Somehow, it always comes back to penises.
Laura Novak has a great piece up at The Good Men Project Magazine today: The Foreskin Renaissance. It’s about the foreskin restoration movement (which has ancient roots, for example in Jewish philo-Hellenism), and about the wrinkle (sorry) that this trend adds to the ongoing and intense circumcision debate.
I’m pleased Novak quotes me as saying “Dude, get over yourself.” My students, especially in my men and masculinity course, tend to hear that a lot.
Here’s the original 2006 post I wrote about getting circumcised as an adult, and here’s the 2009 piece from New York Magazine on my story.
Oy Vey.
“Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters” (I Corinthians 7:19).
Hugo, as inconsequential you may consider it, the difference between what you did and what occurs in most cases is that you made the choice. Considering that we do not allow parents have a host of “fundamentally minor surgical procedures” performed on their children — tattooing, scarification, vestigial organ removal — without a valid medical reason, this should be a no-brainer.
Granted, it is peculiar to see a feminist opposing someone’s right to choose what to do with their own body. However, more odd is the lack of a substantive argument for circumcising infant boys. You compared an adult’s decision to something done against a child’s will. One can rest assured that if anyone suggested trimming an infant girl’s clitoral hood for aesthetic, cultural or religious reasons you would object to it and balk at the request to discuss “the pros and cons” of infant female circumcision. It would be a patently ridiculous suggestion that no one would support, and for good reason: there is no wiggle room.
This really is a no-brainer. Unless there is a valid, proven medical reason for performing a circumcision, no child should be circumcised. It is their choice to make, but for some inexplicable reason you appear to object to that. And the disconnect for me that you appear to find it more morally objectionable to cat-call women than to cut off an infant boy’s foreskin (or molest him, since you made such a comparison in your quotes). It seems like a very bizarre position to take.
I don’t think that this is an issue at all, especially a feminist one. Unlike female circumsision, this doesn’t hurt or subtract from a man’s life. It’s just a bunch of what-about-the-mensing while co-opting a feminist argument (control over one’s body) to boot. Compared to FGM, for example, it’s a complete non-issue.
FWIW, I definitely prefer circumcised men. I’ve only been with one uncut guy, and it smelled.
FYI, I would be very interested to hear Hugo’s response to Toysoldier’s post.
It’s just a fold of skin. Maybe I’m biased though – belonging to that group of individuals who had that flap of flesh removed after birth. It would have been a pain in the ass if my parents deferred the choice to me. Knowing myself, I would have probably been squeemish about the whole penis-chopping thing and never gotten it removed, even if I wanted to.
I wear it as a badge of honor. MUTILATED AT BIRTH sounds pretty metal.
Anyway on a serious note, does this make circumcision a valid medical procedure for infants? I don’t know. I do know that i’ve come up with a new phrase to tattoo on my arm.
I wrote about the history of routine infant male circumcision here on my own blog; the procedure is rooted in a pathologizing of the foreskin. Toy Soldier is right that the issue of choice is crucial, but it’s also important to recognize that the rite of passage Hugo experienced is also only possible for adults who are conscious of and can give meaning to a (medical or religious) ritual like circumcision.
“I’ve only been with one uncut guy and it smelled”
I think it’s SUPPOSED TO SMELL…like how vaginas have a distinct odor, the foreskin not only protects/sheathes the penis but it has a…genital stank, I guess.
(LOL, I’m really gung-ho on circumcision by choice/not being the default and done against an infants will, so I get pissed when people are like “IT’S A NON-ISSUE, YOU’RE CO-OPTING BODILY AUTONOMY HERP DERP”…IDK, I don’t want to be all like, “WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ!?” but it bugs me. FYI, this is coming from a feminist woman who flips out over the wrongness of FGM, so…ugh, I don’t know, that probably doesn’t mean shit/is a paltry “excuse” for my anti-male circumcision argument)
There are more than a few feminists who would disagree, open_sketchbook.
Canadian doctors studying the issue “found circumcision so traumatic that doctors ended the study early rather than subject any more babies to the operation without anesthesia.†At the time of that study (the late 1990s), it was extremely rare for infants to be given anaesthesia during the procedure. It’s not clear to what extent that has changed, but that article also noted that the only anaesthetic option available — topicals — were felt by the doctors to be “woefully inadequate.â€
The British Journal of Urology concluded that in fact, circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis. (Some critics note that 10,000 to 20,000 nerve cells are lost.) Moreover, these nerve cells are highly specialized.
As for your comment, Hugo:
… let me quote (from a different context) someone you seem to respect:
First, Alexa: FWIW, bad smell is not caused by the foreskin it’s caused by bad hygiene, disease or fungus.
Secondly, Hugo: Drawing the conclusion that routine circumcision on (non-consenting) infant boys is ok because you are ok with your circumcision which was based on a real medical problem (mild case of phimosis I presume from your description) and which furthermore you consented to while adult is just bizzarre. It is as if an adult women who has had labiaplsty surgery for functional reasons (pain or discomfort) would say that routine labiaplasty surgery on infants would be ok. Both is just plain wrong logic. (32% of labiaplasty surgery are for functional reasons, 31% are for both functional and æsthetic reasons- source: Wikipedia).
