Monday, September 21, 2009

History of Female Circumcision in the United States


The prepuce organ ("foreskin" or "clitoral hood") is a natural, normal, vital, protective, healing and sexual organ on all mammals. It is an analogous and homologous organ in all girls and boys, women and men. The prepuce contains more nerve endings (currently thought to be 70,000+) than any other part of the human body. There is no body part that is as sensitive and discriminatory as the prepuce organ. It produces its own antibodies, and has its own sphincters to protect the glans ('head') of the clitoris/penis. The prepuce has its own mucus membranes, produces its own natural lubrication, and has its own gliding mechanisms and ridged band. It performs functions similar to those that the eyelid does in protecting the eye, the fingernail in protecting the finger, and yet has unique sexual responsibilities that no other body part can take the place of.

The prepuce is present in both baby girls and baby boys at birth and is securely and tightly fastened to the glans of the clitoris/penis. It stays closely adhered throughout childhood and sometimes into the teenage years. The prepuce serves important health and sexual functions and purposes in both men and women as they grow into adulthood.

The amputation of the prepuce by those attempting to control men's and women's sexuality has a similar history in the United States and around the world. The loss of the prepuce has a similar impact on men and women. Surgical amputation of the prepuce has always been a 'solution' in search of a problem that does not exist. Hopefully soon the Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) of minor children and infants will reach the same legal termination as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the United States.

ALL human beings, male and female alike, have the same basic human right to genital autonomy.





As late as the early 1980s in the United States, some avenues of popular media were promoting female circumcision as a good thing - cosmetic genital surgery that would enhance a woman's desirability and sexuality. Many of the same myths we hear in the beginning of the 21st century about male circumcision were commonly assumed to be true for female circumcision in the 20th century.

Two such articles appeared in Playgirl in 1973 and 1975:

Kellison, Cathrine. "Circumcision for Women." Playgirl 1.5 (October, 1973). 76, 124-125.

"$100 Surgery for a Million-Dollar Sex Life." Playgirl 2.12 (May, 1975). 52-55.

The Federal law went into effect in March, 1997, in the United States making any non-medically necessary cutting upon the genitals of a minor girl, for any reason, religious or otherwise, and to any degree, a federal crime. Read the U.S. FGM Law here.


Additional resources (books, websites, articles) at: Are You Fully Informed?



Labels: , , , , , , Posted by JK

21 comments:

  1. That is my favourite photo. It is long past time to take away the excuse that infant males are somehow different and therefore don't deserve protection from this violent and painful behavior.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Oy do you have an est. weeks gestation for the "which do you cut" pic?

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4864126&id=734366456
    ReplyDelete
  3. I am not 100% certain of the gestational age of each of these babies, but they are likely in the 1st trimester, around Week 10. You can see that differentiation has already started to occur (which begins after Week 7), yet the homologous and analogous nature of the gonads is still very apparent.
    ReplyDelete
  4. hiya these are 11 weeks .. pics are used on this site http://www.baby2see.com/gender/external_genitals.html ... :)
    ReplyDelete
  5. Jackie NickersonJun 29, 2011 10:29 AM
    To the WOMEN who say, 'It's my choice to circumcise my son,' just keep in mind that when you were born YOUR parents had the CHOICE to circumcise you because female circumcision was still legal. My guess is that you're happy they didn't, right?
    ReplyDelete
  6. Isn't male circumcision just removal of the foreskin?
    What's the detrimental factor there?
    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Anonymous - the foreskin is a very important part of the penis. Removing it leaves the man with no mechanical lubrication, and the majority of nerves he's left with are pain receptors instead of fine-touch receptors and stretch receptors. It makes sex more difficult and less pleasurable.

    Check this out: http://lifeasareader.blogspot.com/2011/06/sexual-dysfunction-and-mgm-circumcision.html
    as well as this: http://lifeasareader.blogspot.com/2011/06/most-informative-discussion-of-mgm.html
    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous, removal= ripping, (the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis and just be ripped away before the foreskin is crushed and cut off), crushing, cutting, pain, loss of sensation, loss of protective factors, violation of basic human rights to security of person. It's unnecessary surgery on a tiny helpless baby. I highly suggest viewing a video and you'll see.
    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anonymous: I strongly recommend spending an hour or so reading the articles and stories here at Peaceful Parenting that pertain to circumcision, and the functions of the foreskin. You'll find the answers to your question. You're already here; make the most of it. Become informed. The more you learn about circumcision, the worse it gets.
    ReplyDelete
  10. The foreskin also absorbs a woman's fluids during sex allowing a man to bond more intimately with his partner. Without a forskin a mans response to sex is like an on off switch, vs an acceleration with peaks and valleys as it is intended to be.
    ReplyDelete
  11. "Isn't male circumcision just removal of the foreskin?
    What's the detrimental factor there?"

