Reading Notes: Fox and Thompson, "Sexing the Cherry"

[rax]

They will be discussing intersex surgeries performed on infants as well as infant circumcision. They feel the justifications for both are similar, and that both should be challenged. "Genital cutting practices ... [play] an important symbolic role in the somatechnical formation and fixing of 'proper' male and female bodies." (108)

They recognize that these are complicated questions and that there are "communities where cutting is an integral expression of cultural belonging." (109)

P110 has a list of reasons male circumcision is different from FGM or intersex surgery, and the authors want to destabilize some of those. In particular they feel it is a somatechnology that enforces male gender norms. They also challenge the idea that circumcision and FGM are inherently different, pointing out that declaring that male circumcision is fundamentally less damaging makes assumptions about what sorts of sex acts a man should want to engage in. 

In 1870 a doctor named Sayre started touting circumcision as the best thing since sliced bread. It was particularly claimed to cure masturbation --- for example, Kellogg (you may have eaten his company's cereal) recommended that boys be circumcized without anesthesia as a way to prevent them from masturbating. (115)

"the foreskin is feminized; characterized as a dangerous and permeable interior space." (117)

They talk about the issue of anti-Semitism and they provide an argument (119) but I don't find it terribly cogent. Not even bad, just, it doesn't seem like it's really a direct engagement.

They say that while the discourse has changed, circumcision is now a choice rather than a given because it's potentially risky and not because it's potentially harmful, and they don't think there's compelling arguments that parents should be able to consent to this procedure on their childrens' behalf, much like intersex "corrective" surgery. 

I'm going to leave my opinion out of this for now.

Comments

[halfelf.livejournal.com]

As I have been going through classes recently because we're having a baby, the question of circumcision has come up quite a few times. I am amazed that in this day and age, this procedure is still performed, and what's more, according to the documentation we've been shown at the birthing class, has "possible health benefits" and is "recommended". I honestly agree that FGM and circumcision are not inherently different - both have many roots in religious beliefs, and at their basis, are both mutilation of genitalia. Luckily, circumcision rates in recent years have plummeted, lessening the 'peer pressure' effect. It was even suggested that a valid reason to have a boy circumcised was so that 'he could fit in better in the shower room' and avoid teasing!

Honestly, I'm glad I'm able to sidestep this entirely, as we're having a girl, but even if I had to deal with it, everyone that matters agree with me, and that's all that's important. :)

[sprrwhwk.livejournal.com]

Like you, I am a bit surprised and disappointed that they're still recommending circumcision.

...There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of the circumcised man contracting HIV. Some. Needless to say, given the existence of oh say condoms I don't think this benefit is really worth the cost.

Nevertheless circumcision is being touted in places like Africa as a "more acceptable" means than condoms to control the spread of AIDS. I understand how they sell this to the people in the West writing the checks (*SIGH*), but I seriously don't understand how they sell this to the people undergoing the procedure. "There's this thing called HIV, and it makes people very sick and usually eventually kills them. You can either put this little rubber thing on your dick before you fuck somebody, or I can cut the end of your dick off. Your choice!"

Actually they probably don't talk about condoms at all. I... aaaugh.