More on CircumcisionMike Rappaport

Wow! Some of the comments on my post concerning Andrew Sullivan’s authoritarian views on male circumcision came as quite a surprise.  The argument seems to be that because female circumcision is outrageous abuse the same must be true of male circumcision.  Amazing!

So, let me elaborate on the argument.  Female circumcision does great harm to the ability of females to enjoy sex and have orgasms.  It is done for a variety of reasons, but its interference with the ability of women to enjoy life is enormous and therefore cannot be justified when done to a child who cannot consent.  (Moreover, it is not done in infancy normally, but at an older age, when the girl should be allowed at least some input into decisions concerning her.)

Male circumcision, which is done shortly after birth, does not have a dramatic effect on the male’s life.  It has aesthetic effects, which some people like and some do not.  It also appears to reduce the chance of contracting some diseases, perhaps only marginally.  And some people claim that it may increase male sexual enjoyment, although again that is quite hard to determine or measure. 

Thus, male circumcision is largely one of those things that is not clearly for or against the interests of the child.  Because it needs to be done in infancy, it is entirely appropriate for the parents to make that decision for the child.

Thus, it is simply wrong to compare female and male circumcision. Prohibiting male circumcision represents an authoritarian act that cannot be justified on the ground of protecting the child.