Thirdly, Hugo: The dismissal of mens feeling of loss and pain by essentially telling them to man up is not ok. And the proudness of your dismissal only makes it more jarring.
Fourth: Using HIV and penile cancer risks as arguments are just an (at best ignorant) excuse. Lifetime risk for penile cancer is 1 in 600 (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Penile_cancer), HIV is 1.87% (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/584617). By contrast the lifetime risk for breast cancer is 1 in 8, a whopping 20%, but I don’t hear those who call for or defend routine infant circumcision call for or defend routine mastectomy for women/girls/infants.
And I certainly don’t hear, and I hope I’ll never do, people telling women who’ve had mastectomy and laments their loss that they should get over their feeling of loss.
I object strongly to having been circumcised without my prior consent as an infant. I feel extremely violated by it.
For the life of me I cannot understand why any feminist would consider infant circumcision okay, sans reasonably immediate medical concerns. His body, his choice.
In other words, “man up”? Shame on you, Hugo.
@open_sketchbook:
It hurt me, psychologically. Bodily violations don’t need to have substantial long-term physical consequences to be harmful. Feminists, of all people, should understand this.
It also hurt me physically. The vestige of foreskin I have remaining (i.e. the bit of skin between my circumcision scar and the corona of my glans penis) is substantially more sensitive and erogenous than the rest of my shaft skin. I thus have good reason to believe that, at least in my case, my foreskin was sensitive and erogenous. And I have very good reason, therefore, to wish that it had not been removed without my consent.
And maybe (shock) I even want to have fun with my foreskin as part of sex play, as a way to introduce variety and exploration into my sex life.
That many other men don’t care about their foreskin has no bearing on the value of mine to myself. And no one had the right to take that choice from me.
Does this make male circumcision comparable to the severe forms of FGM? Absolutely not. But parents only, say, removing part of the labia minora (typically not critical to sexual pleasure or orgasm), well, it is difficult for me not to find that (in specific, not FGM in general) comparable. But allowing parents to do that to their infant daughters would rightly be admonished.
open_sketchbook:
It’s just a bunch of what-about-the-mensing while co-opting a feminist argument (control over one’s body) to boot. Compared to FGM, for example, it’s a complete non-issue.
Well its a good thing you aren’t the sole arbiter on the issue.
As Toy Soldier and RJN have said it is a big deal all in its own right and if you paid attention to people other than the ones that do try to co-op that argument you would know that. Other then medical necessity or someone being able to choose it for themselves there is no reason to have it done.
Also:
Unlike female circumsision, this doesn’t hurt or subtract from a man’s life.
So if the act of FGM can be altered to meet those conditions you’d be okay with it? Totally neverminding the possibility that some of those girls would probably choose to not have it done if they were given the choice. Are they the same? No. Are there similarities? Yes. Shouldn’t people have the bodily autonomy to be free to do with their genitals as they wish rather than having them altered against their will (or at least when they are literally to young to understand consent much less give it)? I’m sure even a feminists would agree with that.
The key is that male circumcision is not comparable to to FGM. However, personally I’m against both when performed without the individual’s consent (and in countries where FGM is practiced, I don’t feel that its victims can give meaningful consent, given the social and legal constraints on women’s freedom). I do get angry when MRAs assert that they’re comparable, but I definitely don’t see infant circumcision as a good (or feminist) thing. Bodily autonomy is important, and men should have the ability to decide when they’re of age what they want to have happen to their bodies.
The constant assertion by apologists for MGM that it is not comparable to FGM is just that … assertion.
Of course it is comparable on many dimensions.
They both are:
non-consensual unnecessary surgery on infant genitals;
done primarily for cultural/religious reasons; and,
attract large numbers of apologists who assert any number of things without evidence.
True, FGM is more variable and in some cases radical (comparable to removing a boy-child’s glans). FGM is also more often done later in life (accentuating but not fundamentally altering the coerciveness and horror of the act — older children can clearly object and communicate the torment involved). These are the major differences that I can see.
This doesn’t change the fact that fundamentally we are mutilating our children for no good reason and without their consent. If you want to avoid cognitive dissonance by denying male genital cutting is mutilation, fine. It changes nothing as far as I can see.
Comrade Svilova — I am not an MRA and yet on logical grounds argue from logical premises that male circumcision and FGM are comparable. I vaguely recall that Hugo has ruled that an unpublishable heresy, so expect that arguments to that effect may be censored here.
I agree with you that support for circumcision does violence to a fundamental premise of feminism: bodily autonomy (aka the right to choose).
