If we cut of males prepuce at birth, why not the female?

Question

Under American Law, Why is it ok to mutilate the genitals of a male through circumcision but not a female. A man and woman have a son and it's ok to have the prepuce cut of with no objection. Why shouldn't it be both is ok or neither.

I'm not looking for a moral, religous, or health justification. Just a legal one on why one is child abuce and the other is just fine.

Answer 1

The legal difference is one derived from cultural difference.

Male and female circumcision are similiar in their outcomes.
Type 1 and 2 female circumcision are more common than infibulation.
Female circumcision type II is the removal of the prepuce, part of the clitoris and the labia. Because of the function of the male foreskin, male circumcision is comparable to type II female circumcision. [ http://www.mgmbill.org/mgm101.pps ]
See this page about the comparison of male and female circumcision:
http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html



Hygiene and prevention of disease are among the commonest reasons cited for performing male circumcision. This directory contains references that examine the validity of these claims in detail: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/

A lot of the information perpetuated about it preventing diseases is false.
The study that you are less susceptible to aids if you are circumcised is flawed. Here is a discussion of the report and its methodology by "Doctors Opposing Circumcision": http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html .

Have a read through their statement. It is very informative. It shows the methodological flaws and poor conclusion in the report that the WHO has jumped upon. Everything is aptly sourced.

Men may often feel a need to justify their own circumcision by the generation of claims of health benefits.[ http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/ ]
"The medical literature is full of protective claims for various diseases, such as sexually transmitted disease , male and female cancers, and urinary tract infection. All such claims have been disproved."[ http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html ]

"The United States has one of the highest rates of male circumcision and also one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the developed world, suggesting that circumcision is having exactly the opposite effect. Conversely, Finland and Japan have some of the lowest rates of circumcision and also some of the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS."

Condoms have been proven to be an effective means of combating AIDS.



"Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis and decreases the fine-touch pressure sensitivity of glans penis. The most sensitive regions in the uncircumcised penis are those parts ablated by circumcision. When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive." Circumcision removes as much as 75% of sensation [ http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf ].

The foreskin reduces the force required by the penis to enter the vagina. It also increases the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. Here is a study to back this up: http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

Performing circumcision on a child, male or female, can and does result in the deaths of children due to blood loss and/or failure of the immune system.
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=512542
Approximately 230 American males die every year because of circumcision. [ http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/deathsdo.htm , http://www.cirp.org/library/death/ ] This is a meaningless and very sad loss of life.

It can and does result in very significant scaring.
It can and does result in sexual problems later in life.

Circumcised males have a much higher rate of sexual dysfunction and premature ejaculation. [ http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/ ]
Female circumcision generally also results in significant damage.




No medical institution in the world actually recommends either practice.
Let's have a look at medical associations in the developed world. The British Medical Association, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Canadian Paediatric Society, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Australian College of Paediatrics and Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons. Every one of them recommends AGAINST performing the procedure. Their positions on the procedure can be found here: http://www.circumcision.org/position.htm







Now on to your question.
So why is one legal and the other not.
The U.N. has prohibited one and not the other.
Both cause significant damage / significant reduction in sensitivity but only one has been prohibited by law.

The reason for this in "cultural receptiveness". One is culturally acceptable because it has been performed in the United States for some time while the other has not and therefore is not culturally acceptable.

The law can easily prohibit one practice because it is not already an accepted practice.
However, it will not protect boys because male circumcision is an accepted practice. People might be offended.

I think it is very disgraceful that one is allowed to perform an unnecessary practice on an "incompetent" person (the child cannot choose) when that child may not have chose to get the procedure performed had they been able to make their own choice.

The difference in the legality, though, is purely cultural. The AAP says it does not recommend circumcision but it is acceptable to perform circumcision for "cultural reasons". This is the entire reason. Culture. And because of it, children get parts of their body cut off against their will because their parents thought it might be wise. But it is not the parents body. It is the child's.

