Men Do Complain

3rd National Conference for Men and Boys

Two stimulating days in Brighton. Lots of new friends and new information to digest.

One of the highlights for MDC was meeting the people from CALM that is the Campaign Against Living Miserably. CALM offers a helpline so if you are in crisis you have somewhere to turn. In the near future there will be a campaign to promote the vaccination of boys against the Human Papilloma Virus. HPV is a possible reason to advocate the circumcision of boys but in line with medical ethics the first method of treatment or prevention should be the least invasive.

One law for all.

The disadvantage of targeting specific offences with specific legislation such as the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 is that the targeting appears to select particular groups for punitive action. This has resulted in no prosecutions under the Act in the 10 years of the Act’s existence.

The cultures that traditionally practice female genital mutilation (FGM) usually cut males as well and so they perceive the legislation as being discriminatory towards their specific practice and discriminatory towards their culture. It is not surprising that prosecutors have been reluctant to proceed when they realise that the prosecutor’s action will be seen as discriminatory by the culture concerned.

A law that has a useful application in a great variety of situations is a law that can be generally seen to be fair and just. A law that is wide reaching in it’s scope maintains the impartiality of the judicial process rather than being seen as aimed at a specific community or culture. FGM is without doubt an assault so the French, sensibly, use their Code Civil an equivalent of the English Offences Against The Person Act to bring perpetrators of FGM to trial without any implication of discrimination.

Looking at the U.K’s Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 reveals an offence the definition of which is quite specifically and deliberately drafted as an anatomical list designed to apply only to females, labia minora, labia majora and clitoris (no mention is made of the clitoral prepuce); it is an offence to excise or cut any of the parts mentioned. This definition prevents the possible inclusion of male or intersex anatomy in the definition.

The definition of who is and who is not female is not certain and as recent change to the law in Germany has made clear gender is a choice that can be left for the individual concerned to make when they are competent to decide for themselves. Approximately two in a hundred children are born with some form of ambiguity regarding their gender. An ethical line in the sand could and should be drawn by sticking to fundamental medical ethics; unnecessary procedures without informed consent can and should wait until proper consent can be obtained.

The argument will of course be made that FGM is especially nasty, has outcomes and consequences unique to females. This is not the only situation in which that argument could be made but is dismissed by society. Take the law on rape as an example. The outcomes and consequences of rape can be very different for men and women; women can become pregnant, yet there is no perceived need for a different law for males and females because it is recognised that the crime is the lack of consent not the sex act itself or it’s consequences.

So it should be with genital cutting; children born with atypical genitals, women wishing for “designer vaginas” and those men who want to sacrifice part of their penis should be free to consent to such procedures when they are competent to do so. Children who cannot give informed consent should all be protected equally, irrespective of gender.

Different, yes. Acceptable? No

The fact that there are differences between male and female genital mutilation is usually used as a trump card by those arguing for the different treatment of males and females. The argument used is “you cannot compare apples and pears” and that is supposed to be the end of the matter.

Let us leave aside the fact that certain types of FGM have a damaging effect on the birth process, which is the essence of the trump card. No one is arguing that as long as you do not adversely affect the birth process all other forms of FGM are permissible.

Everyone would, hopefully, agree that the female genitals should be protected. If we look at the functions of the external female genitals that are protected we might come up with a list like this; the mechanical comfort of loose skin to aid intercourse, the mucosal function of lubrication and protection from infection, also the function in the case of the clitoris to initiate a deeper level of sexual arousal.

Some of the functions of the male foreskin that have been identified can easily be seen as parallels to the functions found in the external female genitalia.
The mechanical comfort of loose skin to aid intercourse, the mucosal function of lubrication and protection from infection, also the function in the case of the ridged band to initiate a deeper level of sexual arousal.
Anatomical studies have shown that the foreskin is not spare skin and is in fact a specialised structure richly supplied with nerves that provide sensation during sexual intercourse and masturbation. The Sorrells study [3] from 2006 showed that the foreskin has the most sensitive locations on the penis. Those areas are removed by the act of circumcision. Cold and Taylor in their anatomical study “The Prepuce” [15] analyse the foreskin at a cellular level revealing a complex structure of nerves and blood vessels. They say in the discussion section at the end of their paper that “Excision of normal, erogenous genital tissue from healthy male or female children cannot be condoned, as the histology confirms that the external genitalia are specialized sensory tissues.”

To excise tissue that will develop into 15 square inches, or 90 square centimeters, of healthy erogenous tissue is bound to have consequences. The nerves and blood vessels severed during genital cutting do not join up across the scar line. The lifelong after effects of circumcision are poorly studied, it seems that no one wants to know what happens to the large number of men and intersex children whose sex lives are probably impaired by genital modification. It is the proponents of the practice of cutting children’s genitals who have to prove that their activities are as harmless as they claim. The fact that men who have been cut as children for the most part think they are normal is just not valid evidence. This organisation is contacted from time to time by men who have known what sex with a foreskin was like before being circumcised for a minor problem. Their correspondence is often graphic leaving little doubt that their is a major difference between the normal state and the circumcised state.

Edinburgh protest

Our third year of protesting outside the British Medical Association’s Annual Representative’s Meeting has shown a marked shift in the manner of our reception. The doctors who ignored us did just that, ignored us.

The doctors who support our stance on the breach of ethics that non-therapeutic circumcision represents are now much more friendly. Watch the video and look out for smiles, petition signing and a delightful high five!
Also in the video MDC supporter Alison Waugh came to show her support and gave us a stunning interview.

No legal basis for cutting children’s genitals

There has been a lot of correspondence in The Independent concerning genital cutting; it is approaching the long summer holidays a time favoured by adults for cutting the genitals of girls and boys. Much of the fuss has been, quite rightly, focused on the fate of girls but all children have the same rights.

The letter reproduced in part below from Vera Lustig, writing to The Independent, on the 2nd of July contains a common myth about the genital cutting of little boys; namely that male circumcision is legal. Thankfully The Independent did not let her get away with it and published my response.

two-letters-edit-crop