“Then in 2009, the Public Health Agency of Canada reported a rate of circumcision of male babies of 31.9% for Canada overall for 2006-2007 [Canada, 2009]. Rate was 44.3% in Alberta, 43.7% in Ontario, 39.2% in Prince Edward Island, 35.6% in Saskatchewan, 31.6% in Manitoba, 30.2% in British Columbia, 18.0% in New Brunswick, 12.3% in Quebec, 9.7% in Northwest Territories, 6.8% in Nova Scotia, and lack of reliable information for Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador.”
Ironic that French-speaking provinces barely circumcise (note Quebec province is 10% English-as-first-language, and 75% French-as-first-language).
I live there, and heard no “it smells” arguments, and the “be like other boys” certainly doesn’t float in a province with 12% circumcision. The amount of Jewish people in Canada (and Quebec) is slightly above 1%. Same for Muslims (who also routinely circumcise in Middle-East countries for religious reasons). Most of Quebec is non-practicing Catholics (most don’t go to church except maybe to marry), with a few Protestants (mainly English speakers).
Neither me or my three brothers were circumcised, nor was my father, or my boyfriend. It wasn’t even something we thought about, much like we don’t think of tattooing newborns.
I’m rather glad that future material for my neo-clitoral hood was not amputated against my will at birth on some spurious basis.
Canada has almost 5% the rate of HIV infection, for over 11% of the population. 21,000 (out of 35 million) versus 470,000 (out of 308 million). Too bad I can’t find statistics pertaining to lower circumcision places than the Canadian average.
I’m focusing on Canada because it’s culturally similarly situated to the US (unlike say Thailand (very low circ rate) or Iran (extremely high circ rate)).
“A national survey on sexual attitudes in 2000 found that 15.8% of men or boys in the United Kingdom (ages 16–44) were circumcised. 11.7% of 16-19 year olds, and 19.6% of 40-44 year olds said they had been circumcised.”
The UK is similar culturally to the US too, I guess. They have 85,000 out of 62 million that are HIV-infected. Almost equal to the US in %. 1.3% in UK. And with 470,000 out of 308 million in the US it’s 1.5%.
How does that prove that circumcision is effective in the West? It might make more men buy lubricant to simply masturbate (which is not needed otherwise), but that’s about it imo.
Probably everything I have to say on this I have already said here:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/10/18/one-man-both-ways-a-short-new-york-magazine-interview-on-circumcision/#comment-526724
Except perhaps to point out that Canada’s public health insurance no longer pays for circumcision which likely contributes to the declining rate.
It is interesting to think that avoiding $200 out of pocket may be the imputed value of circumcision to parents. Most people, it seems, don’t really give it much thought.
The UK doesn’t either, and see the declining rate because of it. 19% of 40 years old vs 11% of 16-20 years old people.
@Alexa: Your N=1 survey proves only that it is not impossible for intact penises to smell, QNED.
Toysoldier and others have pretty well pwned Hugo, but see also my website.
Is someone who says “Dude, get over yourself” a lot even ready to take a Men and Masculinity course?
@Alexa:
FWIW? Well, it’s not worth much in this context. If I prefer women with silicone breasts (maybe I prefer the look or feel of them) is this worth much as an argument in favor of involuntary surgical insertion of said silicone material? No. Not even close.
The purpose of women’s bodies is not to please men. Similarly, the purpose of men’s bodies is not to please women. A baby boy’s body should not be altered to (hopefully) please his future partners, any more than the same should be done to a baby girl.
But even putting that aside:
I always find this argument odd. As well as the similar oral-sex arguments against foreskins.
Here’s the thing: women’s genitals smell (etc.) too. This is not an argument in favor, even, of douching, much less involuntary surgical alteration.
Genitals smell. If you don’t like this fact of life, then either wear nose plugs or don’t have sex.
On the other hand, Alexa, if you mean that this guy’s penis smelled beyond the levels that genitals can reasonably be expected to smell, then that is likely a sign of bad hygiene or an infection of some kind. In both cases this is almost always treatable without resorting to surgical alteration (same as in women).
Randomizer, I should have been clearer; the issue I have is with MRAs who assert that FGM is a very insignificant problem that doesn’t matter and that doesn’t need our attention because male circumcision is so much worse. There are also some MRAs who assert that any woman who is working to end FGM must spend an equal amount of time working on ending circumcision in the West. That’s what I object to. I do think circumcision of male infants is wrong, unless there’s a medical necessity. But too much of the MRA discourse that I’ve encountered focuses on minimizing FGM or ignoring it all together.
That’s all I was trying to say. It wasn’t directed at someone who speaks about the issue as you have on this thread (didn’t read the old thread, sorry). Are they both wrong? Yes. Do I personally spend more time and attention on ending FGM? Yes. If I had kids, which I don’t plan on, would I want to circumcise the boys? No.
@Comrade Svilova:
Although I’m not familiar with the MRAs you’re talking about (I don’t pay much attention to MRAs), I can understand their emotional reaction. When you’re a guy who feels violated by circumcision, one of the typical lines you get from people (feminist or not) is a derailing and dismissive comment about how it’s not as bad as FGM and therefore doesn’t matter and you should “get over it” (again, shame on you Hugo). These sorts of dismissals act to keep you in the closet about your feelings, which I can tell you from personal experience is very damaging. And you start to associate people’s attention to FGM with your own violation being ignored/dismissed/minimized.
