Male Circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation - Research Paper Example

Introduction Many communities around the world have been practicing female genital mutilation and male circumcision for long periods. These practices involve removal of certain parts of men and women genitalia, and they have elicited mixed reactions in different parts of the world. Currently, people are more aware of their fundamental human rights, which include the right to enjoy happiness and freedom of worship. These rights are included in the constitutions of different democratic countries and United States is not an exception. In this respect, the country is legally mandated to ensure that all citizens enjoy their rights and happiness, without prejudice or favor because of social, racial, or religious orientation. Male circumcision and female genital mutilation are issues that have raised intense debate on whether they should be treated as religious or social custom practices. However, in view of the historical practices of both male circumcision and female genital mutilation, the practice should be regarded as social but not as religious issue. In addition, United States should not allow these practices among young boys and girls. Researchers have established that female genital mutilation and male circumcision affect the anatomy of the external reproductive organs of both sexes, which ultimately leads to alteration of sensation during sexual intercourse (Toubia, 1993, p31). These findings have been applied for a long time in different societies to achieve different social objectives, including suppression of sexual feelings. According to Dally(1991, p37), female genital mutilation has been in existence for over 4000 years ago and between 80 to 100 million women have undergone the rite in different parts of the world. There are different reasons that proponents of female genital mutilation use to justify the practice. These include the argument that it is a tradition that is prescribed by the religion (Porter, et al 1986, p 652). Moreover Toubia (1993, p62), argues that female genital mutilation is one of the many practices surrounded by myths and beliefs. Unfortunately, these myths and beliefs have been used for so long to justify the perpetuation of the practice in the society. Toubia (1993, p68) notes that in societies where female genital mutilation is prevalent, uncircumcised women do not get marriage partners because such women are perceived to contain several shortcomings. In most societies that practice the vice, uncircumcised women are considered unfaithful to their husbands once they get married. Historically, female genital mutilation entails the removal of clitoris and in some cultures; the entire external female genital region is removed. The removal of this sensitive organ is intended to suppress the sexual feelings of the women and that is why it is believed that circumcised women do not have the urge to have sexual relations with other men (Hosken, 1993, p13). It is believed that female genital mutilation ensures that women remain faithful to their husbands. Others claims used to justify female genital mutilation in different societies include the belief that clitoris is a harmful organ to man, and it could can make him sick, impotent or even die if he is exposed to it. In other societies, it is believed that women who are not circumcised give birth to children suffering from hydrocephalus if the child’s head comes into contact with the clitoris during delivery (Hosken, 1993, p25). Other myths used to justify the removal of the clitoris in some societies include beliefs that clitoris emits unpleasant odors and cutting them off ensures that women emit pleasant and aromatic smell. Some communities that practice the tradition argue that circumcising women ensures that they mature into confident and able individuals, capable of undertaking the ascribed roles in the family and in the society (Toubia, 1993, p58). Hosken (1993, p82) notes that female genital mutilation is prevalent in societies that encourage early marriages. In such communities, young girls are usually forcefully married to old men and in such situations, it is feared that the old man might not be able to satisfy the young girls sexually. Therefore, female genital mutilation is used in such communities to ensure that the sexual urges of the young women are suppressed to match that of their older spouses. In this regard, the practice of genital mutilation is usually founded on many beliefs that are entrenched in different social settings. However, it is obvious that female genital mutilation is a practice intended to curtail sexual enjoyment and freedom of women. Proponents of female genital mutilation also justify the practice from a religious perspective. In Islamic countries that practice female genital mutilation, the vice is justified by a controversial verse attributed to Prophet Mohammed that is interpreted to mean that He supported circumcision that entail removal of the clitoris from the female genitalia. However, other major religious texts including the Quran, the Old Testament and the New Testament do not make any reference pertaining to female genital mutilation (Toubia, 1993, p93). In this regard, only the Sunnah, which is considered by Muslims to contain the words and actions of the Prophet Mohammed, makes a remote comment about female genital mutilation. According to the Sunnah, Prophet Mohammed on observing the practice of female genital mutilation warns against the excessive removal of female genital organs, arguing that the organs are appropriate for the woman and more desirable to the husband (Hosken, 1993, p104). These sayings have been interpreted different in Islamic countries to imply that the prophet supports genital mutilation, on condition that it does not result to extensive damage of the female genitalia. From the Islamic teachings, it is apparent that even before the times of Prophet Mohammed, the practice was still widely entrenched in the Islamic world. In this respect, it should be treated as a social issue rather than a religious one. The harmful effects of female genital mutilation are well documented by medical practitioners and sociologists. Though there are different types of genital mutilation, they all involve removal of clitoris from the female genitalia (Darby, 2005, p53). The immediate effect is the reduction of sexual sensation, which definitely denies circumcised women the pleasure from sexual intimacy. Other severe forms of female genital mutilation causes excessive scaring on the genitals and this condition leads to various reproductive health problems. These problems include difficulties in passing menstrual period and giving birth through the vaginal canal due to obstruction (Darby, 2005, p69). According to Toubia (1993, p109), children born to women who have undergone female genital mutilation are more likely to die at birth than those of uncircumcised women. Moreover, female