Female Circumcision vs Male Circumcision
Cliffs Notes
The horrors of female circumcision reverberate all throughout today's mass media. Male circumcision is often dismissed as nothing or not even talked about at all. Often in conversations people will tell me that "it is impossible to compare male and female circumcision." Well as the definition of a compare is "to consider or describe as similar," I believe I can. In both male and female circumcision part of the genitals are being amputated. Eureka! Now that we have determined that they can indeed be compared lets be a little more serious about the matter.
One reason we have such a hard time getting through to African cultures about female circumcision is they think we are all hypocrites. We criticize them for circumcising a female in such horrible conditions, when a male is next in line. They also see us circumcising a large percentage of our males, so they see no reason why we have any room to talk. This leaves the most common argument that female circumcision is so much worse than male circumcision. Well in some ways they are right. The kind of circumcision that you see in the news is much worse than what is commonly practiced here. However, the situation is much more complex than that.
Before I start, there are some people whom this will not satisfy. They will point out some differences in what I am trying to compare. Notice I say they are "similar" not identical. Also to help satisfy those people who get angry when I do this, I am not downplaying female circumcision. I agree. It is sick. That isn't the point at all. The point is to find parallels.
note: I have gotten some complaints that I don't talk about other complications from the procedures (death from the procedure, infections, and infant mortality) This is much harder to do, but I will try and do it quickly. As far as deaths go, more men die in circumcision than women. This is becuase many more men are circumcised than women. It is true that a greater percentage of circumcised women die or have infections. However, those women are operated on in mostly 3rd world countries with a shard of glass. This happens to the men there too and they also die in large numbers. The discrepancy in the percentage of infections/deaths comes from the US, where we have a trained medical staff and sanitary conditions. As a result it is hard to have any meaningful data. As far as childbirth goes, well Men don't deal with that at all obviously. As most anti FGM posters rarely talk about it, information about the subject was sketchy at best from my sources. While I am sure FGM contributes to deaths in childbirth and infant mortality, who is to say that the death would not have happened had she not been circumcised? As I stated earlier, another reason for lack of prevalent data is that FGM activists don't concentrate on it.
1. The most mild form of female circumcision is a prick or simple bloodletting. This is actually more common for girls than most people think. A prick is also becoming more and more common for Jewish boys, becuase their parents want a "bris" without putting their child in the most pain he has ever experienced. These two actually compare really well. Baring infection, neither has any long term damages. Both are mildly painful. Both are done for religious reasons. Neither serves a practical purpose.
2. Removal of the female prepuce is next on the list. Contrary to what most people think, this is actually the most common type of female circumcision. This type of circumcision may include the labia or clitoral hood. They both serve a similar function as the male foreskin and are biologically homologous organs. The purpose of this tissue is to cover the glans. For the female this is the clitoral glans. For the male, this is the head of the penis. Either surgery will have the same result. Both will dry the exposed glans out and leave it calloused. Unlike the female prepuse, the foreskin acts as the males main lubricant and has many more nerve endings than the female prepuce. Both males and females can usually experience sexual pleasure and orgasms, but it is often greatly reduced.
3. Clitorectomy. This procedure is hard to compare to anything for the male. Many angry women will chant that "Its like removing the entire penis you sexist pig!!!" While I am sure they have the best of intentions, that notion is absurd. A woman who has had a clitorectomy can have sex and has often been able to have orgasms. A man with a penectomy cannot function in any way sexually. He cannot even have sex let alone have an orgasm.
Some people say that a very tight circumcision is the equilivant of a clitorectomy. A very tight circumcision removes a similar amount of tissue as a clitorectomy. It can also make normal living difficult as well as normal sexuality. Some poor circumcision jobs have make erections painful and can even tear the skin causing bleeding. It would also remove all sensitive areas around the glans such as the frenulum, and frenular band. This is probably a little less severe than a clitorectomy for the simple fact that a man would still have his glans and the woman would not. As they are biologically homologous structures, this discrepancy cannot be ignored. There is a very rare procedure called a glansectomy that would remove the males glans. This procedure is so rare that there is very little information about it, but given that this procedure would take away all of the males sensitive tissue, and would relocate the end of the urethra, it is probably more sever than a clitorectomy. A clitorectomy would remove most of the sensitive tissue, but it is nearly impossible to remove the entire thing, as well as many other internal sexual organs making some sexual pleasure still possible. In conclusion the clitorectomy is probably somewhere in between the two.
