"Cut circumcision out of the American culture"
By Lara Loewenstein
DAILY BRUIN COLUMNIST
lloewenstein@media.ucla.edu
The
united States has one of the highest rates of male circumcision
in the world, and is the only country that practices infant
circumcision for non-religious purposes even though the medical
benefits are considered controversial.
Since there is no medical benefit to male circumcision it is,
blatantly, a form of genital mutilation (just as female
circumcision or cutting is) and should be outlawed.
Currently, female genital cutting is against federal law. The
government has also taken the initiative to educate immigrants
from countries where this practice occurs; administer outreach
programs to affected communities in the United States, and
requires that all directors of international financial
institutions oppose loans to countries that practice female
genital cutting. It is estimated that 130 million women have
undergone female circumcision, and it affects another 2 million
annually.
There is no reason for the United States to take such a strong
stance on female circumcision and the opposite stance on an
analogous technique practiced on men.
However, the situation is changing. A bill was proposed to the
California legislature on February 28 of this year and if passed
will make male circumcision illegal within the state of
California.
People downplay the similarities between male and female
circumcision. Just as male circumcision is a part of both Muslim
and Jewish religious beliefs, female (as well as male)
circumcision is an integral part of the religious and cultural
beliefs of certain tribes in Africa.
And while many claim that female circumcision is more
physiologically damaging, this depends on the type of
circumcision. Some forms of male circumcision are actually more
detrimental than certain methods of female circumcision (one
involves slitting the urinary tube from the tip to the scrotum,
which creates an opening that looks like a vagina).
It would be hypocritical of the United States to take a stance on
these atrocities until it rectifies its own practices of genital
mutilation.
Some people, notably many doctors, have taken a stance against
male circumcision.
The American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement in 1971
declaring "there are no valid medical indications for
circumcision in the neonatal period." They released a
similar statement in 1999, and the rate of U.S. male circumcision
has been in decline since.
In fact, there is not a single national or international medical
association that recommends routine male circumcision.
There is even an organization, Doctors Opposing Circumcision,
consisting of physicians from around the world, which alleges
that routine neonatal male circumcision is painful, unnecessary
and a violation of human rights.
They claim it violates the first tenet of medical practice (do no
harm) and all seven principles of the American Medical
Association's code of ethics. They plan to stop secular
circumcision by refusing to perform it (non-secular circumcision
is not usually performed by doctors). I think, this time, I will
trust my doctor.
Other countries have high rates of male circumcision. For
example, in South Korea over 90 percent of high-school aged boys
are circumcised. However, there is an important difference
between South Korea and the United States – a survey of
South Korean doctors showed that many still believed it was a
medically beneficial procedure.
In the past, medical experts in the United States have claimed
many medical justifications for male circumcision, including a
lower risk of urinary tract infections; infections under the
foreskin, sexually transmitted infections, persistent tight
foreskin, and penile, prostate and cervical cancers.
However, there is no evidence that circumcision reduces the rate
of cervical cancer in women or prostate cancer in men. And while
circumcision can reduce the risk of penile cancer, so can a
regular shower (my detailed questioning of uncircumcised males
makes me confident that keeping the intact penis clean isn't that
difficult of a task).
Cancer of the penis is also extremely rare, as are infections
under the foreskin and persistent tight foreskin, which have all
been given as medical bases for preventative circumcision.
Besides, secular circumcision was never intended for hygienic
purposes in the first place. During the latter part of the 19th
century, when male circumcision began in England, it was
performed to cure various diseases of the nervous system (not
related to the penis) and to prevent chronic masturbation, which
was thought to lead to diseases such as insanity, blindness and
epilepsy.
Only after the turn of the century, when it was discovered that
masturbation caused none of these things, did the foreskin take
the blame for the various diseases listed above.
The only valid reason left for performing male circumcision, if
it's not required by your religion, is for cosmetic purposes. If
we began performing routine breast implants on teenage girls,
there would be an absolute uproar. And you could use the same
argument – aside from a few mess-ups, it doesn't cause any
harm.
So it's all about physical appearance.
And while I'll be the first to admit that body image plays a
large role in our society, when it comes to sex, as one girl put
it, "I've never really noticed." Many did not even know
how to tell the difference. I delightedly enlightened quite a few
with the aid of a Google image search.
Those who had taken a notice to the physical aspects of their
snake-like friends didn't express any strong preference for one
or the other. The most helpful response I got from the ladies was
one girl that enthusiastically told me that, "uncircumcised
penises are much more fun to play with."
But the point remains that the United States has no right to
accuse some African tribes of violating human rights, when we
ourselves are guilty of these charges.
We cannot begin to fight genital mutilation in other parts of the
world until we stop the practice on our own soil. Routine male
circumcision is a violation of human rights and should, without a
doubt, be made strictly illegal.
If you want to get your penis
reconstructed (yes, this is possible), e-mail Lara at lloewenstein@media.ucla.edu.