Nearing the end of the semster, and the end of a course on Paul, one theme occuring to MFoD's warped mind is circumcision. It appears in Paul as a sign of a Covenant whose days Paul feels are over (wrongly, as it happens), and has as its biblical origin the response to God's promise to Abraham of land and descendents. More pragmatic origins may be found in the hygenics of the time: circumcized membra are easier to keep clean, therefore less likely to be infected and thus more able to realize the promise of descendents. Jewish boys receive the Mark of Abraham at the age of eight days or so.
Islam also circumcizes its boys, but later on in life, anywhere from late childhood to after puberty. Culturally, the rite indicates that the boy is "clean enough" to get married; its religious symbolism is less apparent, although it appears to have been an accepted practice in the 7th Century. In those cultures that circumcize children, the boys suddenly have attention paid to their genitals, and, in some ways, join the ranks of adult men.
Customarilly, infant boys in the US used to be circumcized as a matter of course. The reasons range from hygenic to "looking like other boys." The practice has recently been declared a sort of genital mutilation, and is being looked at from a medical point of view.
Female circumcision, that's another thing altogether. Rather than the removal of the vestigial prepuce, which serves no critical purpose, girls in cultures that practice female circumcision have their clitoris removed. In some African cultures, this is followed by a sewing-up of the vagina, allowing room for urination. The girl's eventual husband ought to be the only person to release the stitches.
Why does this practice occur? Cultural reasons, mostly. The cultures that use this practice feel that women are sexually insatiable and, if left uncircumcised, would run around uncontrollably, looking for sex partners.
It is easy for people in the West to oppose this practice (and indeed, it ought to be opposed), but, before we become too smug, please let us remember our own continuing struggles with gender equality, in the bedroom, the workplace, and in the sphere of public polity.
The very fact that Western men have to be taught to (and sometimes cajoled into) being reciprocating sex partners, that there is even a question about a woman being President of the US (this is not a plug for Ms. Rodham-Clinton), that calling a man a "woman" is still an insult, shows how far we have to go. Thankfully, we don't practice genital mutilation, but a mutilated soul is no more healthy, and quite often less so (at least the circumcised woman has the blessing of her society).
Before we start throwing those stones, let us put our own glass houses in order.
Islam also circumcizes its boys, but later on in life, anywhere from late childhood to after puberty. Culturally, the rite indicates that the boy is "clean enough" to get married; its religious symbolism is less apparent, although it appears to have been an accepted practice in the 7th Century. In those cultures that circumcize children, the boys suddenly have attention paid to their genitals, and, in some ways, join the ranks of adult men.
Customarilly, infant boys in the US used to be circumcized as a matter of course. The reasons range from hygenic to "looking like other boys." The practice has recently been declared a sort of genital mutilation, and is being looked at from a medical point of view.
Female circumcision, that's another thing altogether. Rather than the removal of the vestigial prepuce, which serves no critical purpose, girls in cultures that practice female circumcision have their clitoris removed. In some African cultures, this is followed by a sewing-up of the vagina, allowing room for urination. The girl's eventual husband ought to be the only person to release the stitches.
Why does this practice occur? Cultural reasons, mostly. The cultures that use this practice feel that women are sexually insatiable and, if left uncircumcised, would run around uncontrollably, looking for sex partners.
It is easy for people in the West to oppose this practice (and indeed, it ought to be opposed), but, before we become too smug, please let us remember our own continuing struggles with gender equality, in the bedroom, the workplace, and in the sphere of public polity.
The very fact that Western men have to be taught to (and sometimes cajoled into) being reciprocating sex partners, that there is even a question about a woman being President of the US (this is not a plug for Ms. Rodham-Clinton), that calling a man a "woman" is still an insult, shows how far we have to go. Thankfully, we don't practice genital mutilation, but a mutilated soul is no more healthy, and quite often less so (at least the circumcised woman has the blessing of her society).
Before we start throwing those stones, let us put our own glass houses in order.
Image: student.bmj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment