An Unnecessary Cut
May 2008 - Kelly Garland

Circumcision, once considered a normal procedure for male infants at birth and the subject of international outcry in regard to female children, has now shifted from a once private topic and practice to a social debate.

While cultural, political and religious rhetoric often frames such discussion, the physical effects of circumcision on the adult sexual body can, at the very least, inhibit adult sexual response and, at worst, can be a life changing experience that forever alters self-esteem and self-acceptance.

Male circumcision was once regarded as a standard medical procedure or rite of passage for religious groups; however, there’s now a social examination of the merits and ethics of such a procedure. By definition, male circumcision is the surgical removal of the skin that normally covers and protects the head or glans of the penis. In the past, this skin (or foreskin) was commonly referred to as “redundant tissue” within the medical community, therefore rendering it as an optional part of the male anatomy.

Recent research and study into the effects of male circumcision have proven that not only does the removal of the foreskin inhibit the ability of the penis to elongate to its fullest extent, but that the foreskin is part-in-parcel of the male sexual response system. Past issues with non-circumcision often cited hygiene as the primary reason for circumcision, yet we know today that good hygiene is no more difficult to maintain with the foreskin intact.

Female circumcision demands a deeper level of analysis in regard to power, control and the profound life-long effects of this experience. In fact, using the term circumcision to describe this procedure is questionable, as it’s often referred to as female genital mutilation or female genital cutting. While female genital mutilation occurs throughout the world for cultural and religious reasons, its practice is most heavily concentrated in Africa and has recently been documented in countries to which people have immigrated. In fact, it’s also occurring in Canada as well as in the U.S.

This type of mutilation can take numerous forms but the most common consists of the removal or splitting of the clitoral hood, with or without excision of the clitoris. Its most extreme form is the removal of the clitoris, clitoral hood and inner labia minora, with the labia majora being sewn up leaving a small hole for waste to be eliminated and
childbirth. This mutilation often leads to infection, toxic shock and the need to cut open the labia majora for childbirth. There’s no authentic medical reason for female mutilation; it’s always been rooted in patriarchal cultures in which female sexuality is controlled and contained.

Obviously, male and female circumcisions still occur today and are sanctified by society and some cultures for different reasons. Yet, it begs ethical and moral questions. Is it ethical or moral to remove a part of the body without the informed consent of the person who will be permanently modified and affected throughout life? Is it ethical or moral to modify the human sexual response system for religious or cultural reasons only?

I encourage thought and consideration about the justifications for such practices. The only manner in which change is brought about is through cultural and societal awareness. And it’s definitely time for change.