Tag circumcision | VenusPlusX

The Sexual Freedom Project: Stop Genital Mutilation

In light of Kwani’s 3-part series on male genital mutilation (circumcision), we are revisiting this particular Sexual Freedom Project video to keep this important conversation going.

Have you made the connection between male and female genital mutilation and the issue of sexual freedom?

How about forced sexual reassignment surgery practiced on intersex infants?

Let us know what you think. Make a video, write a poem, song, or an essay — or even create an original work of art — and express your thoughts on these topics. If we feature your contribution on the site, we will send you a free VenusPlusX t-shirt to thank you.

Video by Tiye Massey.

TRANSCRIPT by David Kreps

So recently I’ve heard a lot about female genital mutilation going on in certain parts of the world. It seems to me that if we’re to respect sexual freedom, that has to be a practice that we criticize first. Uh, that seems kind of beyond the pale. A real slap in the face to human rights.

Male Genital Mutilation: The Hypocratic* Oath and Circumcision the Euphemism (Part 3)

WARNING: Some URLs in this article contain graphic material (educational purposes)

Previously, we spoke about circumcision rhetoric, examining evidence in its favor. Here, we touch on more aspects of this topic, and give final comments.

Genital cutting has grievous effects on doctor-patient relationships, creating conflicts of interest. Enter Circumcision Inc. — doctors as cold businessmen (not ethical practitioners), circumstraints, and cosmetics companies using foreskins.

Do the interests of the child matter? Do religious freedoms, parental rights, and profit take precedence over bodily integrity — children’s freedoms? No harm comes from children growing up to decide for themselves. Many alleged benefits of circumcision are sex-related, and shouldn’t apply to newborns. Even so, it is possible that it lowers sexual enjoyment (though pleasure can be subjective), is unnecessary to cure phimosis, and could cause psychological issues. With all data taken into account, circumcision is merely cruel cosmetic surgery for infants.

Image from Tatiana Vdb via Flickr, signifies the distress and agony that newborns can feel.

In Part 1, I mentioned doublethink regarding circumcision and female genital mutilation (FGM). Calling it cognitive dissonance would be a compliment as this entails an awareness of contradiction. FGM (immoral and illegal) has many different varieties, yet some are prone to make heinous false equivalences, stating that milder forms of FGM are the same as removing the entire penis (like a vaginectomy).

Though once supported, the American Academy of Pediatrics is now in condemnation of perhaps the mildest form of FGM, described as a prick with a needle. Their comparative apathy towards a more invasive and brutal circumcision, just as unnecessary, is disturbing. Is there a disparity in empathy towards male and female children? Are only adult women coerced into circumcision? Are we walking on eggshells to avoid offending parties with a vested interest?

The issue is trivialized and we are told: “it’s just a piece of skin”, “children won’t remember it”, that the risks outweigh the benefits, foreskin has no function, and various other fallacious statements. Productive discussions have been compromised, as those who dare speak for the autonomy of newborns could find themselves ostracized, mocked, and the topic avoided entirely. Not protecting the most vulnerable and voiceless among us makes us unworthy of being named a civilized society. Some say evil is done when good people are quiet; I say good people are not quiet about injustice.

Part 1, Part 2

Additional links:

*Title has a portmanteau (Hippocratic, Hypocritical)

Male Genital Mutilation: Bad Science (Part 2)

In Part 1, I spoke of faults in pro-circumcision rhetoric and attitudes that condone genital cutting. Now we will examine some evidence in favor of circumcision.

“Circumstraints” are used to immobilize infants during a torturous process: circumcision.
Image by James Loewen

The trials in Africa, conducted from 2005-2007 and often referenced, have been shown to use poor methodology. Brian D. Earp, who has written rigorously on this topic, familiarizes us with others who have done extensive research:

While the “gold standard” for medical trials is the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the African trials suffered [a number of serious problems] including problematic randomization and selection bias, inadequate blinding, lack of placebo-control (male circumcision could not be concealed), inadequate equipoise, experimenter bias, attrition (673 drop-outs in female-to-male trials), not investigating male circumcision as a vector for HIV transmission, not investigating non-sexual HIV transmission, as well as lead-time bias, supportive bias (circumcised men received additional counseling sessions), participant expectation bias, and time-out discrepancy (restraint from sexual activity only by circumcised men).

– Gregory J. Boyle & George Hill (2011)

Other studies research HPV, urinary tract infections, and other conditions, indicating that circumcision helps with them. However, they tend to be insufficient to recommend circumcision, and the alleged benefits negligible due to already existing treatments. For example, urinary tract infections are uncommon in males and easy to treat, and standard safe-sex practices such as maintaining bodily hygiene and using condoms are far more proven than circumcision in terms of effectiveness.

Finally, one would expect worldwide statistics and medical consensus to be different. It appears that many health organizations again, do not find existing data sufficient to support routine circumcision. And while correlation is not causation, places such as Africa, where circumcision is prevalent, do not seem to see any real effect on STD rates, for instance. Circumcision is not the solution it’s made out to be, and misinformation is not a substitute for safe sex education.

Part 1 here

Click here for Part 3, where we will examine circumcision further, and give our final comments.

in Global Sexual Freedom Watch / Key Issues / Public Information by Kwani 28 May 2014 0 comments

Male Genital Mutilation: Doublethink, Self-Deception, and Insecurity (Part 1)

A child bleeds from the genitals during an unnecessary surgery with adults in attendance, none batting an eye.

This is genital mutilation; however, we in the western world are immersed in a form of doublethink, considering our vehement disapproval of female genital mutilation (FGM). Is there such a difference between FGM and male circumcision that one is ok and the other abhorrent? The justifications given for either tend to be interchangeable.

Male circumcision is awful in the best of circumstances, performed by professionals in sterile environments, with clean tools. It’s not always like this — in tribes, it’s often a rite of passage which unifies the community, and males are cast out if they “fail”, from seeking medical attention due to defects (for example). The operation can be done in questionable environments, with questionable credentials (even in the United States), and the results can be catastrophic.

Advocates of male genital mutilation often use poor rationale: he should look like his dad, girls will like him more, it’s what god wants — these are among many assertions that one might hear that don’t hold water.

An archaic practice of conformity, the by-product of ideals humanity ought to have outlived by now, considering advancements in medical science, knowledge, and secularism. Image from Rachel Esther via Flickr

However, there’s an argument that appeals to objective thinkers – that genital mutilation provides health benefits. Arguments that are science-based provide strong rhetoric, even when contrary to scientific consensus. Yet the facts remain — both forms of circumcision (male and female) are mutilation, and alleged evidence to the contrary is inadequate.

Arguments which appeal to logic are particularly insidious as they are not disregarded easily — thinkers may be tempted to take any evidence that reassures them, as many will be circumcised, prefer circumcised genitals, or both. I would love to believe that my penis has been enhanced by genital mutilation, but the truth isn’t always so convenient.

Click here for part 2, where we will examine evidence in favor of circumcision.

in Global Sexual Freedom Watch / Key Issues / Public Information by Kwani 28 May 2014 0 comments

Female Genital Mutilation in the UK

(También en Español)

News of Note: Medics Offered Genital Mutilation, Report Says

As many as 100,000 women in Britain may have been mutilated in the name of culture and religion, a report claims.

Refuges from other countries, particularly from Africa, perpetuate this “procedure” illegally, while practitioners charge more than $1000 to have the clitoris cut and the wound and vagina stitched.

It’s hard to think of anything that better exemplifies the depth of our world’s sexual repression than the serial genital mutilation practiced all over our planet.

There is absolutely no excuse for this practice, and I can only hope that any culture or religion that embraces such immorality is adequately and rapidly purged from this planet. Global sexual freedom activists unite!

Image source

in Global Sexual Freedom Watch / Key Issues / News of Note by Jack Diehl 07 May 2012 0 comments