Category Archives: sexuality

beliefs, freedom of speech, medical, photography, science, sexuality, thoughts

Circumcision

3 Comments

Writing my Thirteen Things post for Flickr the other day set me thinking …

I made the comment that I am glad my parents didn’t have me circumcised. I won’t say that their decision was great foresight: from my observations the rate of male circumcision of my generation in the UK is somewhere around 30-40% (amongst Americans it is more like 80%), and moreover my father was also entire so probably didn’t feel there was any “precedent” to follow. So my parents weren’t exactly bucking a trend (medical or otherwise). But I’m still glad that I’m entire; I like being entire; I’m comfortable with my “male apparatus” and I would never have inflicted circumcision on any son I might have had.

But there is one thing I do not understand about our western culture. Female circumcision, as still practiced in many parts of Africa especially, is considered barbarous, a violation of a woman and abuse. And I have to agree; it is all of these. And yet, male circumcision is considered much more (though not universally) acceptable; even those who are against male circumcision don’t generally have “screaming fits” about it the way they do over female circumcision. It is even being advocated as a way of constraining the spread of HIV, as I’ve blogged before. Why is this? I do not understand how one can be considered barbarous and the other acceptable.

OK, so before anyone screams at me let’s be clear. Male circumcision (at least as we practice it in the western world) is generally performed on the very young, by a surgeon, often with anaesthetic, in a sterile surgical environment; hence immediately post-operative complications are rare, although no-one seems to agree about the long-term effects on sexual function. Even if performed later in life male circumcision is a proper medical procedure. This contrasts with the vast majority of female circumcision in the developing world, where the operation is mostly performed by the medically unskilled, without a sterile environment, seldom any anaesthetic and mostly against the will of the female concerned who often has to be physically restrained. Needless to say post-operative complications appear to be the norm rather than the exception and death is not uncommon. The UN and WHO now use the term Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) when referring to female circumcision, but make no comment on male circumcision

But I still don’t see how it is acceptable for parents to have an infant boy routinely circumcised without any immediate medical necessity – as is still widely practiced in the USA. And I include in that the religious practices of both Judaism and Islam – albeit I can understand how male circumcision may have originally arisen in an ancient, hygienically-challenged, desert community, even if this was based on a false premise.

Having started writing this I found a good couple of paragraphs at the History of Circumcision which sum up my dilemma:

Given the similarities between the male and female genitals, the nature of the surgery and the justifications offered, it is surprising that male and female circumcision enjoy such strikingly different reputations, at least in Anglophone societies: the first, a mild and harmless adjustment which should be tolerated, if not actively promoted; the second, a cruel abomination which must be stopped by law, no matter how culturally significant to its practitioners. If you call circumcision of boys male genital mutilation, you are accused of emotionalism; if you fail to call circumcision of women or girls female genital mutilation you are accused of trivialising the offence. While the United Nations, Amnesty International and other international agencies spend millions on programs to eradicate FGM, they have never uttered a word against circumcision of boys.

It might be thought that the reason for this double standard lies in the greater physical severity of female circumcision, but this is to confuse cause with effect. On the contrary, it is the tolerant or positive attitude towards male circumcision and the rarity of female circumcision in western societies which promote the illusion that the operation is necessarily more sexually disabling, and without benefit to health, when performed on girls or women. It is, of course, also true that the term female circumcision is vague, referring to any one or more of a number of surgical procedures.
… …
But it should be remembered that the most extreme forms of FGM are rare, and that male circumcision in general is far more common on a world scale than female: about 13 million boys, compared with two million girls annually.
… …
Given the respective numbers of victims involved and the fact that some circumcisions are worse than some instances of FGM, there is no justification for perpetuating the gender discrimination which has characterised discussion of these issues.
… …
To compare female and male circumcision is not to trivialize the enormity of the first, as some feminists seem to fear, but to recognise that the physical and moral similarities between the two are very real.

So here we have it. The two “procedures” while different are the same. So why is it OK for males to be circumcised but not females? Even after reading a number of worthy websites on the subject I still do not understand.

PS. Anyone who wishes to delve a little deeper might like to start with:

amusements, current affairs, environment, medical, quotes, science, sexuality, thoughts

Dr Alice Roberts

1 Comment

In the latest issue (January 2008) of BBC Focus magazine (science for the intelligent 10-year-old) there’s a mini-interview with one of the few females on TV who really do make my heart beat faster: Dr Alice Roberts, “clinical anatomist, archaeologist, TV presenter and author”, also a very talented artist and a qualified medic. Those of you in the UK who’ve watched either Time Team (Channel 4), Coast (BBC2) or Don’t Die Young (BBC2) will know Alice Roberts as the slightly off-the-wall girlie with the dyed red hair. The interview includes:

What’s the greatest threat to humanity?
Humanity.

Who would you clone?
I wouldn’t. Sexual reproduction is much more exciting.

What would your epitaph say?
Boadicea, Queen of the Iceni. And I’d be buried in a chariot just to fool future archaeologists.

Seriously Zen Mischief!

