Ryan and I watched an episode of Dr. Who last night where humans were cut apart and turned into machines. Metal, robotic bodies, but controlled by a human brain. Their emotions were turned off, because if they had emotion and could see what had been done to them, they'd go insane.
But would we really?
In the episode, the people were horrified at what they'd been turned into. But there were scenes that highlighted the horror of being sawed and hacked apart. Nothing gory, because it's not that kind of show, but we saw saws and razors and cleavers and winced at the mere idea of those devices being applied to our characters.
Seems logical, right? Who would wanted to be mutilated? Yet we willingly turn over our pets and male children to have parts of their bodies removed. Is it done in a safe, clean environment? Sometimes. But does that matter? We're choosing to take a body that has evolved (or in the case of dogs, been bred) into the shape most suited for its environment, and then alter it.
Why do we think these bodies are better when we adapt them this way? Let's start with animals.
Aesthetics. Yes, one of the reasons dogs' ears and tails are chopped off is to "look better." No logical reason. Someone just decided this animal looked better without half its ears and most of its tail. I'm not even going to debate this one, because it's ridiculous. If the people who mutilate their dogs because it "looks better" will agree to allow me to choose whatever body alterations I (not they, because dogs don't get to decide for themselves) want for them, then I'll agree that their reasons are perfectly valid. But I'm guessing that's not going to happen. Ignoring my building outrage, let's move on to the next reason.
Function. When dogs were still working animals, tails got in the way of pulling carts and could even be dangerous if caught in the wheels or spokes. While I could see the desire to save a dog from pain and even possible death, I refuse to believe that in a world filled with amazing modern technology we could not find a better solution than to alter the animal, rather than the machine it works with. Would you remove your pinkie toe to fit shoes better? No - we design shoes to fit our feet. Last reason...
The dog's own comfort. Some people say that certain dog breeds' very thin tails are prone to breakage. Cropping the tail saves them pain and suffering. Certain ears are prone to infection. Removing the ear prevents sickness. This one I feel is harder to debate because it sounds almost logical. But let's talk about what the dog is losing when you remove its tail or ears.
Can a dog with docked ears still hear? Yes. Would they be able to hear better if we didn't mess with them? Quite possible. And a tail is not just an inconvenience for humans. A tail provides balance for running and making turns, direction when swimming and, perhaps most importantly, communication! How do you know when your dog is happy? That tail waving frantically back and forth. Without a tail, we can still tell that the dog is trying to wag that little stump, but it impedes communication with other dogs. Here's a quick excerpt from an article from Animal Planet:
"Since tails are essential to communication, pooches without tails typically approach other dogs with caution so there's no miscommunication or fights between the two animals. A playful pup might not be able to interpret cues from the tail-less dog, so he doesn't back down, causing the tail-less pooch to resort to biting or other acts of aggression if he feels threatened."
But would we really?
In the episode, the people were horrified at what they'd been turned into. But there were scenes that highlighted the horror of being sawed and hacked apart. Nothing gory, because it's not that kind of show, but we saw saws and razors and cleavers and winced at the mere idea of those devices being applied to our characters.
Seems logical, right? Who would wanted to be mutilated? Yet we willingly turn over our pets and male children to have parts of their bodies removed. Is it done in a safe, clean environment? Sometimes. But does that matter? We're choosing to take a body that has evolved (or in the case of dogs, been bred) into the shape most suited for its environment, and then alter it.
Why do we think these bodies are better when we adapt them this way? Let's start with animals.
Aesthetics. Yes, one of the reasons dogs' ears and tails are chopped off is to "look better." No logical reason. Someone just decided this animal looked better without half its ears and most of its tail. I'm not even going to debate this one, because it's ridiculous. If the people who mutilate their dogs because it "looks better" will agree to allow me to choose whatever body alterations I (not they, because dogs don't get to decide for themselves) want for them, then I'll agree that their reasons are perfectly valid. But I'm guessing that's not going to happen. Ignoring my building outrage, let's move on to the next reason.
Function. When dogs were still working animals, tails got in the way of pulling carts and could even be dangerous if caught in the wheels or spokes. While I could see the desire to save a dog from pain and even possible death, I refuse to believe that in a world filled with amazing modern technology we could not find a better solution than to alter the animal, rather than the machine it works with. Would you remove your pinkie toe to fit shoes better? No - we design shoes to fit our feet. Last reason...
The dog's own comfort. Some people say that certain dog breeds' very thin tails are prone to breakage. Cropping the tail saves them pain and suffering. Certain ears are prone to infection. Removing the ear prevents sickness. This one I feel is harder to debate because it sounds almost logical. But let's talk about what the dog is losing when you remove its tail or ears.
