Sex and circumcision

2017

Surgically modifying the genitals of children—female, male, and intersex—has drawn increased scrutiny in recent years. In Western societies, it is illegal to modify the healthy genitals of female children in any way or to any extent in the absence of a strict medical indication. By contrast, modifying the healthy genitals of male children and intersex children is currently permitted. In this journal in 2015, Stephen R. Munzer discussed a controversial German court case from 2012 (and its aftermath) that called into question the legal status of nontherapeutic male circumcision (NTC), particularly as it is carried out in infancy or early childhood. Whether NTC is legal before an age of consent depends partly upon abstract principles relating to the best interpretation of the relevant laws, and partly upon empirical and conceptual questions concerning the degree to which, and ways in which, such circumcision can reasonably be understood as a harm. In this article, we explore some of these latter questions in light of Professor Munzer's analysis, paying special attention to the subjective, personal, and individually and culturally variable dimensions of judgments about benefit versus harm. We also highlight some of the inconsistencies in the current legal treatment of male versus female forms of nontherapeutic childhood genital alteration, and suggest that problematically gendered assumptions about the sexual body may play a role in bringing about and sustaining such inconsistencies.

2013

Is the non-therapeutic circumcision of infant males morally permissible? The most recent major developments in this long-simmering debate were (a) the 2012 release of a policy statement and technical report on circumcision by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and (b) the decision of a German court that ritual circumcision is an unconstitutional form of bodily injury. In this editorial I address the AAP's claims as well as evaluate religious motivations more specifically. I suggest that the AAP's "health benefits" arguments are weak, and that religious circumcision is in tension with post-Enlightenment ethical and legal norms--the root of much of the current controversy. I conclude by asking how this tension might begin to be resolved.

The Israel Medical Association journal : IMAJ, 2013

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible... None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes i n this issue of IMAJ Naimer [1] presents the case of an apparently healthy newborn infant who underwent ritual circumcision that was complicated by excessive bleeding which led to the infant being taken to the operating room for exploration and suturing of the bleeding site. The next day the head of the hospital’s plastic surgery department explained to the parents that there was harm done to the infant’s penis, necessitatin...

British Journal of General Practice, 2010

Journal of Medical Ethics, 2013

Circumcision of a male child was recently ruled illegal by a court in Germany on the grounds that it violates the child's rights to bodily integrity and self-determination. This paper begins by challenging the applicability of these rights to the circumcision debate. It argues that, rather than a sweeping appeal to rights, a moral analysis of the practice of circumcision will require a careful examination of the interests of the child. I consider three of these interests in some detail. The first is the interest in avoiding a moderate decrease in expected future sexual pleasure. I argue that even if such a decrease were to occur, it is not wholly unreasonable to think that this might actually be a good thing for the child. Second, I consider the interest in selfdetermination. I argue that this interest is not as strong as it might appear because the adult's circumcision decision is subject to a variety of biases and a significant lack of information. Finally, I consider the child's interest in avoiding the future costs of adult circumcision. I argue that this interest becomes much stronger in the religious case because the child is quite likely to choose to become circumcised as an adult. The likelihood of the child choosing circumcision in the religious case also reduces the extent to which infant circumcision violates his interest in self-determination. I conclude that male infant circumcision falls within the prerogative of parental decision-making in the secular case and even more clearly so in the religious case. Finally, I distinguish male circumcision from female genital cutting in several important respects and argue that we can coherently hold that male circumcision is permissible without also endorsing all forms of female genital cutting.

Circumcision of a male child was recently ruled illegal by a court in Germany on the grounds that it violates the child's rights to bodily integrity and self-determination. This paper begins by challenging the applicability of these rights to the circumcision debate. It argues that, rather than a sweeping appeal to rights, a moral analysis of the practice of circumcision will require a careful examination of the interests of the child. I consider three of these interests in some detail. The first is the interest in avoiding a moderate decrease in expected future sexual pleasure. I argue that even if such a decrease were to occur, it is not wholly unreasonable to think that this might actually be a good thing for child. Second, I consider the interest in self-determination. I argue that this interest is not as strong as it might appear because the adult's circumcision decision is subject to a variety of biases and a significant lack of information. Finally, I consider the child's interest in avoiding the future costs of adult circumcision. I argue that this interest becomes much stronger in the religious case because the child is quite likely to choose to become circumcised as an adult. The likelihood of the child choosing circumcision in the religious case also reduces the extent to which infant circumcision violates his interest in self-determination. I conclude that male infant circumcision falls within the prerogative of parental decision-making in the secular case and even more clearly so in the religious case. Finally, I distinguish male circumcision from female genital cutting in several important respects and argue that we can coherently hold that male circumcision is permissible without also endorsing all forms of female genital cutting.

Mystification continues to surround circumcision generally and the Jewish practice in particular. As an acolyte of William of Occam my instincts are iconoclastic and prosaic and here I set out how the Jewish practice of circumcision can be placed within an overall paradigm not just easily but elegantly. This paper is not intended as the last word on the matter but rather to stimulate discussion in the hope that contributors will add to such little actual knowledge as I have, for the general benefit.

Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 2016

Open Journal of Urology, 2015

Introduction: Circumcision (from Latin "circumcidere" meaning to cut around) is one of the most ancient and common surgical procedures worldwide. Every male who undergoes this procedure has to experience severe pain and vulnerable to serious complications including, but not limited to, infection, hemorrhage, accidental injury, ethical concerns, as well as death. Methods: A retrospective review of the factual, therapeutic, and rational aspects of circumcision from its believed conception to the present. Conclusion: Though the origins of this procedure are still sketchy, it is an age-old belief that, dating to the early civilizations, circumcision could be synonymous as a penance in context to humanity's sexual awakening.

Voice of the Publisher, 2019

The issue of circumcision has been vigorously discussed throughout human history. Discussions about its origin, history, purpose, and religious and social meanings have been ongoing since the first human civilizations, occurring within primitive tribes, slave-based societies, fortified cities, slave kingdoms, and empires (e.g., the Roman Empire). The topic has been taken up across feudal and modern kingdoms, and within modern capitalist and socialist societies. For example, the Nazis stand out for having used circumcision in their propaganda against Jews, and as an identifier to segregate Jews from others during their extermination. However, despite such prolonged and vigorous discussion, no consensus has been reached on the issue. Many well-based explanations for specific aspects of circumcision have been advanced (e.g., its origin, history, purpose, and religious and social meanings), yet each has contradicted the others. The aim of this paper is to determine the most plausible explanations for circumcision, within the context of various forms of genital manipulations that have been conducted across human history. It is difficult to cover all aspects of this topic in a relatively brief paper-indeed, it would also be difficult to cover the entire story in a voluminous book. In addition to the evidence available from other sources, special attention is paid to the passages from the Torah, the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and the Koran.