This week an article was release by Police Oracle discussing the practical limitations of enforcing the FGM act, and that despite the practice of Female Genital Mutilation being prohibited for over 30 years, there has only ever been one conviction.
That particular case drew attention due to the severe outcome for the victim. In situations where the complications are less severe then the cases can often go unnoticed.
An interesting comment in the article was the recognition of the ethical debate regarding Male Circumcision. Whilst there was no mention of traditional practices in Islam, the article did mention religious blood rituals as widely practiced in Judaism.
The article reiterated the fact that severe FGM is more invasive than a typical circumcision, however, pointed out that even pricking, bloodletting or ritual nicks afford girls protection despite being less severe than circumcision.
Brian Earp of Oxford University pointed out that this protection stems from a sexist psychological stance; girls are vulnerable and requiring protection, and boys are strong and can endure pain.
FGM and MGM (circumcision of genitals)
Arguments for FGM are often based on controlling or blunting female sexuality and promoting chastity. Interestingly, identical arguments were made in the West for promoting the circumcision of boys. These arguments have only fallen out of fashion in recent times.
By the 1960s, scholarly arguments for blunting sexual desire using circumcision had fallen out of favour, and instead, advocates of circumcision deny any changes to sexual sensation, contrary to the experiences of thousands of men worldwide and the existence of scholarly articles discussing this.
1900 – Johnathan Hutchinson advises circumcision as way to decrease the pleasure of sex, and hence to discourage sexual immorality. [The Advantages of Circumcision. The Polyclinic ]
1935 – R.W. Cockshut demands that all boys be circumcised in order to desensitize the penis and promote chastity. [Circumcision. British Medical Journal]
1941 – Allan F. Guttmacher promotes mass circumcision as a means of blunting male sexual sensitivity. He also spreads the false claim that a baby’s foreskin must be forcibly retracted and scrubbed daily. [Should the baby be circumcised? Parents Magazine]
1966 – Masters and Johnson claim that there is no difference in sensitivity between penises with and without foreskin. Their work helps propagate the medical dogma that circumcision has no effect on sexuality go practically unquestioned for nearly four decades. [Human Sexual Response, Little Brown & Co]
Male Circumcison is presumed legal - but not enshrined
Male circumcision is “a gendering practice tied to masculinity and the management of male sexuality… [and there are] parallels in the ways in which feminist scholars have argued that female genital cutting (FGC) serves to fix gender in women.”
– Professor Marie Fox and Professor Michael Thomson, as quoted by Rebecca Steinfeld
The oversight of the FGM legislation and its difficulty of enforcement is highlighted in this article. The author makes a great observation that “No situation is completely black and white, particularly something as complex as FGM” – recognising that there is a political, social and practical barrier to tackling this issue.
This resonates with us, as this exact situation can be applied to the ethical issue of male circumcision and raising awareness of the psychological and physical harm. Whilst ‘presumed legal’ and widely practiced for medical reasons and blood rituals, ethical and legal issues of consent, gender equality and medical standards are frequently met with a blind eye.
Watch Brian Earp’s discussion on the ethics of FGM and male circumcision here:
Be the first to comment