The Rook ([info]commonboy) wrote,
  • Mood: intrigued
  • Music: There's That One Person You'll Never Get Over No Matter How Long It's Been - Zolof, The Rock & Roll

You just nip the tip

Egypt has just officially banned Female Genital Mutilation. Hooray forever!

Sort of.

There is an amazing post at Alas, A Blog about this very thing. Mandolin uses the term Female Genital Surgery, instead of "Mutilation" or "Circumcision" since the former makes it an inherently loaded word and the latter falsely equates it to male circumcision. Seriously, go read the post, because it is really well written - I'll be here sloppily summing it up for the lazy kids.

Anyway, FGS has actually been illegal in Egypt since 1997, with allowances for "exceptional" cases. In 1997, 97% of Egyptian women had clitoridectomies ("the most common form of FGS, involving removal of the clitoris. Often practiced along with the removal of the labia minora. May or may not be accompanied by a procedure intended to kill the clitoral nerve, such as pressing hot needles into the affected area."). As of the 2000, the number had dropped to...97%. However, there was a big victory for women's rights when, in 2003, there were 97% of Egyptian women with clitoridectomies.

So, not much had changed the first time. Unsurprisingly, many don't think anything will change this time, either. But isn't it good to make this totally heinous thing illegal? Well, maybe not. Mandolin explains how has backfired before:

Circumcision began to be performed on younger and younger girls. Because it was less likely that missionaries or western colonial agents would be messing in the lives of infant or very young girls, and because infants and very young girls would be less likely to understand what was going on well enough to discuss it with missionaries or western colonial agents, it made sense to do it on younger girls. (Here, again, we reach the problem with discussing FGS as a monolith. Some cultures started out performing FGS on younger girls. But many didn’t, and many of those started performing the surgeries on younger and younger girls.)

Why is this a problem for women? Among other things, it decreases the likelihood of sexual function. Among the Kikuyu of Kenya, circumcision rituals were proceded with kinds of genital stimulation and body play that appear to have been intended to teach women how to orgasm once they had been cut. Adolescent girls and boys would wrap their bodies in tight strips of leather and rub up on one another. This kind of all-body stimulation is likely to have been instructive in helping women adjust to the altered physical sensations of a circumcized body. When circumcisions are done at a younger age, these kinds of rituals are likely to decline or disappear altogether.

The destruction of social practices that surround circumcision, such as coming of age rituals, that provide context and meaning to the procedure. These contexts may not have anything to do with sexual pleasure (which is why I’m making this its own category), but are likely to have to do with community building and the function of a healthy culture. Destroying these rituals, but KEEPING the circumcision, is the opposite of good. The better option, of course, is to figure out how to keep the rituals while changing their object (as some activists have worked on doing).

Circumcision was often driven underground, to be done in private, furtive spaces, which makes it difficult for the procedures to be done in clean, healthy ways that minimize risk to the girls.

....Perhaps the most important effect of banning FGS is that it created a dichotomy, the effects of which activists are still dealing with today. It underlined the idea that female genital surgeries are African, and not practicing female genital surgeries is American. Not to practice female genital surgery is to capitulate to colonialists. To practice FGS is to be genuinely African.


Now, neither of us are saying that FGS is a good thing or that we shouldn't try to stop it. What Mandolin's saying is that you must take into account why this practice started and why it continues. You have to reason using logic that is relevent to their culture, not your own. The argument can't be framed (as it often is) as "they are trying to take away your sexual pleasure" - that is a arguement relevent to westerners, not to many Africans. In fact, if you read this year old post at ThinkNaughty, you'll find there are many women who've undergone FGS that won't even AGREE.

It may be surprising, then, that many, though by no means all, women who have experienced FGC are able to engage in and enjoy sex. In one medical study cited by Obermeyer (407), 43% of women who had some form of FGC experienced a lack of orgasms, while only 18% of those who had not undergone FGC had the same problem (another study found a 12% rate of anorgasmia; Obermeyer’s review found the methodology of both studies to be highly suspect). While this is a significant effect, it bears noting that 57% of women who had had FGCs were therefore achieving orgasm. It also bears noting that studies of American women claim that as many as 40% have never experienced orgasm.


