Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 5: Cutting to the Chase

Genital cutting is deeply gendered. While the long histories of both practices revolve around ideas of perceived sexual purity, morality, and cleanliness, males across cultures are generally considered to be sexual while women are not held with esteem to their sexuality, or rather, their solo sexuality. In other words, women are considered sexual in light of their husbands. As a result, MGC is often talked about for its social benefits of reducing embarrassment, reducing instances of masturbation, increasing sexual potency and longevity, reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, and other sexual benefits. In only two cases, that of reducing the risk of cervical cancer in women and of women preferring the attractiveness of a circumcised penis (an argument that does not seem to have any scientific merit), do women factor into the “benefits” of MGC. Most of the perceived benefits of MGC are male-only.

On the flip side, males factor heavily into the practice of FGC. From the Western perspective, the practice is considered to be the result of a male-dominated society: FGC is social “proof” of purity for the husband; total infibulation results in a smaller vaginal opening, which increases pleasure for the male; vaginal aesthetics are improved through the removal of labia; and clitoridectomy removes the male portion of the female genitals, to name a few. With Muslim sunnat, women are not required to but may be expected to undergo the procedure to match the suffering of Mohammed and the Muslim men who undergo MGC. Additionally, sunnat is seen as a blessing that would improve a woman (Gollaher 47).

Considering only the male-female dichotomy on the surface of both practices does not allow for a complete understanding of other gender related factors. Undeniably, gender differences permeate into other spheres of influence, and these spheres, in turn, influence both MGC and FGC. Looking specifically at the public-private spheres, one can quickly discern a difference in the ways in which genital cutting practices are carried out. The public-private sphere theory asserts that, across a wide spectrum of cultures, women are confined primarily to the private, or home sphere, while men, and any associated “male” activities, exist very much in the public sphere. When women are in public, they must be pure and clean, covered up, modest, and be in the company of other women or children. In Islamic society, when a woman is no longer sexually active or able to procreate, she is allowed to mix with men in public or social settings. If a woman is seen as a sexual being in public, there is a loss of sexual purity in the matrimonial relationship. As Rodriguez states, “healthy women were not thought of as sexual beings—or rather, not sexual beings on their own, without the promptings of their husbands” (2008:332). Thus, in an effort to reduce the risk of female sexual infidelity, female sexuality, and the root of female sexuality, must be removed, or at the very least, cut. In this sense, the fear of female sexuality and an emphasis on patrilineal purity, resulting from the need for a woman to be the representation of sexual modesty and honor for her family, namely her father and brothers, may have driven the development or continuation of some practices of FGC worldwide. This same sense of purity of the patrilineal line does not exist in Western society, where smaller, nuclear families are the model.

Additionally, MGC is often compared to other common medical practices, such as tonsillectomies and wisdom tooth removal (“The Doctors” 2012; Gollaher). While this is often not how FGC is described in Western medical and social literature or media, one opinion piece written in 2001 by a male medical doctor from Nigeria living in South Carolina does contain comparisons to other forms of body cutting:

We “mutilate” the umbilical cord by cutting it off at birth and arbitrarily deciding how long the navel should be. We “mutilate” our bodies with ear rings, tongue rings, tattoos [sic], nose jobs etc... We "keep" biologically excretory products like nails and hair - and use them for beautification - and do so differently, I might add, depending on the cultural environment. Some western women (in the US) begin to shave their leg hair at age 10. Has anyone else in the world attacked them for mutilating what God put there for a reason? We use traditional marks for medicinal and symbolic purposes.... Why is that not 'mutilation' of the skin? Why not ban it? (Omoigui 2001)

Comparing the cutting of an umbilical cord, which does not contain nerve endings, and which dies upon detaching from the mother’s body, to the removal of a body part containing more nerve endings than the fingertips is hardly copasetic. Comparing either MGC or FGC to any other non-medical surgery, cutting, or piercing practice which is done with the consent of the individual also leads to problems. Consent is an important part of the social and cultural idea of personal freedom. Opponents of genital cutting, particularly FGC, take issue with the lack of personal freedom in the decision to undergo the surgery.

In some cultures, it may be customary for younger children to get tattoos, have their teeth chiseled, or get piercings in their ears, lips, noses, genitals, etc. In the West, these practices are not common in children; while ear piercings are common among youth, stretching of piercings, piercings in other parts of the body, and tattoos require individuals to be of a certain age before they can be performed legally. Opponents of genital cutting would likely oppose other forms of skin cutting, piercing, or tattooing, in cases where children or women are forced, either physically or socially, to perform the body changing activities.

Comparison of either practice to surgeries that are deemed necessary for medical reasons presents additional problems. Neither tonsillectomy nor wisdom tooth extraction are quite as prevalent in the U.S. as MGC. Furthermore, tonsillectomy may be a preventative surgery in many cases, but it is also performed in response to tonsillitis. Even as a preventative surgery, the medical history of the patient and the patient’s family is weighed against current medical research on the risks of tonsillitis and options are discussed with the individual. In other words, the patient consents to a practice upon gaining information; tonsillectomies, for example, are not performed routinely on infants, nor are surgeries for actual birth defects that may or may not cause complications later in life, such as heart murmurs.

While proponents of male circumcision in the West tend to deny similarities between MGC and FGC, opponents of both practices often draw connections between the two and argue that "the cultural explanations and justifications for male and female surgeries are similar" (Bell 2007). As was discussed earlier, masturbation, sexuality purity, and personal and moral hygiene factor into both processes. In both cases, the cutting occurs primarily on children and infants, who do not have the capacity to give consent, even if they are old enough to communicate. Social pressures, including teasing and embarrassment, may also increase the likelihood that parents or children will feel obligated to have the practice performed.

