1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
I don't agree that the foreskin is essential (since the penis functions without it) and I don't believe it's disfiguring to remove it so I'm going to go with no. Circumsion does not = mutilation.
@ozu: Is removing your tonsils mutilation? People did once believe that if you removed any body part, tonsils included, you couldn't get in to heaven. However, I think most people would take issue with you using that word to describe a tonsilectomy these days
@colormeroutine: I believe that tonsillectomy's are typically only performed for reasons of medical necessity. IMO if they just did it for the sake of doing it, then yes they would be mutilating themselves.
@colormeroutine: I had my tonsils removed as a consenting adult in order to prevent future abscesses from forming. It served a medical function. I didn't get the same choice or reasoning when my foreskin was sliced off.
@thePrototype: @colormeroutine: I don't agree that circumcision is comparable to tonsilectomies, but I also don't think that people have circumcisions "for the sake of doing it." That's pretty condescending.
@thePrototype: Sometimes they are done preemptively. My mother also considers my tattoos to be mutilation. She's entitled to that opinion; I still think it's a ridiculous one
@NellMood: this is true, they don't just do it for the sake of it, because that wouldn't make any sense. It seems it is done in a non-medical reason because a. god told them to, b. it proves they are a man
I'm really confused by some of the responses of commenters here. Is everyone from outside of the US? We share the same "cultural tradition" here we're just not in a third world country.
@TinkishDelight: Difference: We do it on babies and do not leave them in the mountains to fend for themselves for weeks while they heal. The deaths are coming from that period rather than the actual circumcisions directly
@colormeroutine: I understand your point, but for me personally the physical act that takes place is the terrible part, with the surround circumstances just compounding the issue.
@artdecoco: @artdecoco: Right. I said it as simplistically as possible because I genuinely wasn't trying to start a fight, but if you look through some of the comments it's as if they've forgotten that circumcision is rather common in the US. Few seem to be addressing the circumstances (lack of proper/sophisticated medical care) and instead are focusing on the practice as a whole yet... look around. Your dad, boyfriend, male friends, brother are all statistically more than likely to be clipped.
@TinkishDelight: Actually "Third World Country," like your insistence on making this issue about Americans, is culturally insensitive. South Africa is considered a developing country.
@Megan: And my whole family lives in a third world country, and they describe it as such when they talk about some of it's problems. If you choose to use "developing", that's fine, but you should know that it's not a universally accepted thing.
@Megan: But, when you deplane at OR Thambo, we totally have lions and giraffes RIGHT THERE, man. :)
TinkishDelight, this is NOT a pile on/jab at you; just used to get the 'so are there really lions just like walking around in your towns and stuff?" question all the time when speaking to foreigners. couldn't resist.
@Hana Maru: The commenter was complaining, if you look, that we weren't discussing how it's done here. Also, s/he led off with a culturally insensitive term.
@Hana Maru: Fair enough, but 'Third World' is increasingly viewed as a pejorative. PC is annoying, but the use of Developed and Developing is more accurate to reference human progress.
@NellMood: @Megan: I did look, and I even read it, and I don't see where she's asking us to talk about circumcision in America, she's asking a question about why many of us have a certain perspective.
And what I find insensitive is you insisting again that you can speak for the third/developing world.
@Megan: Frankly, as someone from the "developing" world, I find that term incredibly obnoxious. What, we're not fully developed yet? Not a dig at you, but just that somehow "developing" is that much more culturally sensitive than "Third World." I think the accepted terminology is now "global South."
@Hana Maru: I disagree. It seemed to me, and I could be wrong, that she was complaining that commenters had "forgotten that circumcision is rather common in the US." I don't know why we need to discuss circumcision in the US at all in this conversation. Should we qualify every statement with "Well, my American boyfriend is circumcised, so..."? It's not relevant.
@BinderClip: Well, developing/developed is a reference to industrialization, but I take your point about global South (despite the strangeness of referring to some Northern Hemisphere countries as "South").
@Hana Maru: "Third World" is quite specifically a Cold War term in which only capitalist/white countries get to be "First," all Communist countries are "Second" and everyone else is "Third." I'm not unaware that it's still in use colloquially, and I wouldn't tell someone from South Africa, say, not to use it if they wished to identify in that way, but I will tell a fellow American to check their phrasing, which is what I did.
@BinderClip: The issue with "Third World" is that it's an out-of-date Cold War term, so it's not really a relevant way to describe a country. 1st world: the US and its allies. 2nd: Soviet Union and its allies. 3rd: countries not aligned with either.
Now there is developed, developing, and under-developed. Whatever the implications of "develop" are, there is a difference between what "third world" (inaccurately) is understood to mean, and what "developing" is understood to mean. I also live in a so-called "developing" country.
@Megan: I'm aware of that history, as is my family. They use it precisely because they're aware that the wealth of the first world was built through the enslavement and exploitation of their labor and resources. The history is relevant to the current situation.
@vanka-vstanka: I know that "Third World" is a historically specific term (though Third World -- countries like Pakistan, e.g. -- extended beyond the Non-Aligned movement countries). That you would put "so-called" before "developing" speaks to my point. I'm not trying to bring back 'Third World' but 'developing' has, at least in progressive academic/media circles, largely been pushed aside in favor of 'global South' -- which has its own weirdness, as Megan pointed out, but at least it's not an evolutionary term that paints certain countries as apparently under- or non-'developed'. My point is that if you're going to call out a term like 'Third World' as insensitive, it hardly makes sense to substitute an equally insensitive term like 'developing.'
@Hana Maru: Can you? I have family in developing countries and they consider TWC a negative term. Does your families use of the word trump mine or vice versa? This would be similar to someone deciding because they are comfortable calling themselves the n-word, everyone else should.
@sshacker: Except that I didn't say that everyone needs to say "third world" I told Megan, who was telling me and another commenter(from S.A.) that "third world is unacceptably offensive to people from those countries, that while she may choose to say "developing world", it isn't universally preferred in those countries, and I explained why we in my family say what we say.
It's more akin to a white person telling black people(or people she assumes are white, on the internet) that "African American" is the only proper term while "black" is culturally insensitive.
@BinderClip: I don't particularly agree that Third World is more or less insensitive than developing or under-developing; it's out of date terminology which is why I object to its use.
@Hana Maru: I think it should be fairly obvious why people may be more horrified by this than the circumcisions performed here. Namely that they are performed in sterile, medical offices, on infants primarily, and while we could argue about the actual need or ethical nature of them, they are not routinely causing infection and death as part of a manhood ritual.
She's not speaking for the developing world, she's asking that people be mindful of their phrasing. Because there is a tendency on this board for white/American posters to "other" and generalize in these posts.
And, actually, since the post is specifically about this practice and the problems it causes in a developing country, bringing up the U.S. practice (which is a developed country and in a very privileged position) is, to some degree, co-opting the discussion. Because it takes the emphasis off this specific use, and turns it towards ours and our cultures.
We share a similar procedure, but not a similar tradition. We don't circumcise men as a rite of passage when they're pre-adolescent. It's not a rite of passage at all, in many circumstances, but arguably one of hygiene, and in some cases, religious belief. It has a very different function.
@tiredfairy: TinkishDelight has already addressed the misperception that she wanted to discuss circumcision in America. I was never even talking about it, so I'm not sure why all this is addressed to me.
I took part in a race discrimination workshop in 2004, mandated by my office I was working in at the time. One of the things we talked about was Xhosa male circumcision, and more than that, how the men, and only the men who are present at these seclusion gatherings can talk about it with others who were there, and not with women. This seriously rubbed me the wrong way since I come from a culture, in South Africa, of seperation of the sexes and expected female inferiority and subservience. But...I don't know how much judgement we can pass here even if it seems counter to standards we are comfortable with.
Nor is it an area I claim to have much understanding of, emotional or intellectual.