Does that make their minimization of FGM okay? Absolutely not. Does that make their derailing of discussions about FGM okay? Absolutely not. But I can relate to their emotional desire to “turn the tables” on both counts. It doesn’t manifest out of thin air, or solely from their misogynistic outlook.
On the other hand, I’m sure the anti-MGM crowd gets irritated when every conversation they try and have about this inevitably devolves into a discussion of how FGM is worse, so as long as the possibility exists of any girl or woman anywhere having a knife anywhere near her genitals MGM must be placed not on the back-burner, but completely outside the kitchen.
Jason, I’d never try to dictate what causes you work on. But what I seek from MRAs is the same respect — let me work on issues I think are important without demanding that I (and other feminists with similar priorities) devote comparable time to the issues *you* care about.
I’m not saying that you, personally, are demanding that feminists working to end FGM also take on the work to end circumcision, just that that’s what I’ve heard from a lot of MRAs. In general, I’m tired of people complaining that “feminists” don’t work hard enough on X, Y, or Z issues, when the complainers could, themselves, be working on those issues rather than demanding that feminists take on additional causes and burdens (and of course “feminists” are not a monolith — feminists have different interests and causes and work on different things).
It is understandable that you may object to it, but those men’s groups technically have a point. Most of the countries that circumcise females also circumcise males. The acts tend to occur around the same ages for both boys and girls, usually between four to eight-years-old, and usually for similar cultural and religious reasons. It seems rather odd for anyone to go into a Muslim country and argue against circumcising an eight-year-old girl while ignoring that her seven-year-old brother is being forcibly held down by some men while another cuts off his foreskin. It is even more peculiar when one considers that latter occurs about five times more often than any of the acts performed on girls.
The “complainers” do work on these issues. They just also point out that feminists could support their efforts. Yet quite often feminists do not support those efforts. The irony of your statement is that feminists have no problem complaining that men do not work hard enough on X, Y, or Z issues, when feminists themselves could work on those issues rather than demand that men take on additional causes and burdens. Personally, I find that to be a weak argument. I may focus on male suicide because it is far more common, but I do not balk at the notion that I should give equal notice to female suicide attempts. The two are not the same act, but they are usually caused by the same factors, and it would be immoral and heartless for me to try to prevent boys from killing themselves while ignoring that girls’ suicide attempts.
Toysoldier, there’s a problematic history of feminists being asked to put other people’s priorities first. “You can’t talk about Western beauty standards until you’ve ended Middle-Eastern rules about veiling” “you can’t address sexism in the workplace until you’ve ended honor killings” etc. I’m tired of hearing from MRAs “you can’t talk about FGM; MGM is a more important issue.”
As I said, I disagree with Hugo regarding male circumcision; I think it is a feminist issue about bodily autonomy. But nonetheless, individual feminists may or may not prioritize it, because there are so many issues out there that need to be addressed. If you want to see it prioritized, then prioritize it yourself, as you have done. Argue for why others should prioritize it, but not by saying “instead of FGM, focus on the more prevalent, more important issue of MGM.” That’s all I was asking.
Acknowledge that FGM is a problem, as I have acknowledged that MGM is a problem. I don’t need to dismiss MGM as unimportant or less prevalent or less traumatic (as many MRAs do with FGM) to explain that I, personally, have chosen to prioritize my time on different issues. Just say “personally, I’m not able to focus on ending FGM because I’m working on other issues. Everyone has limited time, and this is the choice I have made.” But instead, all I hear from MRAs is stats and arguments that dismiss the very real problems with FGM.
We don’t need oppression olympics here. We don’t need to prove that one form of genital mutilation is worse than others. (This is something that bothered me in Hugo’s original post as well.) What we need to do is to focus on our jointly held value of bodily autonomy and respect each other’s efforts to make sure that everyone’s bodily autonomy is respected.
Comrade Svilova, I think it is common for any political movement to find itself under constant demand to address a variety of issues. The difference in this instance is that the two practices stem from the same source, so it seems odd for anyone to argue that a practice is barbaric when commit against one half of the population while completely ignoring that the same practice is done to the other half of the population far more frequently. One would think that a person concerned with stopping that practice would try to stop all instances of it, not just the instances against a particular group.
I think both sides are guilty of using statistics for support rather than illumination. However, I do not think this is an instance of ‘Oppression Olympics’. I think it is an excellent display of what happens when two groups concerned about similar issues but from different perspectives butt heads. The animosity between those groups tends to make it more about scoring points than addressing the problem.
Is this a joke? Toysoldier, the fallacy in your argument is that circumcision and FGM are not analogous, they are not two sides of the same coin. FGM is a barbaric practice that is practiced only in certain parts of the world. Circumcision is a questionable medical procedure that is mostly objected to on grounds of bodily autonomy- though, of course, it is much more widespread than FGM and both legalized and encouraged in the West. Now, which issue is “more important”? I find Oppression Olympics distasteful so I’m not going to argue one way or another. But they totally different issues and not really comparable. Thus a feminist who focuses on FGM is not hypocritical for “neglecting” the circumcision controversy.