Interestingly, there are differences between FGC and MGC having to do with informed consent. Western views place more emphasis on lack of consent with regard to FGC, stating that girls are forced to go through with the violent practice without being fully informed of the options or risks. Perhaps because, at least in Africa, FGC is generally carried out on girls who are no longer infants, some even in their pre-teens or teen years, the idea that long-term psychological and health problems arise from FGC that are not seen in MGC. Some forms of FGC are conducted on infants and may be less intrusive. There is often no distinction made. MGC, on the other hand, is often discussed with regard to the rights of the parents and not the rights of the infant, with the major exception being from the perspective of intactivists. It stands to reason that, considering the majority of arguments for both MGC and anti-abortion legislation come from religious groups, many of the same people who fight for the right to life of a fetus over the rights of a mother’s choice draw a line at birth and argue for the rights of the parents over the rights of the infant with regard to the infant’s genitals.[1]

Male and female genital tissue has different significance based on cultural perspectives as well. Modern Western medicine’s view of the foreskin for most of the 20th Century has held that it is a relatively worthless leftover from man’s early days. As a result, after being removed from a penis, the foreskin is tossed away. At least, that is until recently when foreskin tissue has been used by cancer and other disease researchers for a variety of practices, including testing, growing cells, and more (Gollaher 65; 165). “Ritual [MGC], in contrast, in Madagascar and many other places, holds the foreskin in talismanic esteem,” – indeed, women across many cultures exhibit unique practices regarding the use of the forskin upon removal, including storing the foreskin in jars, burying the foreskin in sand, and even swallowing them to promote fertility (Gollaher 65-66). I could uncover no information on the uses of labial, sheath, or clitoral tissue upon removal from the female; should it be discovered that the tissue be used for ritual or scientific purpose, Western opponents of the practices would react with an intensity anew.

Perhaps the least talked about example of gender division in genital cutting is the way in which the West deals with humor surrounding the practice. FGC is talked about with grave solemnity sans any humoristic tone. MGC, on the other hand, is the source is several jokes and can be discussed in social settings through the use of humor. In a 2012 episode of medical talk show The Doctors, a Pediatrician joked, “Well, you couldn’t walk for a year!” after a Plastic Surgeon jokingly stated, “I’m sure it hurt, but I don’t remember” (“The Doctors” 2012). Additionally, jokes involving over-circumcision, foreskins, and penises in general are in no short supply. A common example of such a joke is one I have heard repeated from several individuals in various forms throughout my life: “I was circumcised and they threw the wrong part away.” Indeed, humor surrounds a number of unfortunate MGC acts, including the now infamous Lorena and John Bobbitt penile castration story. If jokes exist regarding FGC, they are not known to me or Google. This is not to say that factors that play into or influence FGC, including cultural and religious traditions, male dominance, and misogyny, do not get ridiculed or become the focus for jokes. Certainly, there is no shortage of misogynistic jests and the content of such jokes may even reference female genitalia. However, the physical act of FGC, in any form, is not common in humor, at least in the West.

Lastly, one view, that of psychotherapist Bruno Bettelheim, stands out as relatively unique amongst most other. Bettelheim puts a large emphasis on the female influence of MGC, claiming that “circumcision developed as a result both of man’s desire to participate in the female power of procreation, and of woman’s desire, if not to rob the male of the penis, at least to make him bleed from his genital as women do” (Gollaher 69). Of course, this view present problems in application: MGC, generally speaking, does not have any effect on procreation and certainly does not allow a male to become pregnant or give birth; MGC typically does not result in extended periods of bleeding, and in no documented cases has it led to bleeding on a monthly cycle for the majority of a male’s adult life. Conversely, FGC can lead to complications in childbirth or in sexual intercourse prior to pregnancy. If it is true, at least on a social level, that MGC allows men to “procreate” in the sense that they produce more men through the act, then certainly the same argument could be made for women and FGC, as FGC is a marker for the passage into womanhood for some cultures. This, consequently, removes the uniqueness of MGC for procreation, for if MGC is truly to mimic female genitals, we would expect to see only MGC practiced. Yet, both practices are observed occurring in the same cultural groups many times over. Furthermore, if MGC represented a deep-seated need for men to bleed from the genitals as women do, we would also expect to see universal application. This, however, is not the case. Additionally, this notion does not account for notions of duality, as is found in various cultures in Africa, such as the Dogon, the Bambara, and the Lobi of Mali. In these groups, the prepuce is considered to be the female portion of the penis, just as the labia and clitoris might be considered male.

As a result of the long history of MGC in the West, combined with the cultural, social, and other factors that have influenced opinions on MGC, attitudes differ strongly in terms of MGC and FGC. It is difficult for many to see a connection between the two, with even those who are educated in medical science refusing to allow comparisons across gender lines. As Bell put it so succinctly, “all forms of female genital cutting are seen to constitute a sexual mutilation and violation of bodily integrity, and male genital operations are dismissed as benign” (Bell 131). Opinions are subjective, based upon the religious views on MGC one was taught since birth, social factors that include the circumcision status of the parents, and ideas or assumptions about male and female sexuality. For some, if a man can get an erection, there is no harm done (Bell 127). No consideration is made for risk, scarring, sexual dysfunction later in life, or personal preference of the individual whose genitals were cut. Conversely, FGC is only considered in light of its negative consequences, with little or no consideration for the social and cultural benefits. In other words, there is a tendency to downplay the risks associated with MGC while exaggerating those associated with FGC, and at the same time emphasizing benefits to MGC that may not actually exist. When broken down, the two practices can be reduced to only two primary differences: legal status in the West; and the likelihood for severe damage is somewhat higher for FGC. Until both practices can be seen wholly in light of their gendered statuses, regardless of the other factors that affect acceptance or disapproval of either, there will continue to exist a colossal chasm of gender which impedes thoughtful analysis by the public at large.



-------------------------------
[1] Note that this is mere speculation based on arguments in popular news media in the absence of legitimate research into pro-MGC groups, their relationships to Right to Life groups, and their religious affiliations.


Sources:

Scholarly Books and Articles

Bell, Kirsten. “Genital Cutting and Western Discourses on Sexuality.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 19, Issues 2, pp. 125-148.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Trends in In-Hospital Newborn Male Circumcision, United States, 1999-2010.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Last updated 2 Sep. 2012. Visited 4 May 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

Gollaher, David L. Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery. Basic Books: New York, 2000.