4. Infibulation or Excision of all the external genitalia followed by sewing the remaining tissue together so that a small opening is left for menstruation and urination. Now the comparisons get harder and harder. I would compare this to a penectomy, but again, a male without a penis cannot function in any way shape or form sexually. Both procedures make urination interesting to say the least, but women who have had infibulation done can still have sex, especially after the part that is sown shut is opened. It might be very painful, but it is still possible. I would have to say this is somewhere between a glansectomy and a penectomy, although probably closer to a penectomy.
One a side note, a penectomy is uncommon but not unheard of after a botched circumcision.
I introduce topic for two main reasons. One reason is I find that we tend to accept our cultural norms without question and reject others cultural norms. One classic example of this is the difference between male and female genital cutting. Through our western eyes the male version seems like a little snip while the female version seems unthinkable. However when you break it down to its core, it is very similar. While each stage of genital cutting does not have a 100% match, they all have a close cousin. The other topic is very simple. I make comparisons to female circumcision occasionally in my other blogs. Anyone who reads those blogs without first taking time to read this would probably be very confused.
The information of female circumcision comes from these sources. The male equivalents comes from further research which I will elaborate on in subsequent blogs.
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.php (October 2008)recognizes types 2 – 4
Mason, Christine, Exorcising Excision: Medico-Legal Issues Arising From Male and Female Genital Surgery in Australia, Journal of law and Medicine, Aug 2001, Vol 9, no 1: 58-67
Lightfoot-Klein, H. Pharaonic Circumcision of Females in the Sudan (1983) 2 Medical Law 253 at 357 quoted in Mason, C., (2001)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
This is a great article, thank you. There is a lot of resistance to the reality of this in America. Surprisingly that resistance comes largely from mutilated males who can't handle the truth that they have suffered such an incredible loss. I'm one of the 90% of boys that was routinely chopped at birth and have been sexually crippled for life by one of these sloppy "tight" mutilations. I'll never know what it's like to feel the closeness to another person that was my human birthright.
you can't feel 'close' to another because you were circumsized at birth? i think your problem goes further than a physical mutilation, my friend. it you equate physical intimacy with your penis, you are sorely lacking in 1) imagination and 2) the variety of erogenous experiences that are available.
No, you stupid hippy.
The idea of female circumcision is to prevent pleasure (orgasm) for the purpose of women being able to accept their husbands without temptation of other men, and also to increase the chances of them remaining virgins until marriage.
The equivalent of the female circumcision in males would be more like being castrated then having to use a strap-on to please your wife.
How can you so blindly accept any practice simply because "it's part of their culture". If slavery were part of their culture would you accept it? or how about arranged marriage? Better yet, how about arranged marriages with 8 year old girls like in Yemen and Saudi Arabia?
You completely missed the point. I am not accepting the practice at all. Female circumcision is sick in any way. Slavery is sick in every way.
You can read in my history of circumcision blog that the modern circumcision was invented to make masturbation more difficult and to decrease pleasure. Today the reasons passed for female circumcision are as varied as the ones for male circumcision. If it is motive you are after the difference is zero. If it is results, the difference is varied.
We are told it is still fine becuase we still can still have pleasure, and we can still ejaculate, at least in most cases. Well oddly enough, most victims of female circumcision can do exactly the same thing. (Well not ejaculate but they can have the orgasms.)
Hippy? Well first off I assume you are calling me a hippie. 2nd was that really necessary? Do you have to insult the person to exchange ideas? What are you sources? Have you experienced these things yourself? Are you even going to return to this post to read this? Oh well. It would have been fun.
Dang. I have a dozen blogs and I get nothing. I write this one, and everyone from all over the world is reading it.
