Megusic

Howdy Everyone,

This has probably been discussed somewhere, but I'm not sure where and it's on my mind so I've got to talk about it, I hope this is the right place...

One of my roommates is working on a project concerning human rights - her chosen topic is Female Genital Mutilation, including female circumcision. I find it atrocious how women are degraded in some parts of the world in this way, and am definately saddened by how custom can take over in such a harmful way. When my roommate was reading out loud the details of some of these practice, everyone in the room winced and grimaced, and we were all disgusted by the fact that in some places women are mutilated as a way of taking away their sexuality, urges, etc. When I mentioned that one reason circumcision came into practice in the West was to try to curb young male masterbation, the response was was basically "that's different". My roommates all know about my stance on male circumcision (I think it should be a personal choice, and if you are gonna do that to your baby boy, you'd better be there to watch, and hear his screams of pain)One roommate tried to respond with, "no they did it a long time ago. they did it in the bible" (i was not in the mood to tell her that the bible is not a historical document and launch an entirely different conversation) Of course the actual act has been practiced for a long time, but not in the systematic way it is now in our current society. I tried to explain that before the "biblical" times, circumcision seems to have been a way to punish men, as a way of taking away an important part of them, but the general concensus, no matter what i tried to point out, was that my roommates (we are all female) prefer the way a circumcised penis looks, so that somehow makes the practice valid. (one roommate actually asked me "you would actually have sex with a guy who isn't circumcised?")

I was pretty disgusted. Why is it that we are so shocked by the practice of mutilating female genitals but we see doing the same thing to males as perfectly ok? Granted, the degree to which female circumcision occurs in some cultures is far more severe than traditional male circumcision, but how is it our right to take that away from ANYONE, regardless of sex?

I apologize if my writing isn't making sense, I'm just trying to get this off my chest and open the conversation so I can get to bed...I would appreciate your input, opinions, facts, stories, etc...

Peace,
Megusic

Dreamer_87

Helll Megusic,

I did some research on FGM around a year ago and I'm still in shock. It's appaling that men are willing to put their wives and daughters through such a painful thing

BUT as you said male and female circumcision are far from equal; according to one report I read, for male and female circumcision to be equally painful, the whole head of the penis would have to be cut off (rather than only the foreskin). FGM makes it difficult for a woman to urinate and almost impossible to give birth and survive, I've heard of no such difficulties for men who were circumcised (disregarding the few cases when there's a mistake and the whole penis is cut off ) . I myself have been circumcised but it hasn't effected me in the least (but then again there are places in the world where men are circumcised when they want to get married or when they reach puberty I was circumcised when I was 7 days old)

So personally speaking I think it more productive to focus our energies on abolishing those forms of genital mutilation and raising awareness ect than arguing over a procedure that has (from what I know) many medical benefits.

(This is the perfect place to argue said benefits)

Best regards,
Dreamer

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Dreamer_87 ]</p>

Amen-Moses

If this is true then how come the parts of the world where FGM is practiced is also the one place that human fecundity is not a problem!

Except for a very few extremes both MGM and FGM have very little effect on sexuality or fecundity, the only effect they have is on the level of pleasure gained from self manipulation so to speak.

Amen-Moses

Skepticos

As I understand it, female circumcision involves a cliterodectomy, which is the removal of the clitoris. Whereas, male circumcision involves removing the foreskin from over the glans. So, the two operations are far from the same. I think that female circumcision is pernicious, because it involves the removal of a very vital sexual organ, typically without the girl's genuine consent. This is not the same with male circumcision, where no organ is removed, simply some superfluous skin. I have seen video footage of female circumcision, and I was truly appalled.

I see male circumcision as more of a cosmetic operation. But, I think it should be left up to the male whose penis will be affected, and should not be a decision for the parents. It's not their body, after all.

- Skepticos

Dreamer_87

'During childbirth, existing scar tissue on excised women may tear. Infibulated women, whose genitals have been tightly closed, have to be cut to allow the baby to emerge. If no attendant is present to do this, perineal tears or obstructed labour can occur... After giving birth, women are often reinfibulated to make them "tight" for their husbands. The constant cutting and restitching of a women's genitals with each birth can result in tough scar tissue in the genital area.'

'Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the term used to refer to the removal of part, or all, of the female genitalia. The most severe form is infibulation, also known as pharaonic circumcision. An estimated 15% of all mutilations in Africa are infibulations. The procedure consists of clitoridectomy (where all, or part of, the clitoris is removed), excision (removal of all, or part of, the labia minora), and cutting of the labia majora to create raw surfaces, which are then stitched or held together in order to form a cover over the vagina when they heal. A small hole is left to allow urine and menstrual blood to escape. In some less conventional forms of infibulation, less tissue is removed and a larger opening is left...The vast majority (85%) of genital mutilations performed in Africa consist of clitoridectomy or excision. The least radical procedure consists of the removal of the clitoral hood.

I got this information from <a href="http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm#a4" target="_blank">http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm#a4</a>

What you refer to as 'few extremes' are infact the majority; the effects they have are far greater than you state them to be, as is demonstrated above. I think you might have a point about fecundity, though; from what I remember Africa has the highest birth (and death) rate in the world, so is it possible that FGM *hasn't* slowed it down in anyway?

My statement ('almost impossible to give birth and survive') seems to be incorrect, then. It's something I remembered from an earlier search I did but now I can't find the link again so I take it back for now.

Dreamer

Amen-Moses

Not necessarily, it depends on which culture you are looking at. The least severe is almost identical in form to MGM involving the removal of the hood and/or labia. Some involve simply sewing up the labia to prohibit penetration (in this type the husband reopens the orifice prior to the first sexual act with a sharp knife).

Either way orgasm is still possible via the G-spot and I am reliably informed by someone who has had a cliterodectomy that it neither represses the sex drive nor makes it pleasure free (there are other erogenous zones after all) but does make it extremely hard to masturbate.

Amen-Moses

Viti

Is the urethra damagaed during this process? On a female it seems scar tissue would cover the opening and cause urination problems.

And Amen Moses, the G-spot is connected to the clitoris by a nerve bundle which is why it can facilitate orgams...if the clitoris is removed wouldn't this sever the nerves?

Amen-Moses

I specifically said no "reduction of sexuality" not sexual sensitivity. i.e the women who undergo this still have the same sexual needs and urges as those that haven't, and in a similar way to MGM sufferers claim not to miss what they've never had!

Remember that it is the women of the generation before that carry on this tradition believing that to not do so would make their daughters less of a woman, the same argument is given by MGM supporters btw. Men have virtually no say in these cultures as to how their daughters are brought up.

Amen-Moses

Ut

First of all, not only skin is removed. At the tip of the foreskin, there is a sphincter muscle which keeps the foreskin snug around the glans while the penis is flaccid.

Also, the inner layer of the foreskin (the one that faces the glans, as opposed the outer foreskin that faces the outside) is made of mucosa, not skin. It should be pointed out that mucosa is usually way more sensitive than skin, including in the genital areas.

Then, consider the fate of the frenulum, a thin and very sensitive mucosa band between the foreskin and glans whose purpose is to help make the foreskin recover the glans after an erection is lost. This frenulum is very often damaged or removed in part during circumcision. Some doctors go as far as to take special measures to remove completely the frenulum.

Not only does circumcision arbitrarly remove very important erogeneous tissue, it also impairs the sensitivity of the remaining erogeneous zones. The most sensitive parts of the circumcised penis are usually the frenulum remnant, the inner foreskin remnant and the glans. These parts, including the glans, are made of mucosa and are supposed to be internal (except during masturbation or intercourse). On a circumcised penis, they are exposed to a lot of external wear and tear (dry air, friction against underwear, etc.) that decreases their sensitivity. Indeed, as a protection, the body responds to these irritations by covering these parts with keratin, which analogous to callouses.

As you can see, the foreskin is not only skin, neither is it "superfluous".

Pointing out that female circumcision is worse (it almost always IS worse, a true analogy would be removal of the clitoral prepuce, the skin that protects the clitoris) is not exactly a ringing endorsment of male circumcision.

Indeed. It is always a wise decision to respect the human rights of your child (physical integrity).

Amen-Moses

I'm not sure of the inner workings (I am not a surgeon) but surely one would have to not only excise the surface part of the clitoris but also right down to the depths at which the G-spot is found! i.e isn't the clitoris just the exterior part of the G-spot?

Anyhow my source claimed she had plenty of orgasms from penetrative sex but couldn't get anything from external manipulation.

Amen-Moses