Sarah W. Rodriguez “Rethinking the History of Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy: American Medicine and Female Sexuality in the Late Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume 63, Number 3, July 2008, pp. 323-347

Shoen, Edgar. “Circumcision Updated-Implicated?” Pediatrics 92 (1993), pp. 388-391.

World Health Organization. “Female Genital Mutilation.” WHO Fact Sheets. Last updated Feb. 2013. Visited 6 Apr. 2013. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html

World Health Organization. Female Genital Mutilation: A Joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA Statement. Geneva: WHO, 1997.

Sources from Popular Media

American Academy of Pediatricians. Where We Stand: Circumcision. Last updated 28 Jan. 2013. Visited 12 Apr. 2013. http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/prenatal/decisions-to-make/pages/Where-We-Stand-Circumcision.aspx

Brady, Brittany. “Babies’ herpes linked to circumcision practice.” CNN Health. Last updated 8 Apr. 2013. Visited 6 May 2013. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/07/health/new-york-neonatal-herpes

Connolly, Kate. “Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany’s Muslim and Jewish Leaders.” The Guardian. Published 27 Jun. 2012. Visited 6 Apr. 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish

D’Arcy, Janice. “’Intactivists’ furious at new AAP circumcision policy.” Washington Post. Published 30 Aug. 2012. Visited 9 May 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-parenting/post/intactivists-furious-at-new-aap-circumcision-policy/2012/08/29/67ccd6d0-f235-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html

Goldman, A.J., Donald Snyder, and Nathan Jeffay. “Circumcision Controversy Endangers Fight To Keep Rite Legal in Germany.” The Jewish Daily Forward. Published 6 May 2013. Visited 9 May 2013. http://forward.com/articles/175915/circumcision-controversy-endangers-fight-to-keep-r/

Halperin, Mordechai. “Metzitzah B’peh Controversy: The View from Israel.” Jewish Action Online. Last updated 6 Mar. 2012. Visited 9 May 2013. http://web.archive.org/web/20120306221308/http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/article/8987

The Huffington Post. “Circumcision Controversy Brings Yona Metzger, Israel Chief Rabbi, to Germany.” Published 21 Aug. 2012. Visited 9 May 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/israel-chief-rabbi-in-ger_0_n_1816735.html

Omoigui, Nowa. “OPINION.” Vanguard Daily (Lagos). Visited 12 Apr. 2013. Available at http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-defended.html

Rosenblum, Emma. “Jewish But Don’t Want to Circumcise?” New York Magazine. Published 18 Oct. 2009. Visited 10 May 2013. http://nymag.com/health/features/60149/

Schwartzman, Richard. “The Emotional Consequences of Circumcision.” Beyond the Bris: Questioning Jewish Circumcision. Published 20 Feb. 2013. Visited 9 May 2013. http://www.beyondthebris.com/2013/02/the-emotional-consequences-of.html 

Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 4: FGC

FGC has a significantly less widespread occurrence, particularly in the West. In the early 1970s, during the second wave of feminism, FGC began to garner a lot of public attention. It became a cause for many in the West to rally against as a completely violent form of oppression for women. According to the WHO, “female genital mutilation is universally unacceptable because it is an infringement on the physical and psychosexual integrity of women and girls and is a form of violence against them” (WHO 1997). As some activists point out, FGC is similar to MGC in that it involves violence in the form of genital mutilation without consent. However, the language in Western literature and media concerning FGC is far more expressive in terms of violence, mutilation, and negative effects of the practice.

Historically, neither male nor female genitals have been fully understood and the question remains whether or not they are fully understood today. Female genitals, in particular the clitoris, have been assigned a wide variety of attributes, many seen as negative by authoritative bodies, and, as a result, have been victimized through a wide variety of practices. Throughout time, the clitoris has been considered equivalent to the male glans, the seat of female sexual pleasure, the root of female sexual impurity, the residence of immature female sexuality, the source of many emotional and psychological disorders in women, necessary for procreation, and not at al necessary for procreation, amongst other things (Bell 2005; Rodriguez 2008). Curing masturbation was a particular focus for the practice of FGC in the U.K. and the U.S. The act of masturbation was seen as unnatural because “the object of desire was not real but rather a product of the imagination; masturbation was not socially engaged… and the desire and ability to masturbate was potentially endless” (Rodriquez 2008: 331).

Most literature on FGC revolves around the practice as it takes place in Africa and parts of the Middle East and Asia. Western feminists largely support the WHO and other organizations that describe the practice as violent towards women and a violation of human rights. However, the practice is largely supported and performed by women who have either had the procedure done themselves or who support the practice within their own culture. Western ethnocentric ideals lead many to ignore the cultural and social histories of the various forms of FGC in certain regions of the world, making it difficult for them to view the practice as anything but mutilation. As a result, Western imperialism in the form of intellectual and informational authority and activism are forcing a changing of cultural values in the non-Western world. This topic alone can warrant a entire thesis, let alone a separate research article, and has been discussed and debated by many already.[1]


-------------------------------
[1] See Obermeyer 2003; Gruenbaum 2001;Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000; Dirie and Miller 1999; Dorkenoo 1994; and El Sadaawi 1980 for reference.

Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 2: Male Genital Cutting

MGC is a medical enigma. It is the oldest known surgery in recorded history, with the oldest depictions of priests cutting the foreskins of young men being found on the walls of the necropolis of Saqqara in Egypt. These reliefs date back to 2400 B.C.E. and while they are the oldest known images of the practice, the surgery certainly dates back further in time. It remains unknown what the impetus for the practice was, but it certainly began before medical science and religious ideology were distinctly separate fields. While many may ponder on the originating factor – whether it was for cleanliness, hygiene, aesthetics, chastity, therapy, or something else entirely is the matter of an entirely different debate – perhaps the more puzzling element of the practice is its long history of pervasiveness, particularly into modern, medically advanced societies. This is particularly true considering that for much of its existence, the practice has been confusing, unnecessary, and even offensive to those who don’t practice it: the Romans forbade it; the Greeks jeered at it (they emphasized the beauty of a long prepuce in much of their art and found the exposure of the glans to signify sexual arousal); modern day ‘intactivists’ claim that it is a sex crime.

