There has been countless news reports and television programming
discussing the horrors of female circumcision or female genital mutilation.
However, there has been very little in the main stream press regarding the
practice of male circumcision. Female genital mutilation is no more of a
human rights violation than male circumcision , therefore both should be
Although, genital mutilations are usually referred to as a cultural
practice, there is increasing evidence that this innocent and benign label
actually evades, dismisses and covers-up the horrific effects these
mutilations have upon a child's psyche and soma, and, moreover present a
very real danger to the child's health.[1] Thus, one wonders how such a
practice ever began in the first place. People or cultures who engage in
such practices view them as an essential right of passage and often an
important requirement for a marriage partner, while those who do not
practice genital circumcision view the practice with disbelief, horrified
that any human would willingly permit such a thing to be performed on his
or her child.[2] So, just where did these practices originate'
According to history and archaeology, together with the "global
distributions of male and female genital mutilations among native, non
Western people, suggests their genesis in the deserts of Northeast Africa
and the Near East, with subsequent diffusion outward into sub-Saharan
Africa, Oceania, and possibly into part of the New World."[3] The practice
migrated due to military conquest of cultures that did not mutilate by
cultures that did, or by "voluntary adoption in association with other
cultural changes of an anti-sexual and anti-child nature," similar to such
practices as "infant cranial deformation, swaddling, virginity taboo,
vaginal blood taboo, and male domination of kinship and inheritance."[4]
Incision, which is considered ...