Sexual Mutilations

1. Front Matter

   Pages i-xiv

   PDF

2. The Geography of Male and Female Genital Mutilations

   • James DeMeo

   Pages 1-15

3. A Short History of the Institutionalization of Involuntary Sexual Mutilation in the United States

   • Frederick Hodges

   Pages 17-40

4. Jehovah, His Cousin Allah, and Sexual Mutilations

   • Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh

   Pages 41-62

5. The Skoptzy

   • Didier Diers, Xavier Valla

   Pages 63-66

6. Functional and Erotic Consequences of Sexual Mutilations

   • Gérard Zwang

   Pages 67-76

7. The Human Prepuce

   • Mervyn M. Lander

   Pages 77-83

8. NORM UK and the Medical Case Against Circumcision

   • John P. Warren

   Pages 85-101

9. Circumcision: An Iatrogenic Epidemic

   • George C. Denniston

   Pages 103-109

10. Why Does Neonatal Circumcision Persist in the United States?

    • Robert S. Van Howe

    Pages 111-119

11. Learned Helplessness

    • Michel Odent

    Pages 121-124

12. Long-Term Consequences of Neonatal Circumcision

    • Tim Hammond

    Pages 125-129

13. Similarities in Attitudes and Misconceptions about Male and Female Sexual Mutilations

    • Hanny Lightfoot-Klein

    Pages 131-135

14. Female Genital Mutilation

    • Berhane Ras-Work

    Pages 137-152

15. Epidemiological Surveys on Female Genital Mutilation in Italy

    • Pia Grassivaro Gallo, Franco Viviani, M. Livio, R. Corsaro, F. De Cordova, G. Fortunato et al.

    Pages 153-157

16. Female Genital Mutilation in German

    • Christa Müller

    Pages 159-162

17. Redefining the Sacred

    • Miriam Pollack

    Pages 163-173

18. Challenging Circumcision

    • Jenny Goodman

    Pages 175-178

19. The Wound Reveals the Cure

    • Jeannine Parvati Baker

    Pages 179-183

20. Nurses for the Rights of the Child

    • Mary Conant, Betty Katz Sperlich

    Pages 185-188

Sexual mutilation is a global problem that affects 15. 3 million children and young adults annually. In terms of gender, 13. 3 million boys and 2 million girls are involuntarily subjected to sexual mutilation every year. While it is tempting to quantify and compare the amount of tissue removed from either gender, no ethical justification can be made for removing any amount of flesh from the body of another person. The violation of human rights implicit in sexual mutilation is identical for any gender. The violation occurs with the first cut into another person 's body. Although mutilation is a strong term, it precisely and accurately describes a condi­ tion denoting "any disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of any conspicuous or essential part of the body. " While such terms as "circumcision" and "genital cutting" are less threatening to our sensitivities, they ultimately do a disservice by masking the fact of what is actually being done to babies and children. Although the courageous example of the survivors of sexual mutilation indicates that humans can certainly live and even re­ produce without all of their external sexualorgans, this biological phenomenon does not, however, justify subjecting a person to sexual mutilation. The remarkable resilience of the human body is a testament to the importance nature places on reproduction rather than a vindication for surgical practices that compromise this function.

• Affect
• children
• gender
• girls
• human rights
• medicine
• nature
• production
• psychology
• reproduction
• resilience
• service
• state
• tissue
• sexual behaviour

• University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

  George C. Denniston

• Information Resource Centers, National Organization of Circumcision, San Anselmo, USA

  Marilyn Fayre Milos

Policies and ethics