It is important to note that MGC goes far beyond the traditional notions of routine neonatal circumcision that are withheld in the U.S. The typical American idea of MGC is a removal of the prepuce only, which is often thought of as being just a little bit of skin at the end of the penis. In truth, the procedure removes a third to one half of the entire skin on the penis. In other forms of MGC practiced around the world, such as in parts of Africa, Australia, and the Pacific islands, cutting can involve making slits in the prepuce, piercing the foreskin, or even slitting the urethra in part or in whole along the ventral shaft of the penis (Bell 2005:126). Because these forms of MGC are not as common or as widely known or discussed, many people have difficulty drawing a connection between MGC and FGC. However, one commonality is clear: a variety of genital cutting forms are practiced that range in severity of cuts and medical complications.

‘A COVENANT WITH GOD’

It is estimated that 30% of men worldwide today are circumcised. Two-thirds of the total population is Muslim. The remaining one-third is comprised of men in specific geographic locations where MGC exists as a social norm: the United States, Canada, Israel, and New Zealand. It is no secret that Islam and Judaism call for MGC. As both are Abrahamic religions, the originating scripture in Genesis is interpreted literally and expressed in present day as a symbol for one’s sacrificial covenant with the Hebrew God: “Every male among you shall be circumcised, You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.”[1]

Without doubt, this tradition is seen as carrying over into the third Abrahamic religion, Christianity, particularly among Protestant groups in the United States and Great Britain. Keeping the covenant, however, is not a requirement for Christians, according to the apostle Paul as written in the New Testament. Paul clearly states, “In Christ, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything.”[2] According to the New Testament book of Luke, Jesus was circumcised, which is not a surprise to most, considering that Jesus was Jewish. For this reason, he would have kept with many, if not all, of the laws of old. What is more surprising, perhaps, is that genital cutting never appeared in any of Jesus’ teachings. This is important in understanding the drivers behind the practice as it spread in Western Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is worthy to also point out the gender bias in the Old Testament: women were left out of the covenant of genital cutting. Jesus, Paul, or the authors of the books of the New Testament may have specifically left out discussion of MGC in Christianity to include women in the new covenant, which focused largely on baptism, a gender inclusive practice.

Metzitzah b’peh, or oral suction, is the Jewish tradition whereby the mohel, or ceremonial circumciser, places the cut penis in his mouth and sucks the blood to prevent infection. This practice continues today in some Orthodox Jewish groups, including those in the U.S., and has been the source of much controversy in recent years. Opponents of the practice claim that there is an increased risk of spreading herpes and other sexually transmitted infections to the infants. Furthermore, some claim the act is sexually exploitative and is, in fact, a sex crime. Proponents argue that the practice “lowers the internal pressure in the tissues” of the penis, allowing for the wound to heal more quickly and with decreased risk of infection. In addition to these medical benefits, they claim that the practice has “deep religious significance” (Halperin 2012).

As recently as May 2013, controversies involving the practice of metzitzah b’peh (MBP) have populated the news in the U.S. and Germany. A rabbi in Berlin has been sued for performing the ceremony on his own son (Goldman, et. al. 2013) immediately on the tails of a recent court case from Cologne that nearly banned the practice of MGC for non-medical reasons entirely (Huffington Post 2012). Putting the risks associated with MGC in general aside, the New York City Department of Health has specifically linked 2 deaths and 13 cases of infant infection with herpes since 2000 with the practice of MBP (Goldman; Brady 2013). According to CNN, infant males who underwent MGC with MBP “between April 2006 and December 2011 had an estimated risk of contracting neonatal HSV-1 infection of 24.4 per 100,000 cases, [which is] 3.4 times greater than other infants” (Brady).

The aforementioned Cologne court case had nothing to do with MBP. In fact, the case involved a Muslim family that had a Muslim doctor perform the operation on their 4 year old son strictly for religious reasons. The boy’s penis began bleeding severely two days after the surgery and an investigation was launched when the admitting hospital contacted authorities. The court ruled that MGC was a violation of the child’s rights and, taking the rights of the parents and the right to religious freedom into context, decided that “the procedure was not in the best interests of the child” (Connolly 2012). Specifically, the court stated that the child’s body was “permanently and irreparably changed.” The ruling brought both Jewish and Muslim groups together to criticize the court, claiming that the court violated their religious authority and that it was “an attack on centuries of religious affiliation.”

Outside of these recent cases, MGC has been staunchly defended by religious groups, particularly Jewish and Muslim groups, for thousands of years. Dating back to early Roman, Greek, and Babylonian control over the Middle East, laws have been enacted that both ban and protect the practice. Some historians believe that the prevalence of MGC and the increased invasiveness of the procedure – initial practices only required a removal of part of and did not require the removal of the entire prepuce along with the practice of MBP – expanded to differentiate Jews from others during periods of exile.

Whatever the case, any arguments made for the medical benefits of MGC, are deeply rooted in religious and social practices dating back thousands of years. Many studies of medical benefits of MGC focused on the frequency of certain diseases and infections in Jewish populations.[3] The problem with these studies, however, is that they ignore the cultural factors that may influence the prevalence of certain medical problems more than circumcision. For example, Jewish men traditionally have fewer partners than non-Jewish European and men, who also tend to be uncircumcised. Still, it is important to understand the cultural factors at play and recognize that no discussion of circumcision is free from the influence of these complex dynamics. It is important to note, however, that even within Jewish communities, a spiritual ritual, brit shalom, has been founded that takes the place of ritual MGC, replacing it with a new ceremony complete with a naming ritual and prayers (Rosenblum 2009). Brit shalom is a way for Jews to adhere to the covenant without cutting the flesh of their children.

----------------------------
[1] Genesis 17:10-11. The HarperCollins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version. San Francisco: HarperCollins San Francisco, 1993.
[2] Galatians 5:6. The HarperCollins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version. San Francisco: HarperCollins San Francisco, 1993
[3] See Weiss 1977; Poland 1990; Fleiss and Hodges 1996; and Laumann, Masi, and Zuckerman 1997, among others.