@whatsername: You just reminded me that this ritual came up in my South African Photography class at UCT. It was the first thing we studied too. We had a long debate about a photography project done by a white South African on the ritual. People took offense both because he was white and because the ceremonies are so secluded. And now, not for the life of me, can I remember the photographer's name.
@whatsername: That's interesting...What rubbed you the wrong way? The talking about the procedure in a mixed-gender setting? Or being required to attend a seminar in which it was discussed? Or the judgments of those outside the culture (which is probably what would have got me, if nothing else)?
@EkaterinaBallerina: Strangely enough, the guy who mentioned the rituals and how he can't talk about the fullness of it "in front of women in the room" (!) was white. He was invited to participate and came away with this experience that was, according to him, very meaningful.
Yet, on the other hand, some do believe that death or injury is proof that you are not able to stand the rigours of manhood, you know, wheat from chaff stuff, and that the subpar sanitary conditions are accepted as part of the deal. Which makes it very, very challenging to be culturally sensitive.
@JerseyGrrrl: I come from a Indian-Muslim culture/religion so the thing that ALWAYS bugs me in various situations is when I am told that women aren't allowed to know certain things, or 'we won't understand' or that 'its only for men to hear'. It immediately makes me think its male privilege being exercised (my perception). Hearing that reason cited, in a workshop on race and understanding in post-Apartheid SA (which I helped organise btw), just hit a nerve. Its like, how do we ever truly understand if we hide behind fences. Yet I do understand cultural mores....six of one, half a dozen of the other....sigh.
The article surprised me, I honestly expected more of the deaths to come from infection of the site, not from blood loss (I don't think of circumcision being a particularly bloody procedure, but I suppose that can change when done crudely) or dehydration as the article details. "In one horrifying case, a teenager got gangrene in his penis, which fell off." Yes, that's what I thought the cause would be, and thus was thinking how awful of a way to die (not to diminish the obvious pain and suffering of the others).
"In one horrifying case, a teenager got gangrene in his penis, which fell off."
This may be one of the most awful things I've ever read. The article states that it's not just the tools used in the ritual, but the time spent in the mountains recovering that is killing these boys. How awful. I'm all for preserving traditions, but they should be safe, sanitary, and not fatal.
It's news like this that really drives home how many children (and adults) die around the world every day needlessly. 36 here, 198 there, 456 over there....
So I've been to SAfrica many times and I know many Xhosa men who've been through this (sidenote: Nelson Mandela has endured this as a Xhosa man). The reason some boys die during this ceremony (which takes place over weeks) is because sometimes families can't afford to take them to a well-practiced ritualist or cannot afford to feed and take care of them properly during the weeks of the ceremony.
I think this is less an issue of mutilation and more of an issue of how families are forced to cut corners because traditions have become a monetary exchange. So some people end up going to charlatans who take their money and use unsanitary practices or don't supply food to the boys.
Btw, that picture is of a very young boy and this ceremony takes place when the boys are about 17 or 18.
@shananigans aka cookie pants!: Yes, I don't have an issue with these rituals per se (because I don't presume to know anything about them or the culture that drives them), and I assumed this was an issue of sanitation.
I realize there are broader issues at play here, but these rituals are not going to stop anytime soon so they may as well be done safely.
@shananigans aka cookie pants!: So are the deaths "justified" with a "well, he just wasn't man enough/ it just wasn't meant to be?" Or are the deaths recognized as something that shouldn't happen?
@Skellatrix: They're totally recognized as something that shouldn't happen. I know people who delayed their circumcisions because their families couldn't afford them and they wanted to raise the right amount of money.
I think other people just go places that are "cheaper" and therefore less safe.
@shananigans aka cookie pants!: Okay, good, I'm glad people aren't twisting it around as such I feared. It's horrible that it boils down to money = successful ritual, no money = gangrene penis/death.
I can think of other scenarios where people go the "cheaper", less-safe route that can easily end in tragedy, but that's OT.
@shananigans aka cookie pants!: He may well be as young as he looks, but the AP wire identifies him as a young Xhosa man in the midst of the ritual, as indicated by being painted in that mud.
