tronvillain

Corwin:
No, the glans clitoris is cut off. Much of the <a href="http://www.the-clitoris.com/n_html/n_anat_1.htm" target="_blank">clitoris</a> is internal.

Corwin

Yes... the sensitive part is cut off.

We've had this conversation before, remember?

Fact: Not all female circ removes all external tissue. This has been discussed and referenced already.

Fact: Both procedures are performed for the same basic function: To lessen sexual response. In the case of male circumcision, highly questionable medical justifications have been thought up in later decades to justify the practice to a more sophisticated western audience, as we aren't quite as susceptible to images of sexually rampaging women as Egyptian herdspeople are. (At least outside of Georgia we aren't.)

I'm still looking for the problem here. If there's a reasonable distinction between the two practices let's hear it. The only difference I see (as I've said before) is one I have trouble figuring out if it's better or worse. Female circ is usually performed after the onset of menses, so on the one hand at least the girl has a frame of reference for it. (Unlike a baby boy.) On the other hand, also unlike a baby boy.... she can see it coming. Honestly I don't know whether this is better or worse. Better would be to tell the whole procedure to go take a flying leap and educate parents about the facts of where circumcision comes from, why it's done, and what it does.

NatureMade

Alright, I just couldn't sit back any longer and watch everyone discussing the severity of unconsented genital cutting without making this comment:

UNCONSENTED GENITAL CUTTING IS UNCONSENTED GENITAL CUTTING.

It matters not to what degree the violation of bodily integrety is carried out. The fact remains that the victim...and yes, I will use the word victim in the dictionary-defined sense...has absolutely NO say in the matter.

The foreskin belongs to HIM. It is his birthrite. It is there by DEFAULT. It is not a birth defect or anomoly that commands correction. If there is NO IMMEDIATE MEDICAL INDICATION for the surgical removal of such, there should be absolutely no consideration of its amputation. Why is the foreskin subject to such prejudice??? What other body part is subject to the same scrutiny?

Cindy

NatureMade

Here is that actual US legislation:

"SEC.2. TITLE 18 AMENDMENT.

"(a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following new section:

"116. FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION

"(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

"(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is --

"(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioners; or

"(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner of midwife.

"(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual."

I think it is quite clear that there must be medical indication for ANY cutting of underage females' genitals.

If it is ILLEGAL to make ANY alteration to a girl's genitals and they are guaranteed the right to genital integrity, why is this same right not afforded to the genitals of boys? Is this not blatent discrimination??

Cindy

[Edited for correction]

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: NatureMade ]</p>

tronvillain

Corwin:
No, a sensitive part is cut off. Big difference.

tronvillain

<a href="http://www.courtchallenge.com/" target="_blank">Canadian Court Challenge</a>.

Stranger than paradise

The western assertation that FGM in the most severe forms will ruin a woman's ability to enjoy sex, is incorrect. Infibulated women can and do enjoy what they claim are very satisfying sex lives with the "full" range of pleasure...although to people who know the pleasure of the parts missing and mutilated know this simply can not be. And that even if they still have pleasure DESPITE their loss, they do not have pleasure BECAUSE of their loss. Most men circumcised as infants claim they do not have any diminished pleasure and do not even understand the loss of function because their abbreviated idea of the male sex organ function ONLY includes erection and ejaculation and the pleasure they have that REMAINS- nothing more. Men who know the full function of a whole penis do not have this same trouble understanding that when you cut something off, you lose something.

Remembering earleir on the thread when a man said "Yes, but you use your fingertips, you don't use your foreskin" Trying to imagine all the women in Sudan who would say, "You don't use your clitoris for anything" Well, no, not if a Jackal ate it.


For an interesting read on the sexual experience of infibulated women: <a href="http://www.fgmnetwork.org/Lightfoot-klein/sexualexperience.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fgmnetwork.org/Lightfoot-klein/sexualexperience.htm</a>

By the way, contrary as was presumed above, most FGM will occur before the girl reaches puberty and the onset of menses is a brand new situation to be dealt with. Most girls have NO IDEA what they are in for.

Corwin

You sure on that? I'd been under the impression that FGM was generally performed when the girl was between 12 and 18...

The comparision between the two (the most recent one anyway) is bullshit anyway. What are we saying here? That female circ is worse because a few people do essentially the female equivalent of castration?

Here's a radical thought. Bear with me here... you're all going to think I'm crazy.... but... WHY DON'T WE JUST NOT CUT OF PARTS OF PEOPLE'S GENITALS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

It absolutely floors me that this is even an issue. It would seem to fall under the heading 'no brainer.'

Dr Rick

Comparisons of FGM with male circumcision is a ploy used by anti-circumcision groups and individuals to mis-characterize the latter and advance their own agenda. This false analogy does not merit any response other than outright dismissal.

Female Circumcision NEJM: Volume 332:188-190 January 19, 1995 Number 3

...``Female genital mutilation'' is a descriptive and definitive term. ``Circumcision,'' without the sex being specified, is appropriately defined as removal of the penile foreskin. The term ``female circumcision'' can denote various procedures but...generally refers to clitoridectomy with or without removal of the labia. The equivalent procedure in males is penile amputation and removal of the scrotum. The problem with describing female genital mutilation as female circumcision is that the latter can be confused with the circumcision of newborn boys, a low-risk procedure with medical benefits.

As chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision, I have received correspondence from anticircumcision groups, particularly the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers and the National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males. The report by the task force indicated that the medical benefits of circumcision in newborns include prevention of penile cancer, infantile urinary tract infections, balanoposthitis, and phimosis. There is also evidence that infection with the human immunodeficiency virus is less prevalent among circumcised men than among those who have not been circumcised. Use of the term ``female circumcision'' to describe female genital mutilation helps the organizations that oppose circumcision, which now demand the prohibition of all circumcision.

E. Schoen, MD

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Morat

I think it's been proven over and over that this thread is no place for being specific and using the correct terms.

This is a thread for rampant emotionalism, loaded language, and gut-level appeals. I'd thank you not to bring your dirty references and unwanted "reason" to our party.