I twas sitting at the beauty salon yesterday twiddling thumbs when a 7 or 8 year old girl was walked in. She was made to choose earrings and then had he ears pierced. All the while protesting profusely and not looking too happy with Mummy going "Stop whining and just get it done".

I had mine done at 21 (being a male and at a Christian school didn't particularly mix well with pierced ears!).

Of course I doubt you can call ear piercing mutilation but if it's done against your will can it be called "abuse"? Or is even that too strong a word....?


But let's get onto the real question...
Circumcision.

It's typically carried out within the first week of birth on boys and I beleive it's also done to some girls in some African cultures (involving the removal of the clitoris and minora flaps). And if you're a Jewish boy you have little choice over the matter if your parents want you to be Jewish too.

Some recent research suggests that [LINK=http://www.mediadoctor.org.au/content/article.jsp?intArticleID=584]Circumcising men can remove the risk of contracting AIDSNK] but I can't help feeling that is a little far fetched. Surely there are many other possibilities that influence such a risk including that circumcised men may simply practise more safe sex.

Isn't that besides the point though?
Shouldn't such a body modification like removing part of the body be left up to the person who's body is being modified? My partner and I were asked to attend a circumcision recently and we are both glad we didn't up there (baby's screaming was related to us by a third person).

It's rather interesting too that it seems to be used as a status symbol. Reminds me of when I lived in Tonga for a year and ALL the boys are circumcised and they were absolutely fascinated that I wasn't. It was quite THE talking point .


So what do you think? Mutilation or acceptable modification? Shouldn't it be the person's right to choose when they have the ability to make such a judgement?