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, sexuality, thoughts, topographical

Sex for Sale

2 Comments

Oh dear; oh dear! They just do not understand do they! Harriet Harman, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, has decided to boil the ocean. According to various news items yesterday (including on BBC News) she has said she wants to make it illegal in the UK to buy sex. This seems to be on the grounds that it is (a) abuse of women and (b) it’s been done successfully in Sweden. At the very least Mistress Harman (and it seems safe to assume she speaks for the disreputable control freaks we have for a government) wants a major open debate on the subject.

The very idea of making payment for sex illegal I find totally abhorrent. And no that’s not because I use (or ever have used) prostitutes. It is a purely open-minded and pragmatic approach.

So here is my (first?) contribution to the debate:

  1. Objection the first is that the whole thing will be unworkable. So it will be illegal to pay for sex. Bystander, over at the Magistrates Blog makes a good point: how is it possible to prevent the oldest profession. He observes: “As a lawyer you [Harriet Harman] will be aware that you belong to the world’s second-oldest profession. What chance have you got of outlawing the oldest?”
  2. No-one doubts that abuse happens within the prostitution trade. Equally everyone will agree it shouldn’t happen. But criminalising payment for sex isn’t going to make it go away; it’s going to make it worse: the protagonists will feel that as they’re already the wrong side of the law they have nothing to lose and that will just make the abuse and violence go underground. So everyone is actually worse off.
  3. Similarly with the drugs problem which many prostitutes are feeding, especially at the lower end of the market. If they’re engaging in a criminal activity already then they become even more vulnerable and potential prey for drug dealers. And there will be less funding etc. for those organisations who try to help the girls by providing needle exchange, condoms and sanity.
  4. There is also a major logic problem with the thinking. Apparently the idea is not to make it illegal to sell sex but illegal to buy for sex. What? How can you sell something legally when it is illegal for someone to buy it? Currently it is legal to sell and to buy sex; prostitution in the UK is not of itself illegal. But many activities associated with prostitution (kerb-crawling, soliciting, pimping, etc.) are illegal.
  5. Moreover there are ways round the “payment” restriction. As we know many “hostess clubs” already take large payments for bottles of champagne (or other food or drink) for which one gets the attentions of your chosen handmaiden. Said handmaiden is paid a wage by the club as a member of staff. How are the lawyers going to prevent such scams. John says he didn’t pay Kat for sex, he just bought an expensive bottle of champagne and some sandwiches; the fact that they had sex was because he came onto her ’cos she was gagging for it and so was he. Kat says she received no money from John, she had sex with him ’cos she fancied him and he seemed like a decent bloke. Case dismissed, M’Lud.
  6. In another BBC News article (from February 2007) they look at how the Swedish system – on which Mistress Harman proposes ours should be based – has actually worked. Answer: patchily at best. While it does appear to have reduced abuse and trafficking, it has also reduced the level of support for those prostitutes still working who have drugs habits; and the supply of condoms has also dried up.
  7. A third BBC News item (this one from December 2006) looked at the more liberal approach of the Netherlands, where they openly allow prostitution and protect their working girls. This works. Prostitution is legal (as long as the girls are registered), they can advertise their services, most work from rooms and few need to work the street. Those who do work the streets are looked after in safe zones. As one Dutch interviewee comments: “Prostitution is a reality … and in order to protect those women and men who engage in it, it should be given equal status to other occupations”. Incidentally for even further enlightenment read the readers’ comments to this article.
  8. “Equal status” is an interesting point. What is the human rights position on (the illegality of) prostitution? Is it not a basic human right to be able to sell ones body if one chooses to. And if that means a woman chooses to sell her vagina, mouth or hand in return of cash, or a pig, or loaves of bread, then why should she not be allowed to? I can sell my brain to the company I work for; I don’t get abused because the law says it’s illegal. If prostitution were legal then it would be easier for working girls to turn in those who abuse them, because that is already illegal. At the end of the day all work is prostitution of one form or another!
  9. Finally, something governments always seem to forget. If you make something legal, you can regulate it and tax it. In the case of prostitution this means that the girls would be paying tax and National Insurance, which is ultimately good for them and for the Treasury. It also means that if they’re regulated (as in Holland) then they can be licensed only if they have regular health checks, which should be good for the girls and ultimately save stress on the health service.

As usual it seems to me that the pragmatic Dutch – who incidentally also have the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in the West; a quarter of the UK rate and 10% of the USA’s rate! – have got it right. Legalise prostitution, don’t drive it further underground. Openness and trust does actually work!

beliefs, freedom of speech, medical, nudism, science, sexuality, thoughts

Pornography and Rape

I today came across an year-old post on Greg Mankiw’s Blog where he points to an article by Todd D Kendall of Clemson University. In this Kendall shows that the more easily pornography is available to the male population the lower is the incidence of rape.

It is also worthy of note that many published studies (I need to look then up!) have shown that teenage pregnancy rates are far lower in open, relaxed societies like The Netherlands, and significantly higher in more religiously repressed and restrictive societies like the USA.

I find this interesting as I have always maintained that if we had a healthier understanding and acceptance of desires, sexuality, nudity and our bodies it would have far reaching positive effects on our health and our attitudes. Bring children up to understand their bodies, their sexuality and to accept nudity as something normal and they will be more balanced as individuals; more able to discuss their inner feelings and worries; more at ease discussing their medical problems with their doctor. All of which has to be good, if only in terms of catching serious disease earlier and when it is more easily, and more cheaply, treated.