Oh, read that whole post, too. I actually happened upon both of there articles today, and found that they complimented each other very well. There's a lot of detail and reasoning on why many women willing undergo the surgery and why it isn't as cut-and-dried (so to speak) an issue as Westerners would like to believe. In fact:

Although not all assessments of FGC are positive or even mixed (as some of the responses reported above are), the wide range of responses suggests that the terms in which much anti-FGC advocacy - and, even moreso, mainstream responses - couch their opposition to these practices are overly simplified and based not so much on the lived experiences of the Africa women on whose behalf they claim to speak but on their own, culturally-bound perceptions of these practices, what I call the “if-it-was-me” response.
....
Given the unremitting horror with which FGC is reported and discussed among Westerners, it may come as a surprise that many women in societies that practice FGC utterly reject the description of themselves as “victims”. In an interview with anthropologist Fuambai Ahmadu, a Kono woman named Leunita exclaimed: "What gets me mad, is when people say we are ‘victims’. And I say, victims of what? The women of the Bundu [cut women] are not victims! For us, the one you would have to pity is the woman who is not of the Bundu! "


As I said, both posts give you similar - yet different - perspectives on Female Genital Surgery that you won't usually see.
Tags: feminism, politics

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 25 comments

[info]ynfytyn

July 6 2007, 00:39:16 UTC 4 years ago

Ok, I admit, I've only skimmed this post b/c my brain is fried, but one sentence caught my eye:

Mandolin uses the term Female Genital Surgery, instead of "Mutilation" or "Circumcision" since the former makes it an inherently loaded word and the latter falsely equates it to male circumcision.

Umm . . . explain the false equation?

[info]commonboy

July 6 2007, 16:02:37 UTC 4 years ago

Good job on the call-out. I read it, and it made sense and...you know...that was the reasoning given. Now that I try to answer, I'm not positive.

It may be the same (but opposite) association "mutilation" has. That is, male circumcision is pretty widely accepted in America so it gives some extra "it can't be that bad" baggage (for most people) - where "surgery" keeps it neutral.

Or, it's that FGS/M/C could mean any of three typical things, where as male circumcision is this one standard practice (unless I am horribly mistaken).

[info]redfreadom

July 6 2007, 17:00:45 UTC 4 years ago

I got your back Mike.

Circumcision means to "cut around". As in leaving the main portion intact. Female circumcision would be the equivalent of cutting off the males entire penis leaving just the balls and a stub.

Thus it would be false to call an FSG a Circumcision.

[info]ynfytyn

July 7 2007, 01:08:29 UTC 4 years ago

Hang on. Untrue. (But a common misunderstanding.) Nursing baby down, will be back to discuss. :)

[info]ynfytyn

July 7 2007, 01:31:17 UTC 4 years ago

OK. Let's start with a basic definition. Circumcision (male or female) as we're discussing here is defined as an amputation. It's the surgical removal of a healthy, functioning body part for nonmedical reasons.

There are only three medical reasons to amputate the foreskin or clitoral hood: gangrene, cancer, or frostbite.

Very few circumcisions (male or female) are for these reasons, therefore, the VAST majority of circumcisions are nonmedical in nature. They're generally religious, cosmetic, or social.

In both MGM and FGM practices, there are several different kinds, to varying degrees of damage. The circumcision of a boy can be "tight" or "loose," referring to how much foreskin is removed. A loose circumcision tears the foreskin from the head of the penis -- because they're fused in infancy and early childhood to protect the penis -- and then removes the sphincter at the end of the foreskin (that helps keep the foreskin down over the head of the penis, preventing infection and keeping the head clean and lubricated) and some nerve endings, exterior gliding skin, the frenulum, and interior mucosal layer. A tight foreskin removes all of that plus several more inches of skin and mucosal layer, right up to the shaft skin (and often some of that as well). The circumcision of a girl can remove some or all of the external labia, internal labia, clitoral hood, and/or the clitoris itself.

Both involve restraining the infant or child. Few involve anesthesia (yes, even in the U.S.). Both cause scarring and permanent damage to the body. Both cause an immediate and severe spike in cortisol levels and some degree of shock and blood loss. Both cause permanent changes to brain structure, most relating to pain sensitivity (they increase it) and how the body handles stress. Both have high rates of side effects and secondary infections. Both have caused death (yes, even in the U.S.).

One dictionary definition of "circumcision" is "to cut around," but it isn't the medical definition. Circumcision of a girl involves cutting, scraping, and sometimes even sewing together to reduce the size of the vaginal opening. Circumcision of a boy involves tearing the foreskin from the head of the penis, crushing the nerve endings, and slicing away the crushed flesh. Both are a little more complicated than "just a nip off the tip."

Needless to say, my son is intact. . . .