Oh and just to add, I think you are strictly talking about infibulation. That is what most westerners think when they think about female circumcision. I even admit that there is little difference between infibulation and a penectomy. Maybe reading would be helpful in the future?
I like the objectivity with which you have addressed the topic. For a slightly different approach, I would invite you to read an article I wrote on male circumcision: http://www.quickswood.com/my_weblog/2007/02/circumcision.html#more
Even a pin-prick to a female is illegal.
Amputate over half a male's sensual nerve endings and 15 square inches (in the adult) of exquisite sexual interface and you can send out party invitations. You can even tell the cutter: "Take off as much as possible so there's no chance he'll be able to use those foreskin restoration techniques" and that's allowed also.
The foreskin is absolutely as vital to a male's full sexual experience as the clitoral hood is to a female's.
I just can't believe there are people so insensitive as to say: "You've had something amputated, but if you're upset about it, you must have other problems." I dare you to say that to a female.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body HIS decision.
In any event, I find it difficult to accept any argument against male circ premised on the fact that "it isn't as bad as female circ."
What? Didn't you hear about the guy got away with rape because he found it in his heart not to kill the girl?
I’m sorry to say but I think that your article is a joke. There is no way that you can even start to compare the "similarities" of both male and female circumcision because they are worlds apart. I know that you try to justify it but I'm afraid I just don't buy into what your proposing, and just because a female can still painfully participate in sexual intercourse after the procedure and a male couldn't "IF" his entire penis was cut off doesn't make the practice right or any less traumatic for the women involved.
Your comparison with the removal of the penis is very weak because in reality how many men's penis's are actually totally removed? I'm guessing hardly any so how you can even begin to compare that to the infibulations of a women, which actually happens every day to approximately 6000 girls and young women.
Its views like yours in there patriarchal nature that try to down play the act of female mutilation in comparison to male circumcision that perpetuates the problem and solves nothing. Why don't you stand up and be a man and write something meaningful on the topic that will provoke change and make a difference instead of writing meaningless crap like this on a subject that has so many underlying concerns, like the medical issues involved, the practice being a form of abuse, the paternalism of women and a clear violation of a number of human rights.
I would like to end by also pointing out that in the west male circumcision has dramatically dropped nationally. The circumcision rate of male babies delivered in hospitals has fallen, from nearly 90 percent in the early 1960s to less than 60 percent in 2004, according to The Associated Press, which quoted the National Health and Social Life Survey. Female circumcision in some countries like Sudan is actually on the rise and stands at approximately 95%. Also what about the ongoing medical problems that women continue to have after the procedure, like excessive bleeding, chronic pelvic infection, urinary tract infections, cysts and scar tissue and delayed labour. There are also the psychological problems of being an ‘incomplete’ woman; difficulties in penetration, painful intercourse, anxiety, depression and usually intimacy issues. I think that you would benefit in more research into the topic that would allow you to write a better well rounded article.
I am sorry you feel that way. I have been reading everything I could find on the topic for the past year, and I think I have a pretty good understanding.
just because a female can still painfully participate in sexual intercourse after the procedure and a male couldn't "IF" his entire penis was cut off doesn't make the practice right or any less traumatic for the women involved. I completely agree. The trauma is not made any less by males that have a their entire penis removed. No where in the article did I "downplay" female circumcision.
Your comparison with the removal of the penis is very weak because in reality how many men's penis's are actually totally removed? I'm guessing hardly any so how you can even begin to compare that to the infibulations of a women, which actually happens every day to approximately 6000 girls and young women. I find this very ironic. You are correct that far fewer men have their penises removed than women have infibulations. However, how does their small numbers have any effect on their situation? Just becuase they don't have much company doesn't' make the situation any better for them. The occurrence of this procedure is probably more common than you think.
If you really want me to I will look up the number, but it is entirely irrelevant. The point is to hypothetically compare what is the equilivant of each kind of genital cutting.
Another thing I find ironic, is you say that infibulation is worse than a penectomy becuase infibulations are more common. Male circumcisions are between 4 and 5 times more common than male circumcision.
