Opinion

Forum: Obama calls for end to female genital mutilation in Africa while US has highest rates of male circumcision

Lauren Sardi Lauren Sardi Photo: Quinnipiac University Photo: Quinnipiac University Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Forum: Obama calls for end to female genital mutilation in Africa while US has highest rates of male circumcision 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

During President Obama’s recent visit to Africa, he urged Kenyans to reconsider their treatment of females as “second-class citizens,” who are routinely subjected to violence, sexual assault and forced marriages while being prohibited from obtaining an education or owning property. What caught my attention, however, is Obama’s calling for an end to female genital mutilation, in which he stated, “These traditions may date back centuries. They have no place in the 21st century.”

My thoughts exactly. Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting, involves any number of procedures performed on a female’s genitals, ranging from a ritual nick to infibulation, the most well-known and horrific form of FGM. What most people don’t know, however, is that infibulation, which includes the complete removal of external female genitalia and a suturing of the vaginal opening, occurs in less than 10 percent of all documented cases of FGM, according to the World Health Organization. By far, more common forms of FGM involve a procedure in which only the female foreskin is removed.

Does this sound familiar? It should, because it’s the most common surgical procedure performed in the United States without anesthesia, without informed consent, and without any valid medical reason — except that it’s routinely performed on baby boys shortly after birth. Most people in the United States would cringe at the thought of anyone comparing any type of FGM to male circumcision. But the reality is that both procedures share much in common.

A valid argument against FGM is that it is a painful procedure performed on girls without their consent, without attention to pain management, and without any short- or long-term benefits. Complications can include infection, severe blood loss, sexual dysfunction and death. But if you ask women who perform FGM or mothers who allow the procedure to be done on their own daughters, you’ll hear a different story: that the procedure enhances sexual performance, is cleaner and more hygienic, and will allow a girl to “fit in” with her peers.

Again, does this sound familiar? Male circumcision includes the same complications along with the same culturally mediated reasons that parents often give to support their decision to circumcise. As someone who studies parental decision making processes surrounding this procedure, I am often taken aback to hear that parents would subject their infant son to an excruciatingly painful, permanent procedure only so that he will “look like” his fathers/brothers/peers, or that a circumcised penis is supposedly easier to keep clean (it’s not), or that it will prevent infections or disease.

A plethora of research has demonstrated that none of these reasons outweigh the risks of male circumcision. We know that babies do feel pain and that any type of anesthesia does not completely block the pain of having the most erogenous tissue of the penis crushed and cut away. We know that the majority of the world’s men are not circumcised, and that only a few generations before us, most men in the U.S. did have their foreskins. We know that we have some of the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS, despite the fact that the majority of sexually-active men in the US are, in fact, circumcised.

What Americans don’t seem to know much about is natural mammalian anatomy, which is often why we erroneously believe that it’s more difficult to clean an intact penis. But at birth, the foreskin of both males and females is fused to the head of the penis and clitoris, respectively. Over time, separation of the foreskin occurs naturally. Thus, since mammalian foreskin is fused, there is no need to retract or “clean under” anything. In fact, forced retraction of the foreskin is the most likely cause of “requiring” circumcision later on in life. We also don’t seem to know that removing foreskin alters and even diminishes sexual experience for both partners—also potentially increasing the likelihood of erectile dysfunction later in life — and that thousands of men are upset, angry, and traumatized by the fact that an important and highly functional part of their body was taken from them without their consent. Why do we still hang on to our tradition of male circumcision?

Before we point the finger at other countries, it’s a good idea to take a look at our own traditions first. We might be surprised by what we learn about ourselves.

Lauren M. Sardi, Ph.D., is assistant professor of sociology at Quinnipiac University in Hamden. Her current research focuses on the medicalization and human rights implications of male circumcision in the United States. She has recently published an article on parental decision-making processes surrounding the procedure.

Editor’s note: The second paragraph of this column has been corrected from an earlier version.