- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
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?
