Male circumcision has been called "rape" and/or "mutilation" before, and many, even amongst intactivists themselves, object, either because they themselves find it inappropriate, or because they're afraid others might, thus pushing people away from the message of intactivism.
But are "rape" and "mutilation" so different from male circumcision, that comparing them is inappropriate, if not insulting?
What is rape?
Rape is the act of forcing another person to perform sex acts against his or her consent. The act may involve the usage of drugs to impair a victim's judgement, or even memory.
Traditionally, rape happens when a man forces a woman to perform sex acts on him. However, rape between two men, two women, and yes, even a woman forcing another man, is also possible.
When are sex acts NOT rape?
When both people are consenting adults, sex between two people is not rape.
Consent is the difference between ecstacy and rape.
When one person is forcing another person to perform sex acts against his/her express wishes, then rape is being committed.
What is mutilation?
The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "mutilation" as thus:
1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (e.g. the child mutilated the book with his scissors)2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ; cripple
When are these things NOT "mutilation?"
When either of these things are performed as a matter of medical necessity, and there is no alternative option, they are not mutilation.
In addition, when these things are performed upon the request of a consenting adult, they are not mutilation.
Medical necessity and/or informed consent is the difference between surgery and mutilation.
What is circumcision?
In males, circumcision is the excision of the fold of flesh that covers the head of the penis. The procedure may or may not involve the use of drugs to kill the pain or impair the judgement of the person in question. Though there are speculative medical pretexts for circumcision, it is usually performed for cultural, traditional or religious, non-medical reasons, on healthy, non-consenting minors ranging between the newborn and pre-pubescent period, sometimes as far as the post-pubescent period. Very few circumcisions take place as a matter of actual medical necessity.
At the crux of the intactivist argument is the principle of consent.
Circumcision can be compared to rape, because it is taking advantage of a minor to forcibly perform a permanent, disfiguring procedure on his sexual organs without his consent.
As in rape, the principle violated is the principle of consent, and the fact that pain killing drugs are used, and/or that the male victim may not be able to recall the event is irrelevant.
When is circumcision NOT like rape?
When it is performed on a fully consenting adult.
As in rape, the principle violated is that of consent.*
Because another, otherwise intelligent person, is forcing circumcision on another, non-consenting person, without his consent, sometimes against his express wishes, circumcision can be comparable to rape.
*Sometimes circumcision may be medically indicated in a minor that is not able to consent. When it has been determined that circumcision is medically indicated, and there are no other methods of treatment, circumcision is not comparable to rape. Reserving surgery as a very last resort is, however, standard medical practice governing all other forms of surgery.
How is circumcision mutilation?
From the definitions the online Merriam-Webster dictionary gives us, it is the first definition,
1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (e.g. the child mutilated the book with his scissors)
that applies to both male and female circumcision, because it is "cutting up" or "altering radically so as to make [them] imperfect."
Circumcision advocates often try to dismiss the notion that male circumcision is "mutilation" using definition 2,
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ; cripple"because the foreskin is not a limb or an essential part of" a person.
If by the 2nd definition male circumcision isn't "mutilation," then female circumcision isn't "mutilation" either.
Some may make the claim that female circumcision destroys a woman's ability to experience orgasm, but research shows this claim to be false. There are varying degrees of female genital cutting, and scientific evidence shows that even women undergoing the most severe form of female genital cutting are still able to experience orgasm. It is demonstrably proven that a clitoris is not necessary for experiencing orgasm and a satisfying sex life. For further reading on this subject, please click here.
When is circumcision NOT mutilation?
When it is performed as a matter of medical necessity, and there is no alternative option, circumcision is not mutilation. (This is actually standard medical practice that governs all other forms of surgery.)
In addition, when it is performed upon the request of a consenting adult, it is not mutilation.
Medical necessity and/or informed consent is the difference between surgery and mutilation.
Consent is at the center of the intactivist argument
Ladies who are interested in getting their labia removed, their clitoris permanently exposed, or any other surgical alterations to their genital organs can find the appropriate surgeon and schedule an appointment.The removal of the clitoral hood and external labia are known as "clitoral unroofing" and "labiaplasty" respectively. They are perfectly legal for the appropriate surgeons to perform at the request of the interested woman.