Its views like yours in there patriarchal nature that try to down play the act of female mutilation in comparison to male circumcision that perpetuates the problem and solves nothing. Why don't you stand up and be a man and write something meaningful on the topic that will provoke change and make a difference instead of writing meaningless crap like this on a subject that has so many underlying concerns, like the medical issues involved, the practice being a form of abuse, the paternalism of women and a clear violation of a number of human rights. Another thing that you clearly miss is that this part of my blog mainly critiques male circumcision. I am against female circumcision as much as you are, but I see little point in writing a blog about it as everyone in the western world agrees. As you can see from my map, I only have one view from Africa.
I would like to end by also pointing out that in the west male circumcision has dramatically dropped nationally. Thank God. That is why we are doing this, and you can see the positive results. Thank you for posting such encouraging news. Oh and what is that you told me at first? Oh yeah "Why don't you stand up and be a man and write something meaningful on the topic that will provoke change and make a difference " Hmmmm I guess it's working.
Female circumcision in some countries like Sudan is actually on the rise and stands at approximately 95%. Here you go with numbers of victims again. You can't win that. Between 20-35% of the worlds men are circumcised. Less than 5% of the worlds women are circumcised. Don't get me wrong, I am still against female circumcision, but you can't win a numbers game. Also with your 95% stat, it depends on how you define circumcision. I hope you don't really believe that 95% of the Sudan is a victim of infibulation.
Also what about the ongoing medical problems that women continue to have after the procedure, like excessive bleeding,
This happens in between 10-50% of male RIC.
chronic pelvic infection,Not this, but males have an increased risk of infection their first year while the wound heals.
urinary tract infectionsIncreased in males that went through Jewish Circumcision.
cysts and scar tissue Seriously? You do realize that all circumcised males have a rather jagged scar right?
and delayed labour. I can't say that I have found a circumcised male that has had this problem. It would probably make news if it happened.
There are also the psychological problems of being an ‘incomplete’ woman; I can find you thousands of men who feel incomplete rather easily.
difficulties in penetration, painful intercourse,Male circumcision makes sex less enjoyable for both parties.
anxiety, depression and usually intimacy issues. Yes, Yes, and Yes. Now how about erectile dysfunction, lack of mobile skin for penetrating for masturbating, premature ejaculation, and loss of sensitivity.
The anti-circ fanatics always want to make you feel bad for circumcising. The American Academy of Pediatrics is about to change its neutral stance. Here's what many hope they will say.
"After a comprehensive review of the latest medical and scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics concludes that all males should be circumcised, preferably at birth, as a matter of both personal medical well-being and general public health to protect themselves, their future sexual partners, and society as a whole from a number of debilitating, life-threatening, and costly diseases.
{more}"
See http://mandatorycircumcision.blogspot.com/
I find it very ironic that you blasted people on your blog for being anonymous when you are posting under anonymous. Have you even read your blog? You can't even find a single person who agrees with you. Not one! Are you writing satire?
Hey Jim,
I get your point that male circumcision is done mostly without real reason and therefore is compairable to female circumcision.
Let me add this to your considerations, however: your name is Jim, therefore I assume you are a male; I am a female (even though, ironically my name is a male name... but that's irrelevant). I can never understand how it feels to be a male just as you can never understand how it feels to be a female. Every article I have ever read stating that Female circumcision is so much worse than Male circumcision was written by a woman, while every article I have ever read stating that male circumcision is worse than female circumcision was written by a male. Now I don't proport to have read every article about the issue ever, but I'd say that on the whole, this is probably something that could be supported with statistics indicating that more males write one way and more females write another. The point being the argument is ultimately always swayed by personal interest in the issue-- we all have a "castration" fear, despite freud's supposition that we (females) don't, and dread the idea of any harm coming to our genitalia. This i feel will make your argument more clear, more universal / unbiased; however it complicates the whole approach of "comparison" between the two, because honestly an objective comparison can not be made.
here's why:
so I agree that they (male and female circumcision, that is,) are both terrible. but i disagree, as a woman, who knows what if feels like to have a clitoris, that even messing ( e.g. pricking, whatever) with the hood of the clitoris would not be excrutiatingly painful. in other words i just disagree with your comparisons between the two. More objectively, Female circumcision is most common in Africa, is often not practiced upon infants, is often not practiced with anesthesia, and from every source other than this that I have found, the 3rd or 4th types of circumcision you cite were most utilized, not the 2nd.