I’m mostly with you, Toysoldier, but I do take issue (still) with the idea that if someone is working on X they are obligated to also work on Y.
To return to your youth suicide example, I would see no problem with it if you were trying to address suicide among young men and didn’t have time to broaden out to address suicide among all youth. The only thing that would be problematic, in my opinion, if is you said that you weren’t going to address suicide among female youth because it wasn’t important. Everyone has limited time; no one is obligated to make any issue a priority. We can ask that allies not push for regression on a particular issue (and personally, I see Hugo’s attitude towards male circumcision as regressive) but I don’t think we can ask allies to be active on all issues — even if they are related.
That’s why it bothers me when some MRAs try to prove that FGM isn’t an important issue rather than simply saying “personally, I’m invested in working to end MGM, and I’m not able to also address FGM.” The latter is perfectly reasonable — everyone has limited resources. The former — dismissing the very real problem of X and asking everyone to refocus on Y — is an issue. That’s what I see MRAs doing regarding FGM and what I see Hugo doing regarding MGM. And it really pisses me off to hear anyone dismiss a human rights issue out of hand. We don’t all have to work to end every human rights abuse — that’s impossible. But we don’t need to fight among ourselves about whose issue is the most important.
Comrade Svilova: I don’t spend much time on MRA sites, however, of what little I’ve seen I’ve never seen anyone saying that FGM is not an important issue. I’ll however assume that that’s not a straw-MRA you’ve conjured and I’ll say that I certainly think that FGM is an important issue and kudos to all that fight against that regardless of whether they fight against male circumcision or not.
However, I find the opposite situation much more common: people who decry FGM, but are extremely vary of even calling male circumcision for MGM and in any way relating those two things are a no-no in most feminist spaces. One example of this in this thread is open_sketchbook’s comment and to a lesser degree yours where you said that “male circumcision is not comparable to to FGM”.
Feminists and others who do not spend any time fighting MGM while they fight FGM are _not_ hypocrites. However, people who decry FGM while declaring they’re having their sons circumcised or declaring that an intact penis is gross are hypocrites in my book.
^^^Yeah I’d agree with that.
Open Sketchbook’s comment is disgusting. It is indisputably objectifying. And the idea that it would be tolerated on a feminist board is amazing.
CS:
“Randomizer, I should have been clearer; the issue I have is with MRAs who assert that FGM is a very insignificant problem that doesn’t matter and that doesn’t need our attention because male circumcision is so much worse. ”
That’s a very valid issue you cite there. I haven’t seen any MRAs saying that anywhere, but it sounds like you have. They are idiots tho say something like that. We do however routinely see people saying that about MGM though.
“Is this a joke? Toysoldier, the fallacy in your argument is that circumcision and FGM are not analogous,…”
AVT, assertion is not argumentation, so:
“Thus a feminist who focuses on FGM is not hypocritical for “neglecting†the circumcision controversy.” does not logically follow from anything.
“But they totally different issues and not really comparable.”
How so? Prove your contention. The case can be made; it’s just that I have not ever seen it made without resort to sexist valuing of femlae bodies over male or similar arg
“Circumcision is a questionable medical procedure that is mostly objected to on grounds of bodily autonomy- ”
No. Read the comments aboce about the removal of ireplaceable nerve endings. People are recounting their lived experiences. Are you going to respect that?
People are recounting their lived experiences. Are you going to respect that?
Well, since I’m one of the relatively few men with a rich sexual history on both sides of circumcision — and I’ve been clear I don’t feel my penis has lost anything — I’d like it if some of the MRAs would take what I’m saying seriously instead of pathologizing me. That doesn’t make mine the final word, but it does deserve better than “Oh well, that’s just nutty Hugo’s opinion.” Most of the complaining has come from guys who haven’t done what I’ve done, and who don’t really know about the potential of all of those nerve endings from first hand experience.
Read the comments aboce about the removal of ireplaceable nerve endings.
I understand that, but clearly even among circumcised men there is still a very strong sex drive. By comparison, most FGM procedures entirely remove women’s sexual pleasure- they are virtually analogous to castration. To compare the two case-by-case is moronic. However, as I said, circumcision is legalized in much of the world, whereas that is not true with FGM. I do think that’s a problem. But taken individually, they are nowhere near comparable. Sorry.
To my knowledge it has never been demonstrated that uncircumcised men experience significantly more pleasure than circumcised men. This doesn’t mean that that circumcision is okay- I disagree with Hugo’s thesis though I understand where he’s coming from- but it does mean that it is a very different issue than FGM.