@Megan: The mud also might be making him look a lot younger than he actually is with the combination of the bad costume makeup-like effect and the covering up of any potential facial hair
Let@Beets.Go.On is one cold lady: Let's make sure people get any surgical procedure in a sanitary medical environment. Circumcision is part of some cultures and it always will be part of those cultures. The difference here is the conditions (sanitation) under which the circumcision takes place.
@Beets.Go.On is one cold lady: A lot of those undergoing the procedure/ritual are pretty grown actually. Not all, but many. Which gets into other questions about coercion and consent in tradition, which I don't know enough about to pontificate intelligently on.
@Lucille van Pelt: I disagree that it will be or should be part of some cultures, forever. Like Beets said above, just because it's a tradition doesn't mean it's a practice that should continue.
@Beets.Go.On is one cold lady: @Samanthrax is Sarcastic and Joking: But if it were a safe, clean practice that no one ever died from would we be having this conversation? I don't think the practice itself is inherently wrong (in fact I think very, very few things are inherently wrong) it's the effect they have that's the problem. Eliminate the complications with the practice and the practice can stick around as long as it wants
@colormeroutine: The only reason they are consenting is because it's a tradition. Remove the tradition, and maybe you'll remove the desire to cut off your foreskin.
@Samanthrax is Sarcastic and Joking: There is literally nothing in the entire world beyond eat and screwing that cannot be said about though. Nothing at all. Therefore I do nto find it a very good argument
@colormeroutine: I disagree. Any sort of institutionalized mutilation of the genitalia of minors is wrong (in my opinion), "safe" or not. We're talking about an unnecessary procedure that permanently alters the sexual organs of minors. I realize that it is an extreme position to take, but I think even Western-style circumcision is unethical. So, yes, we'd still be having this conversation. You don't mess with kids' bits. Period.
You're also acting like these kids have a some sort of choice in the matter. Do you really think they could say no about this? There is no such thing as consent without choice and choice has clearly been removed from this situation.
@Samanthrax is Sarcastic and Joking: well, by your theory, forcing children to do things that endanger them should be illegal. putting a child in a car puts them at risk of dying. there is a correlation.
@Lucille van Pelt: congratulations, you've fallen into the slippery slope fallacy. When driving cars purposely mutilates the genitals of minors, then maybe you'll have a point.
@Beets.Go.On is one cold lady: a) you're using the term "minor" as we define it legally in the Western world. Adulthood vs childhood is also culturally constructed and varies from place to place and these are not little kids, they are at an age that it's fair to give them control over decisions about their bodies
b) lower down in the thread someone with more knowledge about the practice than I have spoke about personally knowing people who put off the procedure until they could do it the way they wanted to- which would indicate there is some level of choice
@Lucille van Pelt: yeah, samanthrax never said anything like that. All we're saying here is that institutionalized mutilation of the genitalia of minors is unethical. You're bringing up all of these unrelated ideas that are a result of slippery slope fallacies that do not apply to this discussion. Please go read up on logic and come back to us.
@Beets.Go.On is one cold lady: and she also missed the point that driving a car has a purpose, whereas circumcision for traditional reasons has no real purpose, other than because 'god said so' or 'because it will make my boy a man'
@Lucille van Pelt: aaaaaand therein lies the problem. Tradition is not a valid defense of any child genital mutilation. Xhosa culture is no less legitimate than Jewish culture, so I'm not sure why you're using it as a defense of circumcision. If anything, the Jewish tradition is more unethical, because babies can't even talk, let alone do anything near consent. You are removing their future autonomy to choose what to do with the appearance of their penises, as well as their choice in cultural/religious affiliation. It is medically unnecessary and I believe that the individual's future autonomy should have greater moral weight than the force of tradition.
@Lucille van Pelt: right, and God instructed Moses to kill all of his enemies people, including the women, children and pregnant women, saving only the virgins to keep as slaves. Does that mean that God is always right and we should sit back and follow all of his instructions?