[info]redfreadom

July 7 2007, 02:06:06 UTC 4 years ago

I think you are either coming down too hard on "MGM" or not hard enough on "FGM". To me it seems like the difference between a slap across the face and a baseball bat to the skull.

Note that I am not saying I agree with "MGM" but most medical/sexual studies on it have either come up neutral on it or slightly opposed or slightly in favor based on the many pros and cons (Not Like I think we understand it completely).

[info]ynfytyn

July 7 2007, 02:16:49 UTC 4 years ago

Can you cite your studies? I know the AAP has an official stance on "eh" on circumcision, but that's largely influenced by our society and their desire not to lose credibility or influence with said society. The national medical association of *every* other first world country has advocated against MGM for some time now.

The funny thing is that I didn't do any research on circumcision before deciding to keep my daughter and my son intact. It just made sense. I started to learn about it after my son was born. Over 100 hours of research later, I've got a ton of resources and I'm happy to share them if you're interested. I'd love to see yours.

[info]hurrysundown

July 7 2007, 03:00:07 UTC 4 years ago

The only anything I've ever actually run into with any kind of bias on male circumcision was a friend who's boyfriend was not circumcised and the foreskin ripped several times during intercourse which was, needless to say, not a fun experience for him, and it also ran the risk of infection. I believe I've also heard sanitation cited as a reason for male circumcision - I'm interested on your opinion of this as the mother of an uncircumcised infant.

[info]ynfytyn

July 7 2007, 04:04:53 UTC 4 years ago

Being intact prevents infection; it doesn't increase the risk of infection. Creating an open wound that's going to sit in a dirty diaper while healing is an infection risk. A rather large one, in fact.

However, and this is specifically common to the U.S. where care of an intact penis isn't well known or well communicated by the medical establishment, many intact men were routinely retracted as infants, which causes a host of problems, including the tearing you mentioned above. That's not normal, that's the direct result of scar tissue from being retracted during diaper changes and at doctor's visits before the foreskin was naturally retractile. That's also a common cause of infection, because retracting the foreskin by anyone other than the owner of the penis, especially during diaper changes, introduces small tears and bacteria . . . a bad combination.

Taking care of an infant's intact penis is very easy. Wipe the outside like a finger and leave it alone. On the very rare occasion that poop or dirt gets inside the edge of the foreskin, just swish the baby in a warm bath and DON'T RETRACT. That's it. It's really that simple.

Bastian is a year old and hasn't had any problems. He's not retractile yet, but that's also normal. Most boys aren't retractile until sometime between age 3 and 13. It happens naturally as they discover and play with their new toy. It doesn't need to be forced or, as I heard it put once, "trained," and it shouldn't involve anyone other than the owner of the penis.

My husband is also intact. And without getting too graphic, he's never had a health problem as a result and I, for one, am very grateful to my mother-in-law for that fact. ;)

[info]redfreadom

July 9 2007, 19:03:55 UTC 4 years ago

" I know the AAP has an official stance on "eh" on circumcision, but that's largely influenced by our society and their desire not to lose credibility or influence with said society."

Do you have evidence of bias or just other biased people claiming bias? Because I can play the lose credibility game with your statements.

"The national medical association of *every* other first world country has advocated against MGM for some time now."

My guess is that was a lie. I can think of at least 1 first world country that probably isn’t on your list. lol, guess who! Also the UK specifically decided not to issue a policy on non-medical circumcision (if it was so bad wouldn’t they?) As for the other nations. Well... The US is the best nation in the world for identifying medical issues (though not treating them). If I trusted any country to come up with the right answer it would be them.

But you want other organizations. I don’t feel like digging to deep so I will give you a small one and a big one.

AAFP - American Academy of Family Physicians
WHO - World Health Organization (if they were hardcore against it would they be weighing going into countries and performing them?)

Careful. I know you read and researched a ton of stuff out there but in what I saw there was very little in the way of unbaised information. Everyhting seems to be strongly opposed or in favor of it. Obiously there is more stuff out there opposed but noise does not make truth.

The people who want to stop somehting thats already happening always seem to be louder. See war, abortion whatever

[info]ynfytyn

July 10 2007, 03:37:02 UTC 4 years ago

I have plenty of evidence, but I still haven't seen you cite your sources and I just can't do a one-way relationship. I got over that in college. *bats eyelashes* I've already put a couple hours of research into this thread just making sure that everything I've posted is accurate and up-to-date.