Answer 2

Looks like a lot of people don't realize that is has only been illegal in this country to cut women since 1998, and then only in 16 states.
http://www.4woman.gov/faq/fgc.htm#11

Also, looks like people don't know what a prepuce is. LOOK it up folks! also look up the difference between infibulatioon and sunna circumcision. Then post an informed response instead of spouting nonsense about hygiene.

http://www.nocirc.org/publish/pamphlet9.html

FYI: WOMEN HAVE PREPUCES AND WOMEN PRODUCE A LOT MORE SMEGMA AND WOMEN GET A LOT MORE INFECTIONS than even the laziest intact man!

In countries where fgm is routine all the same bassackwards reasons are given as justification as are given for infant male genital reduction surgery in the United States.

Answer 3

For a female it it a lot more complicated and there is a very good chance of death. There is really no need to do this to a female. However, in the male it is just skin and as long as it is taken care of properly, no compications. If the skin is left on males can have a lot of bacterial problems and even urinary problems. Common guys how many of you even wash your hands after the bathroom, so are you really going to push the skin down every time and clean around it really well? From experience from a family member, he was not circumcised until he was over 40 and he had to have it done because he kept have bacterial infections, no matter what he did. He wished he was circumcised from birth, because he said it was never an effective piece of equipment.

Answer 4

circumcision became the "trend" in the US after the soldiers in I can't remember exactly WWI or WWII would get sand stuck inside the skin, then frankly they wanted their sons to look like them. Outside of religion there is really no real reason to have this done. There is no solid evidence that it is more benifical to have it done other than STD's are less likely in a person who is circumcised. In all reality though STD's will get you if you practice risky behavior. BTW I don't think the way it looks should be a factor in a decision to snip or not snip.

Answer 5

It's barbaric either way. It's just not considered "life threatening" or "life ruining" to a male because it's the removing of foreskin whereas in the female it involves removing the clitoris and slicing up the labia til it adheres unto itself making it harder to keep hygeine, have pleasurable sex, and even having children can be difficult if not dangerous. The opposite is always said about those pro penis loppers and male circumsision. They claim(not founded btw) that it's cleaner, more pleasurable and makes procreation easier. I don't think there is a legal justification, just our societele justification....sorry.

Answer 6

I have two boys and never doubted that I would circumcise them and I will tell you all why, hopefully the other people who answered will also read this. As a nurse for 7 years I can tell you that I have seen them all. People trust me, even the circumcised ones become difficult to keep clean when you are elderly, let alone the uncircumcised ones. To all the people saying it should be left alone, have you seen them in their "natural" hideous state? They are vile looking things and the things that can grow in the folds and foreskin is just disgusting. Think of your child as an old man having some young person cleaning him because he is incapable and wanting to vomit because of the nastiness related to his uncircumcised penis that YOU insisted he live and deal with forever!

Answer 7

Originally, the circumcision was a religious act. Since our first amendment says that we have the freedom of religion, that made it legal. As far as I know, there is no religion that says it is okay to do that to a female. Yes there are a few African tribes that do it, but from what I understand, it is used to control the wife so that she finds no pleasure from sex and therefore won't look for it with another man.

Answer 8

It is not beneficial to mutilate the female genitalia but to some degree it benefits the male. The foreskin allows the penis to grow more so in the world can handle a penis up to 15 inches long. The only way a female can handle that is if she gets a hysterectomy

Answer 9

Circumsision on a male is just the removal of unneccesary skin. Hygeine purposes made me get it done on both of my sons and in 72 hrs they were healed. My husband was never circumcised and he insisted on it for our sons. I'm a nurse and uncircumcised males are more prone to candida, std's and to be a carrier for gardnerella because of the folds of skin that moisture and bacteria can grow, esp. in the summer. However, to remove a girls clitoris and part of her labia makes sex totally unpleasurable and difficult to become aroused. Also the overgrowth of scar tissue from the mutilation can alot of times make penetration impossible. So, they are totally different.

Answer 10

Im not exactly sure but i heard that the males extra skin can hold diseases and if you dont clean it that good it will spread something and for most of the women who get circumsized its ends up something being wrong with tehm and sometimes it leaves just a black hole between thier legs. Hope i helped you a little!!!!!!