@colormeroutine: i have to agree. traditions can't just be "removed." not saying that all traditions are great and wonderful and need to continue, but when they differ (on levels of acceptability from person to person) that much, it makes it kind of stifling to just up and outlaw them.
i really have no opinion on circumcision, so i'll butt out of this. i just like the debate on tradition in general.
@thePrototype: Ok, please stop. You can have a difference of opinion on circumcision without insulting someone's faith or religious beliefs in this way. You are not going to change thousands of years of religious practice for which people have been persecuted in a comment thread, and you're certainly not going to ever do it by sounding insensitive.
And, FYI, the "Jews as child mutilators" meme originated with the "Protocols of Zion," the biggest anti-Semitic and fraudulent text about Judaism that led to a great deal of violence and discrimination against Jews, so it rightfully makes many Jews a little uncomfortable. And, unfortunately, it also doesn't make the person using the line of argumentation sound particularly culturally sensitive, shall we say.
@Samanthrax is Sarcastic and Joking: Although really, saying "hey, let's not compare x to y" really only leaves the opening for people to go "But x IS like y because...."
That's upsetting. I have read about many other incredibly grueling cultural traditions that are supposed to herald boys into adulthood (many deep but artistic cuts all over their backs, for example). The risk of severe injury or death are so real, but somehow the traditions continue.
So my question:
Where can I read more about how common these rituals are? And what is the justification for continuing such action? And are there any groups that are fighting to stop them?
I'm going to tell a story. It's about biscuits. Please bear with me.
A Buddhist priest told me this story, about how he used to be the chief baker in his monastery. He tried to make the best biscuits he could make - fluffy, buttery, warm, delicious biscuits. But no matter what he did, the biscuits were never good enough. Too dry, or too moist, never quite right. He was getting very dissatisfied and upset with himself. Then, he realized that he was trying to capture the essence of the biscuits that he had as a child and that the biscuits he remembered were an idealized, unreal version. The reason his biscuits never tasted good enough is because they never could be, but only so long as he tried to capture the essence of an unreal, imagined perfect biscuit. When he realized this, he decided to make the "biscuit of today" not the biscuit of the past. It was imperfect, unlike anything he remembered as a young child, but the most delicious biscuit he had ever had, because it simply WAS. It was not idealized or perfected, it was just itself. And it was perfect in its imperfections, because there was nothing else it could be.
Ladies, I think it is high time we all start being the biscuit of today. Love yourself as you are, perfectly "imperfect."
And do not put a knife (or botulism) anywhere near your cooter.
07/08/09
07/08/09
mu⋅ti⋅late -verb (used with object)
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
I don't agree that the foreskin is essential (since the penis functions without it) and I don't believe it's disfiguring to remove it so I'm going to go with no. Circumsion does not = mutilation.
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
Entirely separate practices
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
TinkishDelight, this is NOT a pile on/jab at you; just used to get the 'so are there really lions just like walking around in your towns and stuff?" question all the time when speaking to foreigners. couldn't resist.
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
And what I find insensitive is you insisting again that you can speak for the third/developing world.
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
@Hana Maru: "Third World" is quite specifically a Cold War term in which only capitalist/white countries get to be "First," all Communist countries are "Second" and everyone else is "Third." I'm not unaware that it's still in use colloquially, and I wouldn't tell someone from South Africa, say, not to use it if they wished to identify in that way, but I will tell a fellow American to check their phrasing, which is what I did.
07/08/09
Now there is developed, developing, and under-developed. Whatever the implications of "develop" are, there is a difference between what "third world" (inaccurately) is understood to mean, and what "developing" is understood to mean. I also live in a so-called "developing" country.
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
It's more akin to a white person telling black people(or people she assumes are white, on the internet) that "African American" is the only proper term while "black" is culturally insensitive.
07/08/09
07/09/09
She's not speaking for the developing world, she's asking that people be mindful of their phrasing. Because there is a tendency on this board for white/American posters to "other" and generalize in these posts.