Quickly I will note that the UK has a *very* low rate of circumcision and it's almost unheard of to circumcize in the UK for anything other than a religious conviction. And even then, those rates are getting lower as circumcision rituals are being replaced by some parents with other rituals that don't involve permanent body modification without consent.

Most of the information out there is biased one way or another. However, I made a living doing research for some time and I think I'm pretty good at weeding out the chaff. Nothing I found convinced me that there is any medical reason to amputate healthy, functional flesh. The default is being intact. The US is odd-man-out in how we treat our baby boys and I have yet to come across a convincing and logical argument for putting a newborn through risky cosmetic surgery for no medical benefit.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. It was a good one. No name calling, no hair pulling. . . . ;)

[info]hurrysundown

July 6 2007, 03:10:24 UTC 4 years ago

I...uh...I'll go back and read the whole thing when I can think of anything other than "OW OW OW OH MY FUCKING GOD PLEASE NO." in the process.

[info]redfreadom

July 6 2007, 11:39:27 UTC 4 years ago

FGS's are a perfect example of why the old adage "Its not our place to judge other cultures" doesn’t always hold true.

What is more disgusting is that in many cases the procedure is done to make the girl less likely to cheat on her husband. Getting all the women collars and leashes might just be less sexist than that.

Oh and you can never trust a victim to know they are a victim. Especially when sex is involved. Add that to the fact that people can easily be brainwashed into doing or believing anything in countries where the flow of information is restricted

[info]kieran001

July 6 2007, 16:23:09 UTC 4 years ago

"Oh and you can never trust a victim to know they are a victim. Especially when sex is involved. Add that to the fact that people can easily be brainwashed into doing or believing anything in countries where the flow of information is restricted"

FACT. Look at rape victims, for example. They often believe that the rape was their fault and even feel guilty about being angry at the person who assaulted them.

[info]justmeg08

July 6 2007, 14:27:17 UTC 4 years ago

This is a rough topic. What actually bothers me the most is that by making FGS illegal did nothing to change the percentage of females who had experienced it, and probably made it that much more painful, that much more risky, and who knows what else by merely pushing it underground.

I'm not saying it's a good thing. And this is one of those moments that I'm wholly and utterly thankful that I was born in this country. But we should -really- quite meddling in other cultures. You'd think we'd have learned that lesson by now. :(

[info]commonboy

July 6 2007, 16:10:41 UTC 4 years ago

"This is a rough topic. What actually bothers me the most is that by making FGS illegal did nothing to change the percentage of females who had experienced it, and probably made it that much more painful, that much more risky, and who knows what else by merely pushing it underground."

Which is EXACTLY the problem. Egypt was actually pretty advanced of a country as far as FGS goes. Rather than it being something you did in your home or went out into the woods to do, parents could bring their children to a nice clean hospital and have it done under sterile, healthy conditions. Before the ban, anyway. Now they no longer have that option.

But we should -really- quite meddling in other cultures.

One of the bloggers talks about a case where activists had convinced parents against it and so they didn't get it done for their children. But, when the girl grew up, she was just unmarriable, so she went and got it done, anyway. Which is why it's a problem that needs to be addressed at the cultural level.

They suggest that rather than "stepping in and fixing things", western feminists and other activists need to assist those activists already in the culture, not try to do their work for them.

[info]ynfytyn

July 7 2007, 01:36:26 UTC 4 years ago

Mostly I just think it's EXTREMELY hypocritical to criticize another country for allowing FGM when the U.S. is one of the only countries in the world that still practices widespread MGM. We're waaaaay behind the curve on that front. Talk about the pot and the kettle.

[info]commonboy

July 7 2007, 21:53:10 UTC 4 years ago

Maybe it's a matter of priority? Of course, you've done more research than I have, but it seems to me like there are far more detriments to FGS than MGS. I mean, don't get me wrong - cutting and tearing at your child's genitals is pretty muss no matter what way you slice it. But, there is less mortality, fewer complications, and debatable health benefits (assisting in HIV prevention, lowering certain cancer odds) in MGS. I've never heard of any such benefits to FGS.

Let me clarify my position: I don't believe the majority of anti-FGS activists think that. I know many don't see a problem with MGS. But, ultimately, *I* don't think our nation's focus on FGS as opposed to MGS is such a terrible thing, since I think FGS is more dangerous medically. Unfortunately, the way they've gone about trying to fix it is also very dangerous, so it was like an anti-win.