On the other hand, Hugo, the thing you keep overlooking is that it’s not necessarily the biological facts involved, but the principle of the thing. Circumcision does offer some health benefits but, in wealthier nations at least, nothing of critical consequence. This makes it completely different from, say, immunization shots. Not to mention circumcision visibly alters the body. Bodily autonomy is generally accepted as a very important right and even if there is no dire consequences to its violation I would think it would mean more to you than it seems to. Someone else mentioned this in another one of your threads, but it’s worth repeating- I can say with 100% certainty that the rise in women’s bodily autonomy (abortion rights, etc.) is directly connected to the anti-circumcision movement.
I do have to admit, I’ve rarely met a prominent feminist who has absolutely no problem with infant circumcision, even if they don’t consider it a hot-button issue. Because it really does involve the same principles as abortion, albeit not on the same level.
With all that said, I’m with you in your exasperation with some of the hysterical MRAs that frame this as the greatest violation of human rights in the history of history.
Hugo, I think people would respond better to your comments if you did not respond to their experiences with quips like “Dude, get over yourself.” You cannot ask someone to treat your opinion with respect while disrespecting their opinion. Likewise, what you personally experienced is not proof that no other men lost feeling or sensation as a result of getting circumcised, nor is it proof that your experience is the common experience. Doing the latter probably will not going to garner much agreement. As for the complaining men not really knowing about the potential of all those nerve endings from first-hand experience, that is the case because they had those nerve endings severed without their consent when they were children, is it not? So they would not have had the chance to experience that potential, would they? Is it not then rather tactless to throw that in their faces?
AVT, circumcision has nothing to do with a person’s sex drive. The impulse to have sex is not necessarily related to the ability to sexually perform or take pleasure from the act. As for male and female circumcision being analogous, perhaps we have a different understanding of the meaning of analogous. My understanding is that two things share some similarity, such as a computer and a brain. In this instance, both groups’ genitals are cut in a way designed to alter their’ appearance or performance. The severity of it varies depending the culture, but the two acts are indeed analogous. Regarding the pleasure difference between uncircumcised and circumcised men, to my knowledge no one has conducted such a study. As for the “benefits,” outside of rare medical issues there are none. Every “benefit” can be easily replicated by having good hygiene and wearing a condom. Even the supposed “protection” from HIV is still only effective with the use of a condom. So there is literally no valid reason to circumcise a child outside of the rare medical necessity.
“Tactless” is an understatement, ToySoldier. I applaud the restraint you show in your response here.
Well, Toysoldier, I agree that the benefits are minimal. In case you haven’t deduced this, I consider myself against circumcision. But your insistence that FGM and circumcision are comparable and that feminists such as Mr. Schwyzer are hypocrites is loony.
In this instance, both groups’ genitals are cut in a way designed to alter their’ appearance or performance.
There’s your distinction. FGM is designed to alter performance (ie, destroy sexual pleasure). Circumcision is done out of (perceived) health benefits and tradition. Men clearly retain pleasure after the operation- many MRAs claim it is a pale shadow of that which uncircumcised men experience. Yet I remain unconvinced, because a. I have never noticed nor heard of any difference in behavior regarding uncircumcised men, and b. Hugo is the only person I have ever known who has a large amount of sexual experience “on both sides of the fence”. He does not feel any difference. I am inclined to give his claim some weight. If you know someone who can make the opposite claim, let me know (seriously).
Essentially, you say that there has never been a study done. With this as the case, forgive me for looking around and concluding that most men have sexual desire to spare. I know I certainly do. As soon as you can cite a study that supports your viewpoint, I will reevaluate my position.
Actually, AVT, though different rationalizations are used now, circumcision in America and England originated from a similar desire to inhibit and control sexual behavior as that which presumably prompts FGM.
We have secondary evidence that there may be such behavior. AIDs rates in the highly-circumcised US are much higher than most developed nations where circumcision is rare; one plausible explanation for this is that circumcised men (with less sensitive penises) are more resistant to using condoms (which reduce sensation even more) than non-circumcised men. It may also be the ‘quest for novelty’ phenomenon that Hugo bemoans may be more frequent among circumcised men due to their finding sex less inherently satisfying than non-circumcised men do.
Moreover, the question of “behavior” does not, of course, address the question of differences in experience or the bedrock issues of violation and consent.
“I understand that, but clearly even among circumcised men there is still a very strong sex drive. By comparison, most FGM procedures entirely remove women’s sexual pleasure- they are virtually analogous to castration.”
Sex drive is tied to genetics and hormone levels (I’m not sure which hormones exactly – it’s not a “Duh, it’s testosterone!” thing either, even if it has influence).
Castration reduces testosterone level (by removing testes) – it doesn’t remove the penis. This would be penectomy. Castration is also referred in a more medical term as gonadectomy (neutral term including ovaries).
Someone who is castrated could definitely feel sexual pleasure. While I never orgasmed ever, I do feel sexual pleasure – while being chemically castrated since 3 years ago. I have 0 testosterone (cis women have more), so it’s not solely that which controls sex drive or sexual pleasure.
“To my knowledge it has never been demonstrated that uncircumcised men experience significantly more pleasure than circumcised men.”
