touche pas à son zizi
The other day a friend asked if we were going to have our infant circumcised. The issue has briefly crossed my mind throughout my pregnancy, but I hadn't yet spent a great deal of time reflecting on it. I responded that we probably would not, as it seemed a horrible introduction to the world, and just another unnecessary medical intervention to worry about. Jean-Baptiste shot back a vehement "Absolument pas." A lengthy conversation ensued around genital hygiene, STD's, baby's pain memory, and differences between French and U.S. penile care. I was even treated to a demonstration with a sweet potato. Color me enlightened.
Spurred on by the debate, I did a bit of research and came across the organization Intact America. Their web site is highly edifying for anyone curious to learn more about the procedure, the risks, health myths behind its continued practice in the U.S. I encourage anyone to watch the 20 minute video at the bottom of the welcome page, although the faint of heart or hormonal might want to skip the portion where they show an actual circumcision. It's gruesome and painful to watch a newborn suffering in such a way.
They compare the practice of circumcision to female genital mutilation, and this point I found most striking. The purpose of FGM is primarily to deprive women of sexual pleasure. It is a cultural practice - not religious, and certainly not medical. Most humanitarian-minded individuals recognize that FGM is an inhumane, dangerous practice that should be eradicated. There is no shortage of media coverage on the abhorrent act, and the physical and psychological trauma suffered by its victims. Yet circumcision, which also offers no proven health benefits, is still largely accepted in Western culture as a "choice" that parents make for the bettered aesthetic or hygiene of their boy.
A brief online subject search bears good news, however. Activists like Mothers Against Circumcision, and medical associations are becoming more vocal in their denouncement of this very profitable practice. Over the past decade, people have begun rising up in ever-increasing numbers, and not just in obscure hippy circles; FOX "news" even covered the controversy, written by none other than Wendy McElroy of ifeminist.net!
It's interesting that the distinction between FGM and circumcision is framed in a diminishment of sexual pleasure context. No, circumcision isn't purposefully performed to destroy a male's capacity to experience sexual pleasure... but do we know that it doesn't? How certain can we be that no psychological trauma is experienced by the patient, leading to conflicting emotions surrounding the sexual act, or trust issues, or feeling stripped of something that wasn't someone else's to remove? These are all sentiments described by women whose parents subjected them to FGM, and while most of them were of an age to remember the event clearly, physical memory, even in an infant, is not negligible and shouldn't be discounted.
Spurred on by the debate, I did a bit of research and came across the organization Intact America. Their web site is highly edifying for anyone curious to learn more about the procedure, the risks, health myths behind its continued practice in the U.S. I encourage anyone to watch the 20 minute video at the bottom of the welcome page, although the faint of heart or hormonal might want to skip the portion where they show an actual circumcision. It's gruesome and painful to watch a newborn suffering in such a way.
They compare the practice of circumcision to female genital mutilation, and this point I found most striking. The purpose of FGM is primarily to deprive women of sexual pleasure. It is a cultural practice - not religious, and certainly not medical. Most humanitarian-minded individuals recognize that FGM is an inhumane, dangerous practice that should be eradicated. There is no shortage of media coverage on the abhorrent act, and the physical and psychological trauma suffered by its victims. Yet circumcision, which also offers no proven health benefits, is still largely accepted in Western culture as a "choice" that parents make for the bettered aesthetic or hygiene of their boy.
A brief online subject search bears good news, however. Activists like Mothers Against Circumcision, and medical associations are becoming more vocal in their denouncement of this very profitable practice. Over the past decade, people have begun rising up in ever-increasing numbers, and not just in obscure hippy circles; FOX "news" even covered the controversy, written by none other than Wendy McElroy of ifeminist.net!
It's interesting that the distinction between FGM and circumcision is framed in a diminishment of sexual pleasure context. No, circumcision isn't purposefully performed to destroy a male's capacity to experience sexual pleasure... but do we know that it doesn't? How certain can we be that no psychological trauma is experienced by the patient, leading to conflicting emotions surrounding the sexual act, or trust issues, or feeling stripped of something that wasn't someone else's to remove? These are all sentiments described by women whose parents subjected them to FGM, and while most of them were of an age to remember the event clearly, physical memory, even in an infant, is not negligible and shouldn't be discounted.
Comments