[info]ynfytyn

July 8 2007, 04:02:39 UTC 4 years ago

information overload contained herein. stand warned. ;)

The HIV prevention study was flawed six ways to Sunday and has been torn apart. Point to consider: The U.S. has one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the world and also one of the highest rates of circumcision. Hmm.

There are several statements and studies worth reading (here are just a few links):

Langerin is a protein produced by Langerhans cells in the mucosal lining of foreskin, and it actually fights HIV: http://www.cirp.org/news/healthday2007-03-05/ Circumcision removes those cells, and the natural protection they provide.

Research on Langerin: a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en... ids=17334373

Doctors Opposing Circumcision HIV statement:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...Statement.html

Circumcision overstated as HIV preventative: http://www.biologynews.net/archives/...inst_aids.html

African News, Circumcision is No Silver Bullet
http://www.africa-interactive.net/index.php?PageID=4620

Credit to vaughmama on MDC (cut-and-paste here since she said it just fine and my brain is fried . . . bedtime for me soon!): In those much publicized studies in Africa, the researchers’ motives were suspect, and the research was terribly flawed. One thing that especially bothers me is that the circumcised group got specific instructions to abstain from sex and use condoms that the intact control group did not. The widespread promotion of the African studies’ findings gives a message of false protection because men might think that being circumcised means that they can have sex without condoms without any risk, which is untrue. And remember that if circumcision prevented AIDS then the USA wouldn’t have such a high rate of infection. You’ll read about this in the links above, but I also want to reiterate the enormous problem of prostitution in Africa that contributes to their AIDS crisis, as well as, a widely held belief that if an HIV infected man rapes a virgin he will be cured (the younger the better...sick!)

Also in regard to the promotion of circumcision as a preventative measure against HIV, it is reminiscent of the incorrect statements that the AAP used in the past to promote circumcision as a preventative measure against penile and cervical cancer. In 1996 the American Cancer Society wrote a letter to the AAP; saying in part “Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate.” http://www.cirp.org/library/statemen...s/1996-02_ACS/

A newly published study by Sorrells, “Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis” (British Journal of Urology Int’l, 2007 http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...rells_2007.pdf ), shows that circumcision significantly decreases penile sensitivity, not only raising serious human rights concerns but also a genuine concern that circumcised men, with one-fourth the penile sensitivity as intact men, might not wear condoms, which further desensitize the penis. The foreskin is MEANT to retain moisture. The Glans penis is a mucous membrane that is meant to be moist. It only becomes dry and keratinized after circumcision. That is not its normal state.

[info]redfreadom

July 9 2007, 19:07:02 UTC 4 years ago

Re: information overload contained herein. stand warned. ;)

I really appreciate you pulling up all this reading. But seeing as how any son I am going to have is years in the future I just dont have the energy to go through all this.

[info]ynfytyn

July 10 2007, 03:39:53 UTC 4 years ago

Re: information overload contained herein. stand warned. ;)

If you don't, then don't. I just ask that when you do have your hypothetical son, please do your homework before making any decisions. There's always time to circumcize if that's what you're going to do, but once you do, you can never undo it. I think it's worth considering the fact that it's a cosmetic surgery and your hypothetical son would be too young to give informed consent, which, for any other surgery in our society, would make it illegal. Odd loophole.

Oh, and if you ever get the time, check out Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode about circumcision. It's interesting.

[info]redfreadom

July 10 2007, 03:46:57 UTC 4 years ago

Re: information overload contained herein. stand warned. ;)

Heh, dont forget my piont was never that I liked MSG. Just that it shouldnt be considered on the same level as FSG.

I think the biggest piece of evidence i need for that is its rare I ever hear a guy say "Man I wish I wasnt circumsized. Its damaged my life"

FSG on the other hand...

[info]ynfytyn

July 10 2007, 04:08:00 UTC 4 years ago

Re: information overload contained herein. stand warned. ;)

Ah. See, guys aren't always that open about things like that. I know more than a few guys who have regrets, though. Talk to hideouspenguinboy. He's probably linked through this lj and has had some choice things to say about his parents' decision and he hasn't even had to deal with some of the more common "botches" due to circumcision. I know someone else linked on this lj who had a pretty severe botch job done, but I don't know if he would feel comfortable with me putting his name out there.

Or check out "The Case Against Circumcision" forum on www.mothering.com/discussions. You'll find quite a few brave souls there who have posted about their "normal" circumcisions and their anger and regret, and several who've had to deal with some of the more painful consequences like skin bridges, buried penis, hair on the shaft, excessive scarring, etc. There are a few who are even trying to restore what they lost.

