Many Americans are familiar with “female genital mutilation.” The term is typically applied to practices occurring in some parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, but not to genital cutting practices that happen in the U.S. and other Western societies (including cosmetic surgeries on the genitals, surgeries on children with ambiguous genitalia, and transsexual surgery) and, by definition, not to genital cutting practices that happen to men in both Western and non-Western countries (male circumcision and other rare but more extreme practices). “Female genital mutilation” elsewhere, then, is widely condemned by Americans, but rarely condemned in light of these other genital cutting practices, nor America’s own history of genital cutting. In fact, it was not unusual to subject women in the U.S. to proper circumcision (removal of the clitoral prepuce, or foreskin) until the 1960s and these procedures remained legal until 1996 (though, as far as I’m concerned, their legality is still up in the air).
In any case, RabbitWrite gives us a glimpse into this era in American history. Reading from a Playgirl published in 1973, she recounts the confessions of a woman who chose to be circumcised and offers a short critique.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 93
Alex — January 17, 2011
Am I the only one who thinks including gender affirming surgeries for trans people with largely non-consensual, largely not medically necessary/recommended, genital modification practices is just a little bit sketchy? Or maybe way sketchy?
Keeley — January 17, 2011
Am I the only one who differentiates between surgeriwes inflicted on childrena and sugeries that adults opt for themselves? The kind of female circumcision we're talking about here is farily analogous to the more common male circumcision.
And while I am hard-line against ALL infant and child genital modification/mutilation (barring certain specific medical conditions), I wouldn't ever stand in the way of any adult (male or female) who of their own free will (and I recognize that in some ceases people are coerced, and the free will can be hard to prove) chose to modify ANY part of their body for just about any reason. Even if I think it's a bad choice, who am I to judge or tell them what's right for them?
Arielle — January 17, 2011
Can someone transcribe please?
nothankyou — January 17, 2011
Closed captioned or text please? You need to do this on a regular basis.
Syd — January 17, 2011
If it just me, or does the story from Playgirl sound....fabricated? Or at least exaggerated? The interactions between the teller, her various friends, the doctor, and her friend's husband just seem unrealistic to me. Maybe it's just because I don't discuss my own or other people's surgeries and sex lives over cat food at the grocery store?
SamR — January 17, 2011
I don't understand why the condition "hooded clitorus" is funny, except that perhaps that is the way they are supposed to be? Can someone enlighten me please.
Amy Barton — January 17, 2011
What is particularly sad about this is how it is directly related to routine infant circumcision of males. Women, cutting themselves voluntarily, in a desperate attempt to have a satisfying sex life - when it isn't THEIR bodies that are the problem.
The USA is a huge marketplace for Viagra and artificial lubricants. It isn't just the older couples who need them. Over time, the glans keratinises - dries out - and prevents the man from feeling as much pleasure. His pleasure is already reduced due to lacking the fine touch receptors that are only present in the foreskin and protected glans. He has only pressure receptors left. The solution to this? Thrust harder and faster. Ask for anal or aggressive oral. None of this is particularly conducive to a female orgasm. Circumcision may, in the short term, offer increased pleasure when the glans and clitoris are newly exposed. That fades away once they become hard and calloused. I've heard a man circumcised in adulthood describe it as the difference between having sex with your tongue or the tip of your cold, numb nose.
My first partner, who I was with for some years, was circumcised. I thought it was normal to need lubricant. I found out what it meant to lie back and think of England. He tried, but sex that was pleasurable to me just didn't come naturally to him. I didn't really begin to enjoy sex until I had my first intact partner. Now, about half of my partners have been intact, and there IS a difference. For the physics behind it all, see here: http://www.foreskinfunctions.com (note that the link IS sexually explicit, for obvious reasons).
I'm incredibly grateful that the love of my life was spared his foreskin by his parents. His wonderful, whole penis is my favourite play thing. All is NOT lost, however - the solution isn't female circumcision, but men who find their sex lives flagging as they age can look into foreskin restoration. Not everything that was removed can be regained, but over time the gliding action and the moist, sensitive glans can be restored, which will be better than anything they or their wives have ever had.