It’s been demonstrated that the cornification of the glans following it’s being uncovered can lead to chafing, a need for lubricant for vaginal penetration, and a need for lubricant for simple masturbation (lubricant is pretty much always needed for anal penetration, unless you like pain) – which shouldn’t always require this (ie I’ve never even heard of someone needing lube to masturbate – I also don’t know circumcised men).
“There’s your distinction. FGM is designed to alter performance (ie, destroy sexual pleasure). Circumcision is done out of (perceived) health benefits and tradition.”
Circumcision for non-Jews came to be because of anti-masturbation attitudes from the Victorian era. Trying to justify its continuation via purported ‘health benefits’ or ‘tradition’ is just trying to *continue* it because the original grounds (preventing masturbation) are considered less valid. Possibly also because it’s a procedure that costs money, and we live in capitalism after all. Creating needs is what capitalism does, even where none exists.
They had a similar attitude towards female sexual pleasure back then too. If a woman masturbated, she was hysteric or nymphomaniac, and considered mentally incompetent. Men, well they amputated something (foreskin) and made it harder or more painful (less desirable) and thought it was fixed. They didn’t want to do a ‘preventive strike’ against (masturbation in) women in the West (though I’m not sure what argument they had against FGM), like they did with men using neonatal circumcision (and various torture devices meant to make it impossible – think a iron-maiden version of a jock strap or something).
Regarding differences in behavior between circumcised and uncircumcised men, see Laumann, E O, C M Masi, and E W Zuckerman. “Circumcision in the United States. Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice.” JAMA 277.13 (April 2, 1997): 1052-7.
This is from the abstract (emphasis added; obviously, this study was done before the studies concerning HIV transmission):
Hugo:
“I’d like it if some of the MRAs would take what I’m saying seriously instead of pathologizing me. That doesn’t make mine the final word, but it does deserve better than “Oh well, that’s just nutty Hugo’s opinion.â€
I have not heard one person “pathologizing” you over any part of your lived experience. I have heard them criticizing you for falsely generalizing your experience to their lives and privileging it over their experiences. You are not all men and your experiences are not representative of anyone’s but your life. Or is it calling you “nutty”? – don’t you think “pathologizing” is a rather melodramatic mischaracterizaton of “nutty”?
And for the record, this goes also to their criticisms of your airy dismissals of their dating agonies with cheap invocations of “male privelege.” Use of jargon and terms of art and other items of dogma is generally less than responsive in this kind of discussion.
“Most of the complaining has come from guys who haven’t done what I’ve done,”
Because we had it done to us, without our consent and often without our parents’ informed consent, and these are exactly the experiences you try to erase by applying your quite idiosyncratic experience to our situations. Really, in what way could you have much of anything personal to contribute to this particular dscussion, frankly? It’s not my place to advise you, but this is one place where a little scholarly objectivity and removal of the subject from the observation would help the discussion a lot.
“.. and who don’t really know about the potential of all of those nerve endings from first hand experience.”
Inorant straight men….. see, this is how you make these gross methodological errors. Believe me, I have plenty – scores more than a straight man in his one body ever can or will have – of up-close and very personal experiences of the differences in sensory levels between cut and uncut, flesh to flesh, breath to breath, you can tell precisely what the other person is feeling from nanosecond to nanosecond, anyone other than a full-on narcissist can, so I do in fact know the difenrecne you are referring to.
AVT:
“FGM is designed to alter performance (ie, destroy sexual pleasure). Circumcision is done out of (perceived) health benefits and tradition. ”
You’re just wrong on the historical facts. It’s that simple. Circumcison in America and the majority of the Islamic world is not done out of tradition, it is done to co-opt someone else’s tradition. Circumcison was traditional in Arabia and ancient Egypt and in Israel. Elsewhere it has been adopted by converts. and in America the religious justification is even flimsier, as the very frst comment points out. In fact circumcsion has been strongly discouraged in most Christian churches worldwide for very good theological reasons. That’s the first point you are missing.
The second point you are missing is the role that circumcsion boosters played in the extremely well-documented hysteria over male masturbation in America in the 19th century. They touted circumcision specifically as a preventive measure. See Casey’s comment above for a blog post on the subject.
“He does not feel any difference.”
well presumably he does. Presumbaly he did it to improve sex, and that is entirely reaosnabl, gioven that his circumcsion remedied what was in essence a birth defect. hardly easily generalizable to thepiopulation at large.
“I am inclined to give his claim some weight.”
it is entitled to a specific weight, and that weight can eb bedetermines based on how far his experience can be generralized. Not far, as it turns out.
“If you know someone who can make the opposite claim, let me know (seriously).”
If you are in fact serious in this question, you might do the homework of hitting some of the anti-circ csites. there are testimonials there.
“Essentially, you say that there has never been a study done. With this as the case, forgive me for looking around and concluding that most men have sexual desire to spare. I know I certainly do.”