Also, the ability to have vaginal orgasm is NOT the same as the ability to have clitoral orgasm. We in America have all the sex toys you could want but many of us women have never had a vaginal orgasm. I can hardly imagine a that woman who has had her entire vaginal entrance sealed up and then has it cut open by her husband to have sex would be able to have a vaginal orgasm at that point (despite ANY empirical ability to do so). This said I have also seen it reported on body modification websites that men who have removed their penis out of pleasure have still been able to reach orgasm despite their lacking a penis. therefore I would retain the comparison to penectomy.
All the same, I believe circumcision should not be something that is forced upon anyone-- and in this I agree with you.
peace,
--Milovachan
Thank you Milovacan. Good points I want to ask you some questions/elaborate.
Both pricking the foreksin/clitoris is extremely painful. The reason I said mild is compared to cutting the entire thing off, a little pin prick doesn't seem so bad. I can't pretend to know how either feels, (I was not blessed with the ability of knowing what a foreskin feels like) but looking just at data they appear to be similar.
It is true that female circumcision is practiced mostly in Africa, but I don't see how this is relevant. If female circumcision was preformed by trained professionals in the US it would still be horrible, although maybe a little safer. It's not like the Africans can find a scalpel let alone hire a trained professional. Also, male circumcision is widely practiced in Africa in the same unsanitary conditions with the same glass shards. If your point is to say that female circumcision in Africa is worse than here, than I agree, but I also think that female circumcision is Africa is no worse than male circumcision in Africa.
Female circumcision is typically not practiced on infants, but this can be a double edged sword. I would prefer it if we in the United States waited several months at the bare minimum. That way we could at least use strong anesthetics. Also a 12 year old will probably me unsuccessful at fighting back, but they are no where near as helpless as an infant is. As I touched on recently, up until very very recently (within the last 5 years) anesthetics were rarely used on any babies. Thankfully today that is changing. However, a baby cannot handle strong anesthetics so a woefully inadequate one is used.
About which form is most common, if you strictly look at Africa you are probably dealing with #3. However, there are countries all over the place, all third world, mostly on islands, that practice female circumcision. Almost all of them practice #2. While I probably should not have put #2 being the most common as it is impossible to have exact stats based on how isolated these people are, #2 and #3 are without question the most widely practiced. Based on my interpretation of looking outside of Africa as well as within, it looked like #2 had an edge.
The one I am most interested in is your paragraph about sexual pleasure. I find a similar trend with guys I have read about, intact, cut as adults, and restored, who say that orgasm at all three points is very different. They often have words describing it, but they all seem to indicate that it is very different. I can't say that it is the exact same thing that you are saying, but I find it interesting how it seems so similar.
I like you, found it hard to believe that women could still have orgasms after #4, but I saw the study where they performed it clear as day. It doesn't say how often they have orgasms, which might be very infrequent, but they were capable.
The last thing you listed was about men who removed their penis. With the research I have done, almost all penectomies that I have found have been transgendered and botched circumcisions. However, I don't put anything past the body modification crowd. This is the first time I have heard anyone mention having an orgasm without a penis, and I have read a lot. I also literally can't imagine how that would be possible. (What is there to stimulate.) I can see without a clitoris there is still some things there to stimulate. However, I don't know of anything in a male that you could?
Also, even if they could have an orgasm by stimulating something the scrotum would have to be left intact. I in all forms 1-4 the female is still able to procreate, so the male would have to be able to as well. However, I don't see how he would be able to ejaculate. I guess you could do it artificially, but you don't have to do with with any of the female varieties.
Jim
PS Thank you for disagreeing and still being able to make a case objectively using FACTS. Much appreciated.
Post a Comment