    The foreskin is a substantial piece of flesh with blood vessels, and 20,000 nerve endings. Cutting off a piece of anybody's genitals is always detrimental.

    Not to mention that a circumcised man must use lube for the rest of his life for both masturbation and sex with his partner. A circumcised man is also less sensitive, which means that he has to thrust harder to feel anything; this may cause pain and/or injury to his partner.

    Not to mention that the forced removal of normal, healthy flesh from a healthy, non-consenting individual is a violation of basic human rights.
    ReplyDelete
  12. I never thought of it before, but even the word "foreskin" gives the incorrect impression that it is "extra" skin. Like how a book has a "foreword." It's just an extra part that it's OK to skip.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Anyone who asks what's wrong with circumcision should have to watch at least one of these videos:

    http://www.drmomma.org/2011/01/neonatal-circumcision-video-for.html

    http://www.drmomma.org/2009/08/plastibell-infant-circumcision.html
    ReplyDelete
  14. @Amy - you have a forehead, but no one suggests removing that. ;)
    ReplyDelete
  15. The foreskin of an infant is fused to the head of the penis like your thumbnail is fused to your thumb. Ever bend your nail back? OUCH! Now let's do that to a penis, the most sensitive part of the male body, and on an INFANT none-the-less (who in most cases is only days old)...and then cut it off. Oh, don't forget the lovely clamps they use. *shudder* common sense people.

    And let's not forget the bleeding open wound they're left with that gets covered in feces and urine. Awesome.

    Aaaaaaand the number of infants who DIE from having this procedure done. Infections, blood loss, etc. And all those botched circumcisions that leave them scarred and having issues for the rest of their lives. ya there's no detrimental factor here!

    And all this is done without the consent of the person who's foreskin is being removed. Its their body, and something is being permanently removed. I think each person has the right to decide whether or not part of their body is removed, or whether they keep it...especially when there is nothing wrong with it. K I'm done :)
    ReplyDelete
  16. @Amy, I know what you mean. I've gotten into arguments where I've been given the "but it's just extra skin" line.
    ReplyDelete
  17. i have to admit that I had remained impartial on this issue even though I understood how some parents might feel this way. I suppose because my only experience has been with circumcised men, it seemed more "normal" to me. I even found it strange when a friend of mine did not circumcise her own son, but I did not comment or ask her about it- just assumed it was a religious decision. This particular article has really helped me to understand the seriousness of the issue. Thank you for opening my eyes, and I can honestly say that now I regret circumcising my own sons. I had done no research prior to having my children, and just assumed it was what you were supposed to do.

    Here in CA there was supposed to be a MGM prop, on the ballot, but it was removed due to pressure from religious communities. It will probably be some time before that gets passed since were are in a country so consumed with our rights to do what we want. Hopefully by the time my children have children, it will not be an option anymore.
    ReplyDelete
  18. To answer the question that is at the top of the page, "Which do you cut?":

    NEITHER!!
    ReplyDelete
  19. Did anyone watch the the video called "It's a good thing!" after the end of the original video? It talks about how circ'd women are just as orgasmic as non circ'd women. It doesn't however, mention how a circ benefits a woman. Did I miss something? Does anyone have any more info about this "study." ?
    ReplyDelete
  20. I always felt that the cutting of the genitals of any gender is abuse. It shouldn't even be an option! Additionally Doctors who lie to parents perpetuating these myths should loose their license.

    According to the International Child Abuse Network, physical child abuse is any physical injury to a child that is not accidental.

    Injury is defined as both "any physical damage to the body" and can generally include "harm"

    Pain is defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage.

    These definitions taken together prove that Circumcision is defined as child abuse. There is no way around it.
    ReplyDelete
  21. We really need to reconsider how "intelligent" humans really are. First, humans have an addiction to substances that harm their bodies like drugs, sweets, alcohol, and other junk food. If a snickers bar were to be left on a plate for several days, it would not rot because the bacteria refuses to eat it because it provides them no nutrients. Then we invented bodily piercings. It doesn't matter whether it's earrings, tongue rings, genital rings, or nose rings, if you take some time to ponder about it, it seems really barbaric. Now we have genital mutilation. There is really no point in doing this. It does not lower or increase the risk of HIV transmission as most people will say, and both male and female genital mutilation is them same.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails