Letter to DN Editor in Regards to Pro-Routine Infant Circumcision Article

Letter published on March 15th, 2011

Dear Editor,

In the March 7th, 2011 issue of the Daily Nebraskan, Nate Shapiro expressed his opinion on a bill being proposed in San Francisco which would ban male genital mutilation of minors, most commonly occurring as routine circumcision of male infants. Shapiro believes that this bill would take away the parents’ right to choose what is best for their children. Considering himself fortunate to have been “liberated from his foreskin” thereby joining the “illustrious ranks” of “edited males”, Shapiro apparently believes that circumcision is no big deal. He compares a parent’s decision to genitally mutilate their child to their decision to have them see the dentist and take baths, and describes the procedure as “a tiny cut of some unnecessary skin”. He states that “circumcision has been around for thousands of years”, and then asks “so could it really be that bad?” For Shapiro, male genital mutilation is an important religious practice, and he states that the “cosmetic reasons are undeniable”, adding that “you can't put a price on not looking like the family dog.” Yet he concedes that “like any surgical procedure, there are indeed risks. Unfortunately, sometimes these things get botched. And yes, it's probably painful.”

It can be assessed from my summary above that Shapiro is aware of the potential harm involved in routine circumcision. However, he chooses to write his article in a very dismissive and flippant manner, which is insulting to individuals who may resent the genital mutilation done to them without their own consent. What strikes me most about Shapiro’s article is his apparent lack of knowledge about the male circumcision procedure and genital mutilation practices in general. He repeatedly attempts to downplay the adverse effects of male circumcision, and deny that it is a form of mutilation. He states in his seventh paragraph that male circumcision cannot be reasonably compared to female genital mutilation (which has been made illegal in many areas) because it is not as severe. The error in this statement stems from Shapiro’s apparent belief that female genital mutilation occurs only in one form, infibulation, which is in fact the most extreme of 4 different forms. One of the most common forms of female genital mutilation which is performed in several regions (most commonly in Africa and the Arabian peninsula), and was in fact relatively common in the US during the late 19th and early 20th century, is analogous to male circumcision. This procedure, known as type 1a female genital mutilation, involves the removal of the clitoral hood or female prepuce. Perhaps Shapiro is an advocate of parents’ choice on some forms of female genital mutilation as well.

Male genital mutilation, just like female genital mutilation, is a violation of person’s human rights. Mutilating your child should not be considered a parental prerogative, regardless of one’s religious beliefs. If a child grows up, reaches the age of majority, and decides he wants to take part in the ritual of circumcision, let him give consent to the procedure. There is no evidence that indicates the necessity of circumcision; it is a pointless, elective procedure that affects a person for their entire life. A great deal of evidence suggests that circumcision negatively effects male sexual enjoyment, and there is plenty of documentation of adverse effects, from post-operative infection to severe hemorrhage, disfigurement and even death. In addition, medical science is continuing to learn more and more about the function of the male foreskin and its vital importance in sexual and overall urogenital health. The male foreskin has been demonstrated to protect the glans from desensitization and keratinization, help in control of ejaculation, make sex more pleasurable for the man’s partner, and prevent conditions such as meatal stenosis; nor do all people prefer the aesthetics of a surgically altered penis. Despite what Shapiro may think, all forms of genital mutilation (regardless of severity) are barbaric acts that deserve to be outlawed. This bill should be applauded by everyone who supports a person’s right to decide what is done to their own body.

Sincerely,

Brian Ellis