Forcibly performing any of these acts on a healthy, non-consenting minor constitutes "genital mutilation," and is punishable by law, and there is no exception for "religious beliefs."
The difference is consent.
There is nothing wrong with male circumcision, if, indeed, becoming circumcised is the express wish of the adult male in question.
It is forcibly circumcising a healthy, non-consenting minor which is a problem.
Tattoos are beautiful to some. There is nothing wrong with a tattoo, as long a person is giving his full consent. A person interested in getting a tattoo need only walk into a tattoo parlor and make the proper arrangements, s/he is free to do as she wishes with her own body.
US sailor agrees to have his body tattooed
It is forcibly tattooing a person against his or her wishes which is a problem.
An Auschwitz survivor displays his identification tattoo
Yes, I am against forcibly piercing a minor's ears as well.
Conclusion
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.
The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.
I don't compare circumcision to rape; without consent, or a medical necessity, circumcision IS rape.
I don't compare circumcision to mutilation; without a medical necessity, circumcision IS mutilation.
Is male circumcision "rape?"
Here. You decide.
In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.
Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.
(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")
DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.
~Joseph4GI
Related Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay
Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide
You're forgetting something. If we follow the definition of mutilation, even as consenting adults, it still fits the bill. When we alter ourselves in similar manners, it is still a mutilation. Not that there's anything wrong with that, provided adults are making the decision for themselves.
ReplyDeleteCircumcised Babies Become Forcefully Circumcised Adults
ReplyDeletePeople should think about it.
This is an article that has been needed for sometime.
ReplyDeleteMy foreskin was cut off when I was an infant. I consider this was rape, a surgical assault. Given the choice I would have preferred not to have had to endure this horrific violation.
I think when someone argues that circumcision is not mutilation, you have encountered a lost cause, because at point they are arguing emotionally. Benatar and Benatar a few years ago tried to argue that there were justifiable mutilations, giving the example of cutting off a gangrenous foot. Doesn't really fit the definition, but is an example of the exception. They tried to argue that circumcision was a justified mutilation. What happens is that using the word "mutilation" gets the discussion going down a tangent that is a blind alley.
ReplyDeleteI have found that when people realize that circumcision is mutilation it comes as an epiphany. If you someone unfamiliar to this issue that circumcision is mutilation, you will come across as a fanatic. How could it be a mutilation when it happened to me. Calling it rape or mutilation is off-putting, even though the claims are true.
The best writer and presenters show rather than tell. If you show that circumcision is mutilation without using the word, then you are going to be much more convincing. If you tell someone circumcision is mutilation, the person will not have done the mental gymnastics to get there and will not own the revelation.
"Benatar and Benatar a few years ago tried to argue that there were justifiable mutilations, giving the example of cutting off a gangrenous foot. Doesn't really fit the definition, but is an example of the exception. They tried to argue that circumcision was a justified mutilation. What happens is that using the word "mutilation" gets the discussion going down a tangent that is a blind alley."
DeleteI quite disagree.
The life calling of a circumcision advocate is to "prove" that circumcision is this "gray area," and they can only do so by trying to compare it to other things that actually are a gray area. This is the logical fallacy of the false comparison.
If the circumcision advocate manages to convince that circumcision is as much a "gray area" as other things, such as, for example, amputation of a diseased organ, or "other decisions" parents have to make, then they've succeeded at their job.
Herein lies the dubious premise; that circumcision is in fact like those things the circumcision advocate would like to compare circumcision to.
I've heard similar arguments to Benatar and Benatar; circumcision advocates try to compare circumcision to other surgical amputations that actually are medically indicated.
A hopelessly diseased gangrenous foot is only one comparison, but other comparisons have been made, such as a burst appendix, or diseased gall bladder.
And what about that extra finger or tag tail in some infants?
What about cosmetic procedures in someone who got into a car crash and ended up with a terribly damaged face?
Those may be cases where surgery in non-consenting minors is inevitable.