I've met guys who feel damaged by circumcision. I haven't met women who feel damaged by FGM, but I've read accounts of them. I've also met guys who don't feel that way, either because they simply don't want to think about it, aren't educated about what circumcision actually is and what the common side effects are, can't handle the thought that they might be missing out on something, or can't handle the thought that their parents, however well-meaning, did something that hurt them. I've also read accounts by women who were circumcized who also don't see anything wrong with it. Quite frankly, I think a lot of that is rationalizing a horrible experience so that it makes sense. Humans are flexible; we overcome. Some do it by perpetuating and normalizing a scarring trauma; others confront it head on and deal with it, and break out of the cycle.

[info]ynfytyn

July 8 2007, 04:03:18 UTC 4 years ago

MG is more medically dangerous than you think. read on, my friend, read on. ;)



It is also important to remember that the consideration of circumcision with regard to STD and AIDS prevention does not apply to children. Babies and children are not sexually active. Kept intact from birth, they can weigh the issue for themselves when they are old enough to consent. Should the choice of sensitivity & function of the foreskin VS possible STD prevention be the choice of the parents, or the owner of the penis??! I argue that the choice should be left to the owner of the penis to make when they are an adult. In fact, physicians have legal and ethical duties to their child-patient to render competent necessary care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else, including a parent, expresses. The child has a legal right to bodily integrity. Upon reaching adulthood, the child may have a right to sue to recover damages for injuries or unnecessary surgery sustained in childhood. The parent must ethically and legally make decisions for the child based solely on the best interests of the child.

Why is circumcision as an adult "more problematic"? Adults are given general anesthesia, they are given proper pain management after the surgery, and they don't die from circumcision. Infants do! Here are just 3 examples of babies dying from it:
http://www.cirp.org/news/theguardian2007-02-17/
http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/chose_to_circ.html
http://healthblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archi...2/2967860.html
It is suspected that the numbers of deaths due to circumcisions are under reported. “...most doctors who have a baby die after a circumcision would prefer to attribute the results of his unethical operation to secondary causes, such as infection or bleeding, while ignoring the primary cause, which is the circumcision that resulted in the infection or bleeding. It is, therefore, very hard to identify the total number of deaths that occur from circumcision.” http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

Is adult circumcision simply more problematic because it is easier to perform this surgery on an unconsenting newborn? A newborn who will not have the luxury of an anesthesiologist, proper monitoring during a surgery, and proper post-operative care afterwards? (More about adult circumcision vs infant circumcision http://www.nocircoftx.org/info/vs.html )

In regards to FGM vs. MGM:
In the countries where female circumcision is performed they believe it has health benefits. Studies have been done “proving” that circumcised females are less likely to contract HIV as well. There are three types of female circumcision, one involving removing the clitoral hood (the female prepuce). It is directly analogous to the foreskin (the male prepuce). Both are extremely erogenous tissues with unique zones of specialized nerves, making them extremely valuable for optimal sexual feeling. I have numerous sources dealing with female & male genitals/circumcisions, here are a few:

Common Denominators between Male & Female "Circumcision" http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm

Embryology, Development of the male and female genitals:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Develop.html

Ontario Human Rights Commission acknowledges harm of male circumcision:
http://www.infocirc.org/pressrel.htm

Male and Female Genital Alteration: A Collision Course with the Law?
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/davis1/

[info]redfreadom

July 6 2007, 15:18:37 UTC 4 years ago

Many people have hinted at the fact that making it illegal only makes it more dangerous and doesn’t stop it. In truth, making something illegal does NOTHING to stop it or make it more dangerous. Punishing those who break the law does that. Am I convinced Egypt is doing that? Absolutely not.

There is a scale used for measuring the freedoms of a country with a 1 being the most free and a 7 being the least free. Egypt is a 6… That says to me that if they wanted to they could stamp this out almost completely, they could. A 6 means they have firm control over the population. They would inspect the girl children and if they had the “surgery” (id much rather use mutilation. It should only really be compared to male circumcision in cases where they accidentally cut the whole penis off) and if the child had it then the parents are under arrest for some form of child endangerment (at least)/ molestation and assault.

But ask yourself this. Did Egypt WANT to make it illegal or did they cave to pressure? My guess is most of the members of the government/courts/law enforcement have wives, sisters and daughters who have all had it done and they are fine with it.

I think westerners don’t think of Egypt the same way they think of the middle east because its in Africa and has all that cool history. Culturally its probably closer to Iran than the rest of Africa
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…