One Is Not Like The Other: Part 2

I used this image because the images in my search were too horrifying.

In this installment of things that should not be compared as equal, we'll discuss how female circumcision is not the same as male circumcision. I'm not advocating male circumcision, I'm just frustrated at the prevalence of "yeah, I feel your pain because I was circumcised as an infant" talk from men in threads on female circumcision on Reddit. For the record, I don't have an opinion one way or the other about male circumcision. On the one hand, I can see the benefits (mostly from a female perspective which I discuss at the end), but on the other hand it is a little shitty to do something so permanent and altering to someone who can't make that decision for himself. 

How they're similar:

For one, they're both called circumcision (this isn't entirely accurate... I'll get to that in a bit). For another, both involve cutting off a part of the person's genitals.

How they're different:

In every other fucking way. Male circumcision is practiced widely in developed countries as a way of preventing specific health issues in both men and women. Male circumcision is usually performed by a trained professional (almost always a doctor, but some religious parents ask a trained Rabbi to perform the procedure) in a sterile medical setting with the latest tools and effective healing techniques to eliminate infections and reduce pain. Male circumcision is performed on days-old infants who will not remember or even realize what happened and almost always with anesthetics to reduce pain. Pardon the comparison, but breeders clip dog tails at the same age and in a similar way, and zoo keepers clip bird wings at the same age and in a similar way. I don't agree with clipping dog tails, but if it's going to happen it might as well happen when they're too young to realize.


As previously mentioned, I've read a few threads on Reddit related to female genital mutilation. In addition to general questions about the practice, there have been a couple of young women posting asking questions about themselves to gauge if they're normal, and recently one from a young man trying to figure out if what he's doing with his girlfriend is normal and what he can do to make sex pleasurable for her. One of the best explanations for the difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation comes from a user called superdillin: 

I think the intent and damage differences between male and female genital mutilation does need to be pointed out. What we do to our baby boys, often with no medical reason, is bad. Very bad and we should stop. BUT, what was done to OP's girlfriend was done to take away her sexuality, and to control her. It has put her life at risk at worst, and at best has taken away her most sexual pleasure organ, and it was done with the intention of her becoming a breeding cow to be used for a man's needs for the rest of her life.

What we do to our boys is due to misinformation about health and hygiene, combined with unhealthy aesthetic expectations and tradition. What some cultures do to their girls is deliberate, controlling, life-threatening and inherently sexist. [Her emphases.]

Female circumcision is performed in developing countries, with inexperienced operators, a lack of medical equipment and sterilization when the girl is old enough to know what's happening to her but without her consent. The intent behind the procedure is what makes it brutality; the practice is illegal in many countries due to its horrific procedure, complete lack of health benefits and high risk of complication. Young girls, as in 7 years old, have their clitorises (the part of female genitalia that is exclusively for sexual pleasure) cut off to prevent them from having sex before marriage or experience sexual pleasure at all. It is often falsely assumed that removing the clitoris will prevent the girl from ever experiencing sexual desire. Some people even sew the labia together making penetration impossible, which requires that husbands use a knife to cut open their new wives on the wedding night, giving them the ultimate proof of virginity. For a long and horrifying list of complications, read this section of the Wikipedia article (and click on the links if you dare).

Back to the word circumcision: I've noticed an increase in groups publicly opposed to male circumcision (part of this was seen during our recent Gay Pride parade), and some argue that male circumcision should be called male genital mutilation, to more closely align itself with female genital mutilation. Although circumcision in both sexes involves the cutting of the genitals, and both procedures can be unnecessary at best, only female circumcision can actually be called butchering because of how it's performed and what its purpose is. It's called "circumcision" to make it seem more acceptable and to hide what it really is. (Hell, even the Wikipedia page for female circumcision is titled "female genital mutilation.") 

I wouldn't publicly advocate one way or the other for male circumcision because there are benefits and consequences of the procedure that must  be taken into consideration. I can, however, speak from the only experience I have, which is as a woman who has had sex with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. My experience taught me that male sexual pleasure has absolutely nothing to do with having been circumcised as an infant and that my own sexual pleasure had nothing to do with whether or not my partner was circumcised. However, if asked my opinion I might point out that even the cleanest of males can be less hygienic and more likely to spread a disease or infection with their foreskin intact, which from a female standpoint is a huge concern since an infection inside the vagina can be much worse than a topical penile infection. It seems to me like male circumcision has more benefits for a male's sexual partner than for the male himself.