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 6: Conclusion (Child Sacrifice and Supposed Female Dominance)

Interlaced into the aforementioned circumcision incident, the viewer is hit with the most devastating blow of the film: She watched her son fall out of the window to his death, and did nothing. The flashbacks to the prologue are cut at a different time and a different angle, revealing new information for our digestion. Even if we were sympathetic throughout the journey as She tortured her husband, identifying, even commiserating, with her internal psychological struggles, we are now left feeling like the carpet was pulled out from under our feet, leaving us dumbfounded and foolish for having even attempted to make a connection with her pitiful soul. She makes Disney’s Maleficent look like an innocent little angel – for what kind of wickedness it must take to watch your child die and not even make an attempt to stop it. On the contrary, it appears that she even gained pleasure at the moment in watching the event unfold before her – possibly provoked by the same boorish drive that led Abraham to nearly sacrifice his son, Isaac.[1]

Between the violent content of most modern action films and the images of trauma and catastrophe that the mainstream media displays, it is quite easy for the typical moviegoer to tolerate and even get pleasure from violence in film. Von Trier was not shocking anybody by depicting a woman who beats up her husband and consequently not leaving his mark on the viewer’s mind. Like Cruella de Vil and her nastiness toward puppies, the way to truly make She a hated character was to have her embody the unthinkable. Once this information is brought to light, She loses all likability, and von Trier’s goal of equating woman with all that is wicked and vile has been accomplished.

Left to her own devices, the Antichrist will reject nature, and her natural position as subordinate to man, and turn to a practice of dominance over all. Viewers can begin to see this unfold in Chapter Two as She becomes more deeply driven into her own mania. At the same time, the surrounding environment becomes increasingly more hostile toward He, visually tying her trip down the slippery slope toward iniquity to the effects on man in the world. Acorns begin to pelt the cabin, He begins to get bitten by some large beetle-like bugs, baby birds get eaten alive by ants and other birds of prey, and as the chapter progresses toward the next chapter, we begin to see the forest literally begin to fall apart. A wide panning shot of the forest floor shows the son, dressed in the same pajamas as in the beginning of the film, carrying his teddy bear, and glowing, walking, presumably, away from his mother – perhaps indicating that he is attempting to escape her dominance. It provides another new insight into the child’s death – that maybe the son was actually attempting to escape his own situation

In Chapter 3, He discovers from the autopsy report that the bones in his son’s feet were deformed and then finds numerous photographs amongst his wife’s study materials that show his son’s shoes on the wrong feet. In a reversal of the practice of feet binding of women, She has instead exerted her influence over her son by binding his feet. It is unclear exactly why She bound her child’s feet, but it can be certain that it was done purposely, further lending credence to the notion that the son was making an attempt to escape his mother’s power. Upon learning of this torture, He feels the whole of the forest’s acorns pelting his flesh – he has come to realize that his wife is the architect of destruction – and he is afraid.

She continues to enact dominance over her male counterparts further into Chapter Three, primarily through sex, even making an argument that her husband doesn’t love her because he refuses to hit her during sex. In a drastic display, She runs into the woods and, again associating her ties with nature, masturbates violently while wrapped up in the exposed roots of giant tree. He follows her out, compelled by her sexual urges, and engages her in sexual intercourse, while also folding to her wishes to hit her. As they perform, limbs of immobile bodies are seen knotted like branches into the tree – the seemingly dead arms signify yet another connection between her sexual drive and the deaths of the many.

Afraid that He is going to leave, She attacks him with a block of wood, even smashing his penis, knocking him unconscious. Again, driven by sex, unable to refrain, she proceeds to masturbate him until he ejaculates blood onto her clothing. She then proceeds to drill a hole in his leg and, roughly mimicking the crucifixion, inserts a metal rod attached to a heavy round drum, fastens a nut to the other side, and disposes of the wrench. He is left, quite literally, anchored down and prevented from leaving her. However, he does make an attempt at escape by dragging himself into the woods and hiding in a hole in the ground. Pulling away from the Adam and Eve myth and moving toward the tale of Jesus, the rod in the leg symbolizes the torture and crucifixion of Jesus, while the husband’s escape mimics the New Testament tale of the via dolorosa, or “way of suffering,”[2] as Jesus supposedly dragged himself and his cross, essentially, to his grave. While in the hole, He sees one of the three beggars, the crow, and for fear that the crow will expose him, he attempts to beat it to death. The crow is resurrected and She digs him out of his “tomb.” Once more, Antichrist is connecting the end of paradise to another aspect of religion and life – he, like many prophets and scribes before him, makes a connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament, however factually unsubstantiated and horrifically arrogant it may be.

In the end, Antichrist puts forth the notion that had Adam destroyed Eve, women would not have suffered over 2 millennia of hate and violence. On the contrary, woman would have been free to reclaim her position alongside man as a co-leader over nature. Ultimately, it is man’s job to free woman, as He freed his wife from her own torment, thus releasing a multitude of faceless women back into civility. As a man, director von Trier created a piece of art, aimed at other men, that allows them to affirm their own internal misogyny and to reestablish the social rules by which they live their lives. As Sturken and Cartwright note, “In the history of art, the fact that paintings were geared toward male viewers had as much to do with the commerce of art as it did with the social roles and sexual stereotypes of men and women”[3] – the same would hold true for moving picture media, as the most common method of conveying social meaning today. It is clear that the movie is intended to have male spectators, as the male part is characterized by rationale and seen, though very blasé, to be the film’s hero, and in turn the hero over nature, life, and misogyny. If a woman were to adapt a male looking gaze, she may well end up as She had, upon assuming the male gaze over her study materials: detesting herself and women alike for the “wrongs” of which they supposedly committed.

Ultimately, the final statement of Antichrist, and in turn, on Eden and life, is that everything that was once beautiful is no longer – and this is the fault of Eve. Von Trier’s morality makes women out to be immoral and malevolent and in turn removes himself and his male counterparts from any blame. This attitude can be easily summed up through Nietzsche’s view that in every artistic morality, “man adores part of himself as God and to that end needs to diabolicize the rest.”[4] We no longer require the Bible to tell us that women are the destroyers of paradise, because we have Lars von Trier. Let Antichrist serve as a warning of the effects of religious fear-mongering. In the words of the late, great comedian, George Carlin, “The Christians are coming, and they are not pleasant people.”[5]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] HarperCollins, Genesis 22:1-24
[2] HarperCollins, John 19:17-37
[3] Sturken and Cartwright, 79.
[4] Nietzsche, 152.
[5] Carlin, 8.

Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 1: Introduction

As the father to both a daughter and a son, I was struck by the oddity that, while I was asked by several people, including medical personnel and non-medical, interested parties, whether or not I was going to have my son circumcised, not a single person asked if I was going to have my daughter circumcised. Indeed, some people assumed that I was having my son circumcised without asking, as if leaving him uncircumcised was not an option. What is the basis for this assumption? Is it based on social, political, economic, religious, medical, or a combination of factors? And why is there not a similar assumption, or even a question, regarding circumcising our daughters? In order to answer these questions, an examination of circumcision must account for social, economic, religious, cultural, and other factors that have shaped the history and development of the practice, and the controversies that ensue, along the binary lines of gender.

While routine male circumcision is not seen as medically necessary by most medical associations in the world – more on this to come – routine, non-medical circumcision rates in the United States remain high. In fact, routine male circumcision remains the most common surgery in the United States[1] with over 1 million boys being circumcised each year. There is a decline in routine neonatal circumcision; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report in 2011 that showed a drop in newborn male circumcision from 62.5% in 1999 to 56.9% in 2008 using data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey.[2] Still, the United States stands alone as the last medically advanced nation to routinely perform this surgery on infants. In this sense, male circumcision is a uniquely American phenomenon with a complex history that intersects religious, social, political, economic, and scientific domains. The primary arguments for the widespread continuation of circumcision today tend to come from religious and social points of view, while the arguments against come primarily from scientific views, but economics also finds itself playing a unique part in the reduction of circumcision, particularly in the Western U.S., where immigration of Mexican and other Latin American individuals is high and some states have removed Medicaid coverage of the surgery.[3]

When it comes to the female genitals, however, the United States stands nearly as a whole at the opposite side of the spectrum. The majority of the world’s female circumcision occurs in Africa and several countries in Asia and the Middle East. The World Health Organization has estimated that about 101 million girls aged 10 and older have undergone female genital cutting (abbreviated FGC) in Africa alone.[4] The practice is largely encouraged for religious and social reasons, including ensuring chastity and proving the sexual purity of a girl to her husband. In the West, most opponents of FGC belie any notion of social benefits, insisting that the consequences for FGC far outweigh any possible benefits. And this is the essence of the controversy, what I refer to as “The West versus the Rest,” though, admittedly, this may not be the most accurate description. The debate over FGC is not simple by any means; on its surface it is a about female genitals, but deep down it is about culture, ideology, social status, and, indeed, gender relations.

For the purposes of remaining as neutral as possible while discussing the practices, controversies, and analysis of both male and female genital modification surgery, I have chosen to refer to both practices with the phrase “genital cutting.” While male circumcision is rarely referred to as male genital cutting (MGC), this phrase will be used to avoid confusion and to better compare it to the genital cutting practices of FGC. FGC, meanwhile, will be used to avoid underrepresenting the risks, procedures, or complications resulting from cutting female genitals (i.e., female circumcision) or overstating the horrors typically only associated with the more sever forms of FGC (i.e., female genital mutilation, or FGM). As will be discussed below, different groups prefer different terms depending on the specific cutting practice and its significance to their ideology or tradition.

[1] http://academicdepartments.musc.edu/surgery/divisions/pediatric/procedures/circumcisionhttp://academicdepartments.musc.edu/surgery/divisions/pediatric/procedures/circumcision

[2] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

[3] Bell 2005:129

[4] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html

Extenuating Circum Stances

I'm in the process of conducting some new anthropological research on the controversies surrounding male and female genital cutting. Note, I am choosing not to use the term circumcision where avoidable, instead relying on the more neutral phrase "genital cutting" as circumcision tends to denote only male foreskin removal and does not account for the wide range of surgical procedures performed on female genitals worldwide. Additionally, the phrase "genital mutilation," which is commonly used in the West to refer to female genital cutting (FGC) draws attention to the horrors of FGC, while not accounting for the less drastic acts of clitoral and clitoral hood "shaving" or "clipping" and FGC that only involves piercing. Not all FGC is as drastic as some groups make it out to be, which involves total infibulation, or the complete removal of the clitoris, outer and inner labia, and is followed up by the sewing shut of the vaginal opening leaving only a small hole for menstrual fluids and urine. While this does occur, if you read the posts to come, you will no doubt see that this is not the only form of FGC.

As a brief intro, I will include the abstract from my research here. I will be posting my introductory section within the next two weeks, followed, hopefully, by a section per week.

Abstract: To cut, or not to cut? That is the question. The arguments for circumcision, both male and female, while often coming from religious or ethical groups, state medical benefits that arise from removing the foreskin, clitoris, or labia. For many years, however, arguments have been made against circumcision denying those same benefits. Opponents of male circumcision often cite its barbaric nature and argue that the medical benefits are largely overstated. A common argument is that while the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in 2012 that a decline in male circumcision could result in higher rates of urinary tract infections, HIV, and HPV in men, the AAP neglects to account for the lower overall rates of such issues in European and Asian countries with larger populations of uncircumcised men. Regardless of such arguments, the cultural and religious views of many individuals in the United States and many third world countries, particularly those with significant Abrahamic religious influence, continue to result in traditional infant male circumcisions. At the same time, in the United States, female circumcision and clitoridectomy are rare and may be considered by many to be heinous acts. This begs the question, then: what is the difference between male and female genital mutilation and why is one considered to be more cultural acceptable than the other? Additionally, what are the cultural beliefs that allow one group to not only largely accept genital mutilation but encourage it? The controversy surrounds the notion that genital circumcision, both male and female, particularly when concerning children and infants, is a human rights issue. This notion, however, is deeply divided along gender lines, along with economic, social, and religious lines.