genital mutilation increases the possibility of hemorrhage during birth. From the historical perspective of female genital mutilation, it is apparent that the vice was initially practiced as a social custom and then adapted into religion. Female genital mutilation is not a deeply entrenched practice in the United States compared to male circumcision (Goldman, 1997, p39). Male circumcision entails the surgical removal of the foreskin on the penis and just like female genital mutilation, the practice has both religious and social foundations. In Jewish traditional religious beliefs, male circumcision is a representation of God’s covenant with man. In the modern American society, male circumcision is a cultural practice that is mainly undertaken for health and hygienic importance (Hosken, 1993 p83). Studies indicate that the foreskin is a sexually responsive tissue and removing it reduces sensation during sexual intercourse. However, Goldman(1997, p139) noted that though foreskin is sensitive to vaginal stimulation, removing it does not reduce sensitivity of the penis during sexual intercourse because its removal exposes larger surface area of the glans penis during sexual intercourse. However, Porter et al(1986, p753) noted significant reduction of sexual satisfaction among the circumcised men, a condition attributed to the complications arising from the minor operation. Moreover, some women partners affirm that they experience vaginal dryness during sexual intercourse with circumcised men, but no significant difference in sexual satisfaction, vaginal orgasm or sexual desire (Porter et al, 1986, p758). Research indicates that circumcising men minimizes the risks of contracting sexually transmitted infections including HIV/AIDS (Darby, 2005, p77).However, this finding is debatable because in South Africa, which has a very high HIV prevalence rate in Africa, majority of the adult ,male population is circumcised. In United States, female genital mutilation and male circumcision should be treated as social customs but not as a religious practice. In addition, the government should not allow these practices to be undertaken on young girls and boys. There are several reasons why female genital mutilation and male circumcision should be considered as social issues. To begin with, considering the practices as social issue gives the government moral authority to intervene in order to protect the children from negative effects of circumcision without violating the fundamental rights that grants individuals the freedom of worship. It is apparent that circumcision poses long- term and adverse health effects especially to the young girls and a result, female genital mutilation is banned in the country and is classified as a form of child abuse. Porter, et al (1986, p725) noted that unlike female genital mutilation, male circumcision does not have many long-term effects besides the pain that an infant suffers during the minor operation. However, the practice of circumcising young boys should be banned until such a time that they are mature enough to make sound judgment on whether to be circumcised or not. Subjecting young boys to the painful operation does not only amount to child abuse, but it also denies them the opportunity to make their own independent decisions about sexuality once they become adults. Though circumcising men has proven medical and hygienic benefits, it also has negative sexual implications and therefore young boys should not be forced to undergo the practice by their parents or medical practitioners in America. Some communities in the United States practice female genital mutilation and male circumcision as a form of religious practices. However, undertaking female genital mutilation to a girl below the age of eighteen is illegal in the country, in spite of the constitutional rights that allow the freedom of worship in United States (Darby, 2005, p59). The most striking observation about the American law is the double standards that the government applies in addressing the issue of circumcision among the young children. Though it is illegal for young girls to undergo female genital mutilation, young boys are not protected. Moreover, the extent at which the United States government protects the right of worship is equally debatable in matters related to circumcision. It is apparent that stopping female genital mutilation and male circumcision, is an affront to the constitution of the United States that allows the freedom of worship. However, it is worth noting that the constitution allows the government to protect all the citizens, irrespective of their religion from any form of harm. In this case, it is the moral and constitutional responsibility of the government to protect all citizens from harm including circumcision irrespective of religious affirmation of the practice. From the manner in which the American government treats the issue of circumcision and religion, it is apparent that it does not regard the practice from a religious perspective, but from culture view and long-term effect of the practice on the general wellbeing of the child and the society. However, emphasizing on health benefits of male circumcision undermines the sexual enjoyment that uncircumcised men enjoy and it also exposes the infants to medical problems during operation such as pain, risk of infection, scaring and deformation of the penis. Since female genital mutilation has many adverse effects to the reproductive health of women, the practice is illegal and the same treatment should be accorded to circumcision of young boys. . Conclusion Failure to circumcise young boys does not expose man to mortal danger in future. In this case, it is important for the boys to be allowed to attain minimum age when they can make their own independent decision about circumcision. In context to circumcision and freedom of worship, it is apparent that the American government allows religious rituals to proceed on condition that they do not compromise on the health and safety of individuals. Therefore, it can be argued that the purported freedom of worship in America is subject to special conditions, whereby it becomes illegal if the religion interferes with the rights of young children of enjoying good health, security and protection. References Dally, A. Women Under Knife: A History of Surgery. New York: Castle books, 1991. Darby, R. A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain. First edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Goldman, R. Circumcision, the Hidden Trauma: How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All. New Jersey: Vanguard Publications, 1997. Hosken, F. Hosken Report: Genital and Sexual Mutilation of Women. (Fourth Ed). Lexington: WINN, 1993. Porter, F. et al. “Neonatal Pain Cries: Circumcision on Acoustic Features and Perceived Urgency”. Child Development. 57. (1986). pp 650-769. Toubia, N. Female Genital Mutilation: A Call For Global Action. New York: Women, Inc, 1993. Read More