But here is the dubious premise; that the presence of the foreskin, which is naturally occurring in all males at birth, is indeed akin to a diseased foot, burst appendix, extra finger, damaged face, etc. etc.
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.
The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.
That circumcision is mutilation is no epiphany when you are not willfully ignorant, predisposed to believing otherwise by bias.
Calling it rape or mutilation is off-putting, but I think part of the reason it continues today, is because people lack the courage to call a spade a spade.
I'm afraid I'm not one for beating around the bush and sugar-coating things for people who lack the mental capacity to see things for what they are.
I admit it is a skill that is needed in order to convince masses. Thankfully, there are more tactful, more doting intactivists than I for that task.
Friends, I don't see an honest, objective way to refute or deny the truth of these assertions, as follows... "Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.
ReplyDelete"I don't compare circumcision to rape; without consent, or a medical necessity, circumcision IS rape.
"Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.
"I don't compare circumcision to rape; without consent, or a medical necessity, circumcision IS rape.
"I don't compare circumcision to mutilation; without a medical necessity, circumcision IS mutilation.I don't compare circumcision to mutilation; without a medical necessity, circumcision IS mutilation." ~Brother K
Brother K, I'm not sure if this is how you wanted your post to appear. If you want, submit the post again, and I can delete this one. If it is OK as is, I'll leave this one up.
Delete~Joseph4GI
Circumcision is the most insidious and subtle form of mutilation. Many boys and even men are unaware that a part of their body was amputated whilst they were too young to be consciously register what was happening to them. In addition to the abuse of subjecting their sons to circumcision without consent, how iniquitous and disrespectful of these parents to subsequently omit to inform their sons that they usurped their right to live their life with the whole body that was theirs at birth and why. Such were my late parents. We sadly live in a world full of ignorance, hypocrisy, cynicism and apathy.
ReplyDeleteI question whether anyone is ever really "apathetic" about circumcision.
DeleteIt seems those who would rather circumcision be a "non-issue" doth protest a little too much.
In my experience, how much a person truly cares about an issue is directly proportionate to how much time and effort they spend in trying to convince you they don't.
Which has led me to coin the following quip:
Apprehension always, always betrays apathy.
While people may try to feign an air of apathy, their apprehension betrays their true feelings and thoughts on the issue.
The giant is awakening; people can't hide their heads in their arses any longer.
I fully agree that Benatar and Benatar's analogies and arguments are pure sophistry, but it is the word "mutilation" is what makes us chase them down that rabbit hole, when there is no need to. The maxim "never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." We have empirical evidence and rationality on our side, no need to get into debates over semantics. People trying to eradicate female genital mutilation found that when they referred to it as "mutilation" this interferred with their efforts because it put the people they were trying to have a conversation with on the defensive. When the mainstream media, which no longer uses the word "torture" starts to refer to male circumcision as multilation without quotation marks, this would signify that the battle has been won.
ReplyDeleteIf you really want to get a rise out someone, it is not hard to demonstrate that, as a deliberate act, infant circumcision meets the internationally agreed upon definition of torture. With government money being used to support the practice here in the United States, all of the elements the torture definition are met.
The term 'mutilation' is technically accurate. It is objectively true.I agree with your point, bossy-squirrel, that by using the term 'mutilation' people can base a response on defensiveness. But I'd like to know the history of using the term 'rape' in its conventional usage- was the word avoided to spare defensiveness?
ReplyDeleteWhen the term 'rape' is used in relation to 'circumcision' it is the intention that gets held as important. A doctor or nurse doesn't 'intend' to sexually assault a child. They sincerely carry out a legally 'medical' operation. No assault intended. That's how they continue to perpetuate this violence. They are practicing a cultural -sexual- ritual disguised as medicine- but they'll poke their left eye out before they ever admit to that.
When is rape not a rape? When its enacted on a boy by a doctor and nurse in a hospital or clinic. Then it's...medicine! Or by a mohel- a sacred covenant! For the parent, that is.
Rape is still a sexual assault regardless of whether the aggressor knows its rape or not.
Please correct me if I'm uninformed.