Can a dog with docked ears still hear? Yes. Would they be able to hear better if we didn't mess with them? Quite possible. And a tail is not just an inconvenience for humans. A tail provides balance for running and making turns, direction when swimming and, perhaps most importantly, communication! How do you know when your dog is happy? That tail waving frantically back and forth. Without a tail, we can still tell that the dog is trying to wag that little stump, but it impedes communication with other dogs. Here's a quick excerpt from an article from Animal Planet:
"Since tails are essential to communication, pooches without tails typically approach other dogs with caution so there's no miscommunication or fights between the two animals. A playful pup might not be able to interpret cues from the tail-less dog, so he doesn't back down, causing the tail-less pooch to resort to biting or other acts of aggression if he feels threatened."
To really bring home what is being lost here, I found what I consider to be a good human equivalent: breasts. Do they provide a function? Yes, to provide nutrition for our young. Can we live without them? Yes, easily, and many women are forced to after suffering breast cancer. And, with baby formula readily available, many women don't use them for their intended function at all.
Breasts can also be dangerous, especially dense, heavy breasts, which are more prone to breast cancer. Wouldn't it be nice to prevent that? We'll just have all the women with larger, heavier breasts remove them! That will prevent them from suffering.
Some women are doing just that. But you'll notice most women are holding pretty firmly onto their breasts, because we, as humans, don't like to mutilate ourselves unless we absolutely have to. It's only other people and animals that we're ok with chopping apart. And, in this case, why would you remove something that MIGHT become a problem, when removing it has a direct effect on the creature involved? Why not wait and see if it DOES become a problem? Or better yet, use our advanced, modern technology to solve that problem.
Let's talk about humans in a bit more depth. It's become pretty standard practice in the US to surgically alter our male children's penises. Yet we abhor and campaign against the female circumcisions happening in Africa. Why the double standard here?
People say that they aren't the same thing. Female "genital mutilation" is a horrible crime, immensely painful, committed to control women, that removes all possible pleasure from the sexual act, while male circumcision is a small, hygienic procedure that prevents infection (yes, that phrase is getting thrown about quite a bit, isn't it?).
But it really all depends how or where it's done. Male "circumcision" can be just as horrendous as female "genital mutilation." If we practiced female circumcision here in the US, I'm sure it would be performed similarly, with the intent to leave that body part primarily intact and prevent uncleanliness and infection. I mean, think about it. There are at least as many folds and wrinkles down there for the ladies as the uncircumcised man. Why should it be any less of an infectious risk?
It's not. The real answer is not that there's no difference between male and female circumcision or between male and female mutilation. Circumcision is not the agonizing, traumatizing ordeal that mutilation is. Rather like our puppies, it's done at a young age, and we have (supposedly) have good intentions behind it. But we see it as a completely different act for females and males and the only reason is this: familiarity.
We're used to cutting penises and we're not used to cutting vulvas. Since it's common place, it can't possibly be wrong! When I had this discussion with someone, he said, "I wouldn't think, that with all the years we've been doing this, that me spending a couple hours thinking about it would have the better answer. That many years of tradition know better than I do." Bullshit.
Tradition doesn't mean generations of people have thought logically about something and determined that it continues to be the correct answer. Tradition means people have continued, blindly, to do something simple BECAUSE it's "always been done." In my mind, that's the worst possible reason to do something.
If you really think about it. If you sit down and think about the act of cutting your child's genitals, or removing a puppy's ears and tail, can you really say you think it's right or just? Circumcision MIGHT prevent infection but it also MIGHT dull sensation and lessen the pleasure felt in the act of sex. We don't really know. We're going on a bunch of guesses and maybes, but mostly we're just floating in the wake of tradition.
Here's another point someone brought up: kids can be cruel. Kids that look different get made fun of and it's hard to be the outcast. Women will make fun of him. Are these things a possibility? Yes. But most kids get made fun of at some point in their lives, penis-related or not. It's a thing they're going to learn about, and I don't think carving them as babies is needed to "make them fit in."
And as for being laughed at by girls, woman here. I have no idea what the difference is. I've seen a few penises and I didn't know which were circumcised or not. And if I had, other than the initial, "Oh, that's different but why?" I wouldn't have cared. It's just a body part, and News Flash! They're not an attractive feature anyway. That little surgical, face-lift isn't going to fix that.
Please stop cutting our babies. Animals and human.
I believe in letting people decide for themselves. Your children will be able to do that one day. Your pets won't, but does that really give us the right to do whatever we want to them? I'd like to hope humans aren't that self-righteous and cruel. But for those who will insist on doing it anyway, I hope they at least give it some serious thought and follow this basic rule: If it's not something you would do to yourself, then don't. Just don't.
Thoughts? Questions? Mild Outrage? Let's hear it.
