Research Paper: Male and Female Circumcision in the United States

Male and Female Circumcision in the United States

John Trammell

California State University, San Bernardino

     Why is infant circumcision socially acceptable for males, but considered mutilation for females in the United States?  Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin of the penis or the partial/full removal of the clitoral prepuce, the clitoris, and labia of the vagina (Schultheiss, 2010, p. 21, 23).  The foreskin aids in sexual pleasure, guard the glands from external harm, and provides natural lubricity that eases friction during intercourse (Gollaher, 2000, p. 111).  The clitoral prepuce protects the clitoris from external harm, the clitoris aids in sexual pleasure, and the labia protects the vaginal opening from external harm as well as keeps the internals moist (p. 111).  The removal of these tissues would cause both men and women to experience a decrease in sexual pleasure.  Women can become susceptible to disease and experience pain during intercourse due to the lack of containment of body fluids in the vagina.  Men will experience scarring of tissue, insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection, curvature of the erect penis, and experience problems achieving erections and orgasm (p. 182).  The glans of the penis will also desensitize due to cracking caused by dryness and thickening of the gland membrane (p. 112).

     Circumcision started as cultural and religious practices in Africa, Asia, and Europe in ancient times.  Male circumcision was heavily performed in African tribes/communities, in the Jewish faith, and in the Muslim faith.  They were viewed as a rite of passage into manhood.  Female circumcision was only performed in African tribes/communities.  It is used as a cultural identity of girls and a passage into adulthood (Schultheiss, 2010, p. 23).  As Jewish and Muslim immigrants arrived into the United States in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, male circumcision practices were still performed.  Medical complications began arising with immigrants who were intact (not circumcised) due to very poor living conditions compared to the immigrants who were circumcised.  The middle and upper classes began viewing an intact penis as a symbol of filth and dirtiness.  Parents feared their sons would gain an image of being dirty, and experience the same health complications that the low classes were experiencing.  Doctors began suggesting the easiest way to protect their sons was not by medicine or good hygiene, but by removal of the foreskin right after birth.  At the same time, masturbation was viewed as a nasty and dirty habit.  Circumcision was promised to spare parents the ordeal of someday having to deal with masturbation when their son got older (Gollaher, 2000, p. 107-108).  Doctors who performed circumcisions were viewed as doctors who cared deeply for the health of children, and gained higher social status.  Doctors all over began to perform the procedure in order to gain popularity.  However, as time progressed, in order to keep the popularity of circumcision high, doctors claimed circumcision would help fight against a handful of different diseases, causing it to become a norm even though medical studies lacked evidence showing the benefits of circumcision.  Even though there was insufficient evidence detailing the health benefits of circumcision, the belief was passed down from generation to generation.  As of 2007, between 76-92% of infant boys are circumcised (Schultheiss, 2010, p. 21), and a circumcised penis is the acceptable appearance in the U.S.  medical books, biological textbooks, sex toys, porn, artistic nude photographs, etc.

     In the past few decades, however, a stand has been made.  Doctors who once fully believed in infant circumcision have changed positions, and now say there are little health benefits associated with the procedure.  Soap and water would keep the intact penis clean, and antibiotics for diseases like urinary tract infections are a better solution than foreskin removal.  Non-profit organizations consisting of doctors and the general public have formed in order to provide educational materials outlining the truth about circumcision.  They also fight to protect the integrity of the boys.  The boy should have the legal right to choose to permanently remove any healthy tissue from their body.  Removal of the foreskin without the boy’s consent is viewed as unethical by many.

     Female circumcision is viewed entirely differently in the United States.  Because female circumcision involves the removal of several different vaginal tissues, and in some cases narrowing the vaginal orifice, the procedure is known more as female genital mutilation (FGM) or genital cutting (p. 23).  The procedures performed on African women are viewed as more painful, and have an extremely higher risk of serious complications.   In the mid 1990’s, the United Nations declared FGM a crime against basic human rights.  Soon after that ruling, in 1996, the United States made FGM illegal.  In 1998, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated that it opposes all forms of FGM, recommends its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out FGM, and recommends its members decline to perform any medically unnecessary procedure that alters the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents (Gollaher, 2000, p. 200).  Consequently, FGM is solely performed as a cultural practice.  While male circumcision has for the most part been performed for the same reasons, the AAP decided that male circumcision is at the parents’ discretion, letting them decide whether their cultural preferences include removing their son’s foreskin (p. 200).  

     Activists are using the 1996 United States law banning FGM in the fight to gain protection against genital cutting of boys.  They believe the FGM law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the basis that FGM goes against equal protection of the law by discrimination of gender. 

References

Gollaher, D. L. (2000). Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery.

     New York, New York: Basic Books: Perseus Book Groups.

Schultheiss, C. E. (2010). The Ethics of Non-Therapeutic Neonatal Male Circumcision.

     Penn Bioethics Journal, 6(2), 21-24.