By Lara Loewenstein
DAILY BRUIN COLUMNIST
lloewenstein@media.ucla.edu

The United States has one of the highest rates of male circumcision in the
world, and is the only country that practices infant circumcision for
non-religious purposes even though the medical benefits are considered
controversial.

Since there is no medical benefit to male circumcision it is, blatantly, a
form of genital mutilation (just as female circumcision or cutting is) and
should be outlawed.

Currently, female genital cutting is against federal law. The government has
also taken the initiative to educate immigrants from countries where this
practice occurs; administer outreach programs to affected communities in the
United States, and requires that all directors of international financial
institutions oppose loans to countries that practice female genital cutting.
It is estimated that 130 million women have undergone female circumcision,
and it affects another 2 million annually.

There is no reason for the United States to take such a strong stance on
female circumcision and the opposite stance on an analogous technique
practiced on men.

However, the situation is changing. A bill was proposed to the California
legislature on February 28 of this year and if passed will make male
circumcision illegal within the state of California.

People downplay the similarities between male and female circumcision. Just
as male circumcision is a part of both Muslim and Jewish religious beliefs,
female (as well as male) circumcision is an integral part of the religious
and cultural beliefs of certain tribes in Africa.

And while many claim that female circumcision is more physiologically
damaging, this depends on the type of circumcision. Some forms of male
circumcision are actually more detrimental than certain methods of female
circumcision (one involves slitting the urinary tube from the tip to the
scrotum, which creates an opening that looks like a vagina).

It would be hypocritical of the United States to take a stance on these
atrocities until it rectifies its own practices of genital mutilation.

Some people, notably many doctors, have taken a stance against male
circumcision.

The American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement in 1971 declaring
"there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal
period." They released a similar statement in 1999, and the rate of U.S.
male circumcision has been in decline since.

In fact, there is not a single national or international medical association
that recommends routine male circumcision.

There is even an organization, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, consisting of
physicians from around the world, which alleges that routine neonatal male
circumcision is painful, unnecessary and a violation of human rights.

They claim it violates the first tenet of medical practice (do no harm) and
all seven principles of the American Medical Association's code of ethics.
They plan to stop secular circumcision by refusing to perform it
(non-secular circumcision is not usually performed by doctors). I think,
this time, I will trust my doctor.

Other countries have high rates of male circumcision. For example, in South
Korea over 90 percent of high-school aged boys are circumcised. However,
there is an important difference between South Korea and the United States
� a survey of South Korean doctors showed that many still believed it
was a medically beneficial procedure.

In the past, medical experts in the United States have claimed many medical
justifications for male circumcision, including a lower risk of urinary
tract infections; infections under the foreskin, sexually transmitted
infections, persistent tight foreskin, and penile, prostate and cervical
cancers.

However, there is no evidence that circumcision reduces the rate of cervical
cancer in women or prostate cancer in men. And while circumcision can reduce
the risk of penile cancer, so can a regular shower (my detailed questioning
of uncircumcised males makes me confident that keeping the intact penis
clean isn't that difficult of a task).

Cancer of the penis is also extremely rare, as are infections under the
foreskin and persistent tight foreskin, which have all been given as medical
bases for preventative circumcision.

Besides, secular circumcision was never intended for hygienic purposes in
the first place. During the latter part of the 19th century, when male
circumcision began in England, it was performed to cure various diseases of
the nervous system (not related to the penis) and to prevent chronic
masturbation, which was thought to lead to diseases such as insanity,
blindness and epilepsy.

Only after the turn of the century, when it was discovered that masturbation
caused none of these things, did the foreskin take the blame for the various
diseases listed above.

The only valid reason left for performing male circumcision, if it's not
required by your religion, is for cosmetic purposes. If we began performing
routine breast implants on teenage girls, there would be an absolute uproar.
And you could use the same argument � aside from a few mess-ups, it
doesn't cause any harm.

So it's all about physical appearance.

And while I'll be the first to admit that body image plays a large role in
our society, when it comes to sex, as one girl put it, "I've never really
noticed." Many did not even know how to tell the difference. I delightedly
enlightened quite a few with the aid of a Google image search.

Those who had taken a notice to the physical aspects of their snake-like
friends didn't express any strong preference for one or the other. The most
helpful response I got from the ladies was one girl that enthusiastically
told me that, "uncircumcised penises are much more fun to play with."

But the point remains that the United States has no right to accuse some
African tribes of violating human rights, when we ourselves are guilty of
these charges.

We cannot begin to fight genital mutilation in other parts of the world
until we stop the practice on our own soil. Routine male circumcision is a
violation of human rights and should, without a doubt, be made strictly
illegal.

If you want to get your penis reconstructed (yes, this is possible), e-mail
Lara at lloewenstein@media.ucla.edu.

Web Address: http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=32586

Copyright 2005 ASUCLA Student Media