: we do not legally allow butchery! It doesn’t get any simpler than that!
Nowhere in the law books does it say that when a child is born you are allowed to cut his arm off, right? So the question must be asked as why we allow butchery in other circumstances. Especially ones concerning the genitals!
This question is asked, and two answers are almost always given in an instantaneous response, both of which are equally inadequate in justifying such tyranny.
The first reason given is a religious one. Essentially; an Abrahamic provision – sanctioned by “god” – asserted that circumcision was a method in which Yaweh was able to “mark” his people…just as we do with cattle today. This is most likely the prevailing reason in explaining why cutting the end of an infant’s penis is still accepted in today’s society. Either Yaweh continues to hold a monopolizing grasp on his “vessel”, or perhaps parents have just succumbed to such drastic cultural conditioning that they don’t understand the freedom being robbed from their child.
If it’s the former, the question I propose is this: how do we know for certain that a human being, of just a few minutes after birth, is even capable of being a definite religion? What are his characteristics that determine this? There is a one pretext given: “his parents are.” However, in a contrasting example, if his parents were, of say – a Moloch denomination, and believed in sacrificing live babies to some superficial “Higher Power”, would it be condoned in today’s society? The answer answers itself, because we are of a supposedly “civilized” society. The reason I state that so boldly is because of the fact that if a State whose constitution does not base itself in a separation of the Church, the repressive consequences would become innumerable.
However “extreme” the religious examples might be postulated, every one of them must be scrutinized if we are to garner any sort of liberty. It is not right to condone barbaric behavior only when the auspices are of Abrahamic persuasion, while the other “extreme” illustration of spiraling live babies into a huge inferno is condemned. Both are wicked! And both should be outlawed!
The other argument articulated in favor of genital mutilation is that of hygiene. It is presupposed that by cutting off the foreskin, the risk of contacting a STD is greatly reduced. This rationalizing is given far and wide by pediatricians. My answer is a paradoxical one: if it could in fact be proven that a doctor’s hands indeed cause mental trauma and physical suffering to a child every time the procedure is performed, I would recommend, by using the same logic given by them; that the hands be cut off before they were able to commit any more torture.
Savvy to that concept? Before an action occurs, we take measures to ensure it not come to fruition. (In Orwellian this means a thought crime) The only problem is that a great amount of individual liberty is lost in trying to curb an event that hasn’t happened yet. If it is true that circumcision reduces the risk of STD or bacterial infection (and I’m in no way implying that it doesn’t) – let the person decide when they are capable of doing so. Besides, not tending to your ears can also lead to infection, should we cut those off also?
This entire practice has proven to be frivolous by even those who praise it. While parents continue to chop off the heads of their son’s penis, they continue to look antagonistically towards other countries and their usage of female circumcision. It’s hard to even write, but basically female circumcision is when any part of the vagina is surgically altered. Cutting off the clitoris, sowing the vagina shut…just to name a few examples (FGM is various, as opposed to male mutilation). The inconsistent moral is blatant: its okay if it’s a male, but not it’s a female. I think Penn & Teller had it right – “Circumcision is bullshit!”
It’s somewhat fortunate that the practice is becoming rarer and rarer. In fact, roughly 90 percent of the World outside the United States is uncircumcised; proving once again that America is, and Americans are, an insane, overly-cultured (or conditioned), sheepish, and hypocritical bunch. Hopefully the male species will wake up – and realize that my contention is legitimized. After all, according to the British Journal of urology, circumcision desensitizes the penis by 75 percent. This is because there are over 10,000 nerve endings in the foreskin, and, once removed, your libido is working with a mere 3,000. The truth is that no major medical facility in the world recommends this practice. By cutting your son’s penis, you are only ruining his freedom, ruining his future sex life, and continuing an ancient and ridiculous ritual.
Here then, is confession time: I was a victim of such mutilation. More than that, the doctor did a fucked up job. He botched it; leaving a huge gaping hole on the right side of my penis.
Now, call it cultural mutilation; religious mutilation – whatever you like; dismembering another human being is as inhuman as it gets. It is simply grotesque, and repulsive, that we accept these things in our society. How long is it going to take before legislation is put into place that forbids parents from committing such butchery? I suggest that it be signed into the law books very soon. With perhaps accompanying legislation that will start handing out felony assault charges to doctors still performing this wicked and deplorable act.
October 19th, 2009 at 8:33 P.Oct.
While you are correct in that male circumcision is not necessary, it isn’t necessarily torture. Most males who are circumcised have the procedure shortly after birth and do not remember the process at all later on. It is unfortunate that yours wasn’t so, and yes, the patient should have the right to decide for himself if circumcision is for him, especially since most of the world gets along fine without male circumcision.
However, male circumcision is not the same as female circumcision — that’s why they call it female genital mutilation. The reason why the term ‘female circumcision’ has changed to ‘female genital mutilation’ is because it is not comparable to male circumcision, meaning the female process does cause long-term pain and extreme medical complications. With a correctly-done male circumcision, only skin is removed and the organ itself is not damaged.
Note: “Sewing” is not spelled with an ‘e’, not an ‘o’.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:33 P.Oct.
Thank you for correcting my misspelling. However, is it unnecessary. I don’t need small words or unverified stats to convey a very simple point. There are far too great a number of people who already understand the argument being conveyed. Even before reading this rant/essay/whatever….call it what you well, it is getting published onto a rather well-read online publication.
I do disagree with you on one point however. You said that female mutilation is different simply because the process is different and thus not quite on the same level. Again, I don’t need to spell this out for you; when 10,000 nerve endings are cut from your penis without your consent – it is mutilation! It does indeed cause long term effects that may or may not be affiliated with pain….but it is mutilation none the less! No, your right that erections, urinating, etc, might not be affected, but what about the sexual nature of it? Naturally one understands the same logic…no one wants to have parts of their body cut off without their say so!
And just for your understanding, I did have mine at birth…and I’m no less upset about it. They say that it’s more painful if you get it done later on in life….I say “oh well.” Better to have the choice.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:33 P.Oct.
i would say one, your parents should have sued and two, there have been no conclusive studies done upon the actual loss of feeling. some men say they lose sensitivity, some don’t. i personally have met many men who are circumsised and are happy with it, seeing as it serves more of an aesthetic purpose than anything.
the real problem here is that it’s SEEN as more appealing, due to outdated statements about it’s hygienic benefits. the stigma still remains. i’ve heard women openly talk about their distaste for “uncut” penises, without ever really giving any direct answer as to why- probably because they once heard someone else say it, and it sounded like a sexually knowledgeable preference.
what you’re talking about is much more like breast implants (which can also result in lost feeling, botched jobs, and serve no real medical purpose), than female genital mutilation.