Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Published Letters: 289 Editor's Choice: 20
I can't help but wonder how many people who argue in favor of male circumcision are actually uncircumcised men.
So far, I haven't yet seen a single man with a foreskin arguing in favor of circumcision. In fact, all of the proponents of circumcision seem to be either women, or circumcised men.
It is arguable that many of those men may be making the pro-circumcision argument in order to allay their own fears that they may have forever lost something which they would have valued, had they been allowed to keep it.
I'm not arguing that circumcision does not reduce HIV transmission. Although frankly scientists and doctors have made enough errors in the past to make me think twice before allowing someone to chop off my foreskin, or that of any child, on the basis of a study. But in any case, the aforementioned women and circumcised men are unable to weigh both sides of the issue. They can point to hypothetical reductions in the rate of HIV transmission, but they cannot speak to the negative side of the circumcision equation. There is still some debate over the range of benefits which the foreskin provides, but certainly circumcision often results in reduced sensation and sexual pleasure, as well as lessened protection of the glans.
And frankly, we're born with it, which seems to indicate that the foreskin serves a useful function. It seems entirely possible that the foreskin may provide benefits which we're not yet aware of, in addition to those that we already know. Certainly the history of medicine shows that in every past case in which the surgical removal of a body part was popularly practiced, the custom was eventually found to be at best unnecessary, and often actually damaging. Even the appendix, which is admittedly useless, is normally not removed until it has shown itself likely to cause problems for the patient.
As it stands, it seems to me that practicing wide-scale surgical removal of substantial amounts of sensitive tissue from male sexual organs is an extreme reaction to an issue that can be addressed by other means. As someone else here pointed out, complete removal of the penis would reduce the chance of transmission of HIV to zero (well, not really, but it would certainly reduce it quite a bit). Yet no one is seriously suggesting instituting a general program of penis removal.
So it interests me that those supporting circumcision seem to be only those with nothing to lose - so to speak.
Lauren Beukes wrote:
If we had a vaccine this good we'd roll it out today
That may be, but it presents a false equivalency. A vaccine takes a moment, involves comparatively little pain, and normally has no side-effects. Circumcision lasts a lifetime, and obviously includes complete loss of sensation in the excised tissue, as well as some inevitable loss of function.
The two are simply not comparable.
I can't help but wonder if the women who argue in favor of circumcision would be quite so cavalier if female circumcision were found to convey any medical benefit? Sometimes it seems that women who argue in favor of circumcision (and men who've already undergone the procedure as infants) consider it about as serious as clipping a hangnail.
To be blunt, if you've never had (or don't remember ever having) a foreskin, you don't know what it feels like and therefore cannot understand the negative consequences of what you're advocating.
It strikes me that this position is not unlike men advocating for a complete ban on abortion. It's easy to take an extreme stand when you've got nothing to lose.
Once again I can't help but notice that those who advocate circumcision are invariably either women, or men who were circumcised as infants.
Not a single man with a foreskin is advocating infant circumcision.
Does that matter? Does it mean anything? Well, would it mean anything if another social or medical practice was advocated exclusively by those who could never actually know the consequences of what they were proposing?
I support a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Why? One reason is that as a man, I will never have to face that decision myself...so I can never know the full impact of making that choice. I think that argument has equal validity when applied to circumcision. It's easy to advocate the removal of the tip of someone else's sexual organ when you yourself have nothing to lose.
"It's just a piece of skin." I've heard that any number of times...from pro-circumcision women, and from men who were circumcised as infants. In other words, people who manifestly have no idea what they're talking about. And yet they're curiously passionate on the subject.
If you've never had a foreskin, or don't remember ever having one, don't try to tell those of us who do how unimportant it is, okay?
I feel faintly ridiculous to be talking about this; believe me, I don't spend much time thinking about circumcision in my daily life. But I wish that pro-circumcision people would try to imagine what it would be like if there was a large group of people, themselves having nothing themselves to lose, advocating the removal of sensitive tissue that they had. Men advocating preventative mastectomies for all female infants, for example. That would sure cut down on breast cancer, wouldn't it?
Although I expect that Bush & Co. are working to kill the resolution, I suspect that Cheney - and perhaps Bush too - wouldn't mind TOO much if it passed. It's non-binding, after all, and it gives them another chance to prove just how irrelevant Congress is.
And how powerful Bush-Cheney are. It's a win-win, for them.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