I know you really don’t intend this as macho posturing, I really do, but you have to know that it sure sounds like it. But anyway, it is quite beside the point, isn’t it? Because the question is not desire, but satisfaction and intensity. How is less sexual satisfaction better than more? Why would it be satisfatory to have it dimished?
Jim:
I think you meant my comment here.
Richard Jeffrey Neumann (quoting the Laumann, Masi, Zuckerman study):
Interestingly, that study found that circumcised men were more likely to contract STDs, but not to a statistically significant degree.
As to the greater likelihood of intact men suffering from sexual dysfunction, Circumcision Information and Resource Pages notes the study did not take into account some important confounding factors for this particular outcome:
Holy shit. I’ll try to read all the responses tomorrow. I’m open to changing my viewpoints in regards to the sexual impact of circumcision. Maybe I was wrong.
However, the immutable fact does remain that FGM entirely removes sexual satisfaction. Circumcision doesn’t. To say the two are on the same level is idiotic and frankly offensive. That’s all I’m saying. It doesn’t make circumcision necessarily okay, and again, I’ll check out some of the links I have been provided tomorrow.
I know you really don’t intend this as macho posturing, I really do, but you have to know that it sure sounds like it.
You know what? I don’t really give a damn, but nice attempt at derailment. I see horny teenage boys looking to stick their penis anywhere they possibly can, and then I look at some of the more hardcore MRAs who make it sound as though all men have been rendered eunuchs. Again, I will poke around some anti-circ sites today, but to someone outside the debate some of you come off as nutters.
I think it’s important to distinguish between a couple of things here:
1. Routine infant male circumcision, including the Jewish practice of brit milah, is not the same thing as the circumcision of an adult male, either for compelling medical reasons or personal choice. Those differences might be enumerated along both social/cultural axes and purely physical ones, given the physiological difference that the foreskin of an infant has not yet separated from the penis, while the foreskin of an adult man has.
2. There is a difference between recognizing that different men circumcised as adults might have different results in terms of sexual sensitivity–i.e., there are men circumcised as adults who report results precisely the opposite of Hugo’s, who truly do mourn the loss of the sensitivity they previously had–and recognizing that the practice of routine infant male circumcision and that attitudes surrounding it constitute a profound cultural indifference, if not outright hostility, to the potential for pleasure inherent in the nerve endings, etc. that are removed when the male foreskin is removed.
3. It is also important to recognize that, even for men who are angry about the removal of their foreskins as infants, or who mourn what they have lost as adults, circumcision in and of itself does, by definition, have to lead to a less than satisfactory sex life. I don’t mean to deny the experiences of men for whom this is true; just to say that the experiences of those men do not prove a universal physiological truth about the consequences of male circumcision.
4. Whatever the physical/physiological similarities between male circumcision and FGM may be, it is also a fact that–perhaps with the exception of 19th century US, where both male circumcision and clitoridectomies were performed to “cure” or prevent masturbation–in almost every case I know of, male circumcision is performed for the social and cultural purpose of “elevating” boys into the status of manhood, while FGM is performed to make sure girls are, in their bodies, permanently ensconced in the second class status of womanhood.
I make this last point fully aware that, if there is one thing I have learned about trying to discuss FGM and male circumcision–either separately or together–it is dangerous to make any kind of universal generalization. Nonetheless, I think my point #4 generally holds up to scrutiny.
Also, AVT, I don’t know if you followed the link from my comments above, but given what you’re written you might be interested in this post on the history of circumcision in the US on my blog.
“You know what? I don’t really give a damn, but nice attempt at derailment. ”
Derailment? Haha.
Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: THAT’S NOT FUNNY!!!
“However, the immutable fact does remain that FGM entirely removes sexual satisfaction. ”
That is not what all women who have had it done to them report. But unfortuntely for what they have to say, they are not high-minded white feminists who know all the right jargon and theory, so what do they know about anything? Whether sexual satisfaction remains or not is besdie the point entirely; there is no excuse for the procedure as it is done for any reason. None.
And if that is your idea of an “immutable fact” I can see I had better not try to get you into an argument on evolution and creation.
“Again, I will poke around some anti-circ sites today, but to someone outside the debate some of you come off as nutters.”
Oh well that settles it then doesn’t it? First off, you’re quite sloppy with the broad brush there. In fact none of us here is an anti-circ activist. In fact that’s another point – we’re mainstream people, and more and more mainstream people are coming to the same conclusions as we have. Rates of infant circumcision are falling in the US. You might look at some of those “nutters” at the sites run by mothers against circumcision.
And secondly people said exactly the same thing about the suffragettes, so that hardly is all that derogatory.
Ah shit! I just realized that I made a really serious typo in my third point in the comment above and that it seriously misrepresents my own position. It should read:
That’s a good catch. Clearly for some circumcision leads ot better satisfaction.
Jim:
Except that’s not what I meant. I meant just that, since sex is about so much more than nerve endings, reduced sensitivity does not, in and of itself, have to mean that one’s sex life will be unsatisfactory or somehow deficient or whatever.