I truly believe, when performed by a surgeon or urologist in a hospital with the proper tools, that male circumcision should be an option and that parents of sons should educate themselves on whether or not to do the procedure. But I also believe that even if female circumcision were to be performed in the exact same situations as male circumcision (on infants, by medical professionals in a sterile setting) that it would be genital mutilation. The intent automatically makes it wrong and the way a female's body is designed opens the poor girl up to dozens of complications, many of which are life threatening. Male circumcision and female genital mutilation are not the same thing.


For Part 1 of this small series, go to One Is Not Like The Other: Part 1.

Food

This will make sense later...

The New York Times has an article that presents vegetarianism to regular people in an honest, direct and meat-loving way. I know, it hardly seems possible, yet it's so obvious I'm shocked this is the first of its kind I've read. Since The Break-Up I've given a second thought to my diet; The Ex and I made a tradition of cooking, and we cooked amazingly delicious foods most nights. But there was a problem... The Ex did not, and I mean ever, eat vegetables unless they were in the form of sauce, ketchup or fried in oil (and even then only potatoes). I, on the other hand, loved vegetables. My body would actually crave broccoli or tomatoes when I went a couples days without any. But I compromised. And now that I don't have to I'd like to try cutting back on chicken, or cutting it out completely.

So back to the NYT: this guy Jonathan Safran Foer wrote about his struggles with meat and vegetarianism with a side of bacon in an excerpt from his upcoming book. I cut out pork in high school after The Bacon Incident left me fainting in church in front of the boy I had a crush on (I think I had already cut out beef by then) and pretty much stuck to poultry for protein. Though I know the horrors of the poultry industry (Peta is good for nothing if not making you want to vomit with their images) I still eat birds. Why? Part laziness, part poorness, part ignorance.

For nearly two years I've been allergic to avocados. I discovered this after graduating college and losing my health insurance (and the ability to find out why this most amazing fruit now makes me cry), and the dream of a San Diego vegetarian lifestyle started slipping away. My diet would require a hefty overhaul in order for it to be healthy for me to make the switch to meatlessness. Fortunately, I've been too poor to afford meat often so my meals have been vegetarian by default. I used to believe that it would be a better value to order chicken when eating out since meatless meals are usually priced the same (since when did salads start costing $15?), but lately I order vegetarian or fish to get ideas. And by golly it's working. Thanks in part to my pathetic food budget and thanks in part to The Break-Up freeing me from the necessity of meat I've begun looking towards vegetarianism in a new way, even sans avocado.

I've been learning a lot about the consequences of my food decisions. Palm oil is pretty much the worst thing in the world because its production causes so much habitat destruction for countless species, and coffee is terrible for the same reason (buy shade grown!). I learned that eel is farmed at great cost to the environment and you can choose your meal based on the healthiest option for the Earth. I've already started making some conscious decisions about what I eat; but I'm still a total hypocrite for advocating animal rights and eating mass produced chicken.

Foer's excerpt discusses the importance of meat in traditions and the difficulty in participating in tradition without those foods. My family always had Holiday Food for holiday breakfasts: Eggs Benedict. At one point all of us kids didn't eat pork, which frustrated the hell out of our mom. Now it's just me (again) and I don't really care for Eggs Benedict but I'll eat a poached egg on toast to make her happy. The Catholic celebration of Lent is still tradition for me, despite my departure from Catholicism, and it requires abstaining from all meat except fish on Fridays (which really soured The Ex, who also does not eat fish, ever times infinity). I think this year I'll "give up" chicken for Lent and forgo fish on Fridays. If that works I'll be well on my way to eating the way I've wanted to for a long time.

Rather than being vegetarian or pescetarian, I'd like to be opportunitarian, like Costello. He hunts for fish but he'll also scavenge for whatever someone else left behind. I'd like to make my meals of sustainable fish and vegetables (and shit loads of rice... no matter how poor I am I'll always have rice and canned tomatoes) but if someone offers me chicken or pork or even beef that would otherwise go to waste I'll happily eat it so the creature didn't die in vain. Someday, when I have a house, I'll keep a chicken coop so I'll always have fresh eggs. People appreciate presents of fresh eggs and everyone can feel good about eating eggs that come from a pet, rather than a farm stuffed with caged hens.