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 5: Self-Mutilation and Female Circumcision

Religion has never been a stranger to self-torture and mutilation. This is particularly true of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In his infamous work Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche states, “From the start, the Christian faith is a sacrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time, enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation.”[1] In many instances, the self-torture is one that is purely psychological: fear of Hell; fear of physical torture; fear of fire and brimstone; self-censorship and anxiety over “impure thoughts;” &c. In other instances, the focus is on the physical shell. Certain sects of Catholicism have been known to practice self-flagellation as a form of repentance. Muslims, particularly radical Muslims, have been increasingly involved in suicide missions to promote their faith – suicide bombing arguably being the ultimate form of self-mutilation. Male circumcision is certainly a form of mutilation and, though it is typically performed on children and not self-inflicted, it can be if older men  decide to have it done. Female circumcision is another animal altogether, with consequences far more destructive than that of male circumcision. Perhaps it can be considered ironic, or, at the least, a contradiction in terms, that God allows us to slice skin off of our sons’ penises while insisting that our body is a temple.[2] In any event, the notion of physical mutilation is surely on familiar terms with religion.

Though Antichrist offers an overflowing handful of graphic violence in the second half of the film, it is the self-inflicted female circumcision scene that is almost certainly the most stomach churning and, arguably, the most misogynistic. If only one scene in the history of film had to be chosen to depict the culmination of hundreds of years of religious intolerance, resulting in an unmistakable fear and self-loathing instilled into the minds of women, it could be this horrendously vivid scene. By depicting an act so heinous, one that is still occurring in many cultures and subcultures today worldwide for a variety of reasons, von Trier is drawing a straight line connecting woman’s wickedness with her clitoris. The oppression of the woman, Antichrist purports, is a direct result of the intensity derived from her pleasure center. A pleasure center that, by the way, still baffles scientific minds today.

Building up to the aforementioned circumcision, She physically and emotionally tortures her husband, and begins to torture herself emotionally. Her sexual impulses drive her psychotic behavior and upon realizing that her desire for sexual pleasure is the cause of her son’s death, shown through flashbacks to the prologue, she grabs a pair of rusty shears, conveniently located underneath her buttocks. Once She has removed her clitoris, He is able to “free” countless women – women without faces, without identities, without any direct connection to Eve – from the bonds of their own self-hatred.

Despite being as gruesome a scene as any horror film one, further speculation of the entire sequence reveals something rather laughable: von Trier is a complete narcissist. As She inflicts the wound on herself, it is He who gets the credit for freeing the women enslaved to their own desires, not She. He wins. Yes, this is still misogyny, but the root must certainly be von Trier's own narcissism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Nietzsche, 250.

[2] HarperCollins, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 4: Antichrist

It has been a while since my last post. I have been focusing on some new changes at work, with my family, and in academics. This post focuses on the Lars von Trier film, Antichrist. When I last left off, I spoke of Disney's representation through many of their films of the female as a representation of the sins of Eve.

And a metamorphosis into sin it is, that She, female lead of Antichrist, undergoes throughout the 2009 Cannes film festival’s most detested film. Lars von Trier’s Antichrist is the product of one man’s internal struggles with his personal Christian beliefs and fears, and is a strikingly visual interpretation of woman as executor of iniquity. His vision runs the gamut from male dominance to female dominance, from child sacrifice to self-mutilation, from psychiatry to psychologically volatile, from sex to torture to freedom. In short, Antichrist could take its tagline from Nietzsche himself: “The Christian resolve to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”1 Even comedian, social critic, and philosopher, Bill Hicks noted the tendency for Christian fear-mongering. He said “The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. That's the message we're brought up with, isn't it? Believe or die! Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options!”2

The Danish writer-director penned the screenplay and began filming it while in a deep depression and after having forgone the use of anti-depressants3, which could explain the daunting imagery, discouraging, dismal tone and complete lack of censorship. Additionally, it may be the only film in the short history of moving pictures to hire a “researcher on misogyny.”4

The film is divided into chapters, visually, each one explicitly titled and providing a distinct division between parts – similar to the way in which most books, including the Bible, are divided into chapters distinguishing a change in space, time or subject material. The film’s main title and all the subsequent chapter titles are drawn on a chalkboard, each one written different becoming darker and more embittered until the epilogue title. The use of a chalkboard could signify that the film is going to teach the viewer a lesson, mimicking the use of a chalkboard in a school setting. There are four chapters in total, named Grief, Pain, Despair, and The Three Beggars, as well as a prologue and an epilogue. Besides the previously mentioned link between the chapters of the film and the chapters in the Bible, the film ties the chapters to images in the film. The three beggars are shown briefly in the prologue as three pewter statue soldiers, labeled pain, grief, and despair. Later, in the beginning of chapter 3 (Despair), He, played by Willem Dafoe, finds them amongst his wife’s research materials, depicted this time as constellations of a fox, a crow, and a deer, and later sees these constellations in the sky while a voice over says, “I’ve never seen such constellations.” In addition, all three animals appear at regular intervals throughout the film, often at the end of the chapter that shares their namesake.

The connection of the three beggars to the zodiac imitates the same proposal that the Disney films introduced through the imagery of the villainesses in tying women to witchcraft. The first time He sees the deer, at the end of chapter 1, they share a moment of silent communication before the deer runs away, revealing a dead fawn hanging from out of its mother’s vagina, being kicked around in slow motion, both reflecting the death of his child and foreshadowing information that is to come concerning his wife and son. The appearance of the deer is significant to both He and the viewer, as it mimics the relationship between mother and child that is a major plot point for von Trier. Furthermore, the slow motion shot and high pitched whistle with no dialogue draw an immediate union between the end of the prologue and the end of chapter one, relying heavily on the viewer’s interpretation of visual images to make these distinctions.

Antichrist opens with a lengthy slow-motion sex scene, filmed in black and white, set against the Handel aria “Lascia Ch'io Pianga” from the opera Rinaldo, which, even as it builds in character, sounds full of lament and sorrow. As the couple engage in fully graphic and rather raucous coitus, their toddler son is seen climbing onto a desk, then onto the sill of an open window and, predictably, falling to his death. Following the art house technique of interpreting scenes of intensity in a most dramatic fashion, the boy’s super slow-motion fall is cut to moments of the mother’s orgasmic ecstasy in a long, drawn out, borderline painful manner. After witnessing the boy’s teddy bear plow face first into the snow below, the viewer is left with the uneasy feeling that the boy’s death is a result of the parents’ sexual encounter, and that there exists some tie between his mother’s sexual pleasure and his death. There hangs the impression that the family is being punished for allowing the woman sexual gratification.

Furthermore, the decision to show explicit sex, with a close-up shot of penile-vaginal insertion, heightens the connection that von Trier is making between the original sin, sex, and death. Before Eve’s sin, there was no shame5 surrounding nudity and sex, whereas today there is a large amount of discomfort and the resulting censorship of anything sexual. Von Trier’s overt sexual imagery in one way references itself (a movie about sex should surely have sex in it; this opening sex scene foreshadows upcoming sexual scenes) and in another references history’s discomfort with sex. As the viewer is caught off guard, likely having never seen such a scene in a non-pornographic film, he or she is imbued with the same shame and anxiety that Adam and Eve felt upon recognizing their nakedness. In a certain sense, Antichrist is saying that Eve’s sin has resulted in film and art censorship through the unveiling of the human sense of embarrassment. It is woman who has ruined paradise and brought upon us shame and death, both tied to the act of sex, the same act that creates life – because of woman’s wickedness, the creation of life is now, too, the destroyer of life. Just as there can be no divorce without marriage, there can be no death without life. While still contemplating the connection between these two drastically different displays of life and death, the viewer is thrust into the next chapter.

The remainder of the film is shot in color, though von Trier keeps the colors cold, damp and unwelcoming, like a moldy cellar – so strong are his color, cinematographic, and prop choices that as a viewer, you can practically smell the old furniture bathed in cat urine in the couple’s shabby Seattle home or the rotten stench, like decaying hamster bedding, as the main characters trample through the woods en route to their cabin. Von Trier favors long shots with little dialogue, allowing the viewer to feel as if they themselves are immersed in the scenery, feeling the same discomfort, fatigue, disillusionment, sadness, and fear that He and She experience. He relies on an atmosphere of realism, despite the rather unrealistic characteristics of his storyline. Sturken and Cartwright note that realism “has been a fundamental goal of many styles of art, because art has often functioned to reflect society and nature back to its spectators.”6 Antichrist, as a work of modern art, or even postmodern art, intends to relay a feeling of pragmatism, of possibility, of reality, in the face of the oncoming less practical, more metaphysical, myth-like horrors that unfold as the plot thickens. Antichrist could be considered both modern, with its realistic depictions of sex and the historical treatment of women along with its linear frame and its ties to classical literature and art, and postmodern, as it questions the notions of what is actually real and really provides us with no clear resolution in the end. Like many religious and spiritual films, Antichrist relies heavily on a blend of reality and mythology, similarly to the book in which it derives its “originality” and its substance, The Bible.

Returning to the three beggars, just as they return throughout the film, the ties to the biblical trinity is undeniable. Many ancient religions put particular emphasis on numbers, particularly those that were polytheistic – Judaism and Christianity are no different. Though today, the Jewish and Christian establishments claim monotheism, there exists in the Bible evidence to the contrary. Generic references to ancient god Baal can be found littered throughout the Old Testament7, as well as references to other divine beings, including “sons of god”8, “nephilim” and “angels”9, “satan” 10and, of course, Jesus11. Recognition of other divine beings, let alone other beings existing in the same heavenly realm, negates the possibility of monotheism. Christianity attempts to “Jedi mind trick” believers by claiming that the three are really one (which, coincidentally, defies all logic and rationality), and has therefore settled on the notion of a “Holy Trinity.” The three beggars represent von Trier’s interpretation of the Christian trinity, easy for the meticulous observer to spot when other mythical references are revealed.

Perhaps, the most obvious references are provided to us by the characters in a self-referential way. Sturken and Cartwright, in reference to the view that producers of art construct an intended meaning, say that filmmakers, amongst other artists, create images “with the intent that we read them in a certain way” while still maintaining that the producer is “not in full control of the meanings that are subsequently seen in their work.”12 In particular, von Trier intends his audience to be aware of Antichrist’s connections to Christianity: the name of the cabin in the forest in which his main characters experience their fall from grace is named “Eden;” He draws a triangle similar to the food pyramid on a piece of paper, representative of She’s psyche, in an attempt to understand her fears, and, at different points of time in his attempt to analyze her mental state, he labels them with the words “Eden” and “Satan;” the research materials that belong to She have wood-carving style pictures of witch burnings, which were largely produced during a period of religious persecution against women of otherness [otherness being anything outside of the societal-religious norm: insubordinate, intellectual, atheist, &c.]. Once he can create the obvious connections to religious teachings, he can truly begin to deconstruct his own spiritual interpretations and thrust his views onto the spectators. Those spectacles can be subdivided into their own categories: self-mutilation and female circumcision, child sacrifice, and female dominance, though all three intertwine and overlap.

---------------------
1 Nietzsche, 172.
2 Bill Hicks, Rant in E Minor, Rykodisc, 1997.
3 Sean O’Hagan, "Interview: Lars von Trier," guardian.co.uk, 12 Jul. 2009. Web. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/12/lars-von-trier-interview>, 17 Apr. 2010.
4 Antichrist, dir. Lars von Trier, perf. Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, DVD, Zentropa Entertainments, 2009.
5 HarperCollins. Genesis 2:25
6 Sturken and Cartwright, 111.
7 HarperCollins. Judges 2:11, 10:10; Numbers 25:3; Deuteronomy 4:3; &c.
8 HarperCollins. Genesis 6:1-8; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Daniel 3:25; Psalm 89:6; &c.
9 HarperCollins. Genesis 6:4; 1 Peter 3:18-22; 2 Peter 2:4-5; Jude 6.
10 HarperCollins. Job 2:1-7; John 8:44; James 4:7; Revelation 20:10; &c.
11 HarperCollins. The New Testament
12 Sturken and Cartwright, 45-46.