And, actually, since the post is specifically about this practice and the problems it causes in a developing country, bringing up the U.S. practice (which is a developed country and in a very privileged position) is, to some degree, co-opting the discussion. Because it takes the emphasis off this specific use, and turns it towards ours and our cultures.
We share a similar procedure, but not a similar tradition. We don't circumcise men as a rite of passage when they're pre-adolescent. It's not a rite of passage at all, in many circumstances, but arguably one of hygiene, and in some cases, religious belief. It has a very different function.
07/09/09
07/08/09
Nor is it an area I claim to have much understanding of, emotional or intellectual.
Here though is a thesis on the subject (pdf: [etd.unisa.ac.za])
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
Yet, on the other hand, some do believe that death or injury is proof that you are not able to stand the rigours of manhood, you know, wheat from chaff stuff, and that the subpar sanitary conditions are accepted as part of the deal. Which makes it very, very challenging to be culturally sensitive.
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
This may be one of the most awful things I've ever read. The article states that it's not just the tools used in the ritual, but the time spent in the mountains recovering that is killing these boys. How awful. I'm all for preserving traditions, but they should be safe, sanitary, and not fatal.
07/08/09
07/08/09
I think this is less an issue of mutilation and more of an issue of how families are forced to cut corners because traditions have become a monetary exchange. So some people end up going to charlatans who take their money and use unsanitary practices or don't supply food to the boys.
Btw, that picture is of a very young boy and this ceremony takes place when the boys are about 17 or 18.
07/08/09
I realize there are broader issues at play here, but these rituals are not going to stop anytime soon so they may as well be done safely.
07/08/09
07/08/09
I think other people just go places that are "cheaper" and therefore less safe.
07/08/09
I can think of other scenarios where people go the "cheaper", less-safe route that can easily end in tragedy, but that's OT.
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
You're also acting like these kids have a some sort of choice in the matter. Do you really think they could say no about this? There is no such thing as consent without choice and choice has clearly been removed from this situation.
07/08/09
Oh man. This is ridiculous. Goodbye.
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
b) lower down in the thread someone with more knowledge about the practice than I have spoke about personally knowing people who put off the procedure until they could do it the way they wanted to- which would indicate there is some level of choice
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
i really have no opinion on circumcision, so i'll butt out of this. i just like the debate on tradition in general.
07/08/09
And, FYI, the "Jews as child mutilators" meme originated with the "Protocols of Zion," the biggest anti-Semitic and fraudulent text about Judaism that led to a great deal of violence and discrimination against Jews, so it rightfully makes many Jews a little uncomfortable. And, unfortunately, it also doesn't make the person using the line of argumentation sound particularly culturally sensitive, shall we say.
07/08/09
Preemptive strike: Those poor boys. This is awful, but this and FGM are two seperate issues, so let's keep it that way. Maybe?
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
Does anyone know if they use the primitive tools out of respect for tradition or just because of availability?
07/08/09
(jokes)
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
So my question:
Where can I read more about how common these rituals are? And what is the justification for continuing such action? And are there any groups that are fighting to stop them?
11/20/08
A Buddhist priest told me this story, about how he used to be the chief baker in his monastery. He tried to make the best biscuits he could make - fluffy, buttery, warm, delicious biscuits. But no matter what he did, the biscuits were never good enough. Too dry, or too moist, never quite right. He was getting very dissatisfied and upset with himself. Then, he realized that he was trying to capture the essence of the biscuits that he had as a child and that the biscuits he remembered were an idealized, unreal version. The reason his biscuits never tasted good enough is because they never could be, but only so long as he tried to capture the essence of an unreal, imagined perfect biscuit. When he realized this, he decided to make the "biscuit of today" not the biscuit of the past. It was imperfect, unlike anything he remembered as a young child, but the most delicious biscuit he had ever had, because it simply WAS. It was not idealized or perfected, it was just itself. And it was perfect in its imperfections, because there was nothing else it could be.
Ladies, I think it is high time we all start being the biscuit of today. Love yourself as you are, perfectly "imperfect."
And do not put a knife (or botulism) anywhere near your cooter.
11/20/08
11/20/08