Female Genital Mutilation
- Thread starter Libra Girl
- Start date
Your comment about the notion that bodies are inherently flawed and require correction made me think about a this short film I saw years ago.
It ties into this issue as some were saying that some people believe that female genital mutilation is more attractive.
The film's called "The Passion of John Ruskin". Basically this man spends all his time in an art gallery with statues and art and stuff. One of the statues is of a beautiful naked woman. Apparently this man is quite shy and still a virgin. So then he meets a woman and asks her to marry him. ON their wedding night, when he sees her naked...he's totally freaked out by her pubic hair and think there's something wrong with her. He evens calls the doctor to inspect her!!! Needless to say, he couldn't consumate the marrage and just went back to staring at this statue!
Anyway...off topic, but does say something about our perceived ideas of how the body "should" look.
I don't think it's off topic at all. My husband and I have had essentially this same conversation. He was circumcised when he was a baby. Despite reading all of the literature, and KNOWING that it's unnecessary, it's still odd to him that our son isn't circed. He knows logically that it means good things for our son, but, to him it still looks bizarre. It's part of what propels circumcision forward in cultures, both male and female circumcision.
What is female genital mutilation?
Female genital mutilation (FGM), often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons. There are different types of female genital mutilation known to be practised today. They include:
Most are comparable to men?? You obviously didn't read the article in full. I don't know where your source has come from karrie, but as you can see, 80% of these genital mutilations come under catagory ii, ie: Excision of the clitoris and the labia minora, effectively excluding the female from any sensation during intercourse; How many circumcised men are excluded from sexual activity by total loss of sensation? How in the name of sanity can they be comparable?
I suggest that you find better sources for your information then because although Doctors may have started to intervene in these procedures, they are far from widespread practice. Today, the number of girls and women who have undergone female genital mutilation is estimated at between 100 and 140 million. It is estimated that each year, a further 2 million girls are at risk of undergoing FGM. And what is more, they are still dying in the thousands.
Female genital mutilation (FGM), often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons. There are different types of female genital mutilation known to be practised today. They include:
- Type I - excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris;
- Type II - excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora;
- Type III - excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening (infibulation);
- Type IV - pricking, piercing or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue;
- scraping of tissue surrounding the vaginal orifice (angurya cuts) or cutting of the vagina (gishiri cuts);
- introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina to cause bleeding or for the purpose of tightening or narrowing it; and any other procedure that falls under the definition given above.
karrie said:
Most are comparable to men?? You obviously didn't read the article in full. I don't know where your source has come from karrie, but as you can see, 80% of these genital mutilations come under catagory ii, ie: Excision of the clitoris and the labia minora, effectively excluding the female from any sensation during intercourse; How many circumcised men are excluded from sexual activity by total loss of sensation? How in the name of sanity can they be comparable?
karrie said:
I suggest that you find better sources for your information then because although Doctors may have started to intervene in these procedures, they are far from widespread practice. Today, the number of girls and women who have undergone female genital mutilation is estimated at between 100 and 140 million. It is estimated that each year, a further 2 million girls are at risk of undergoing FGM. And what is more, they are still dying in the thousands.
Okay, first of all... slicing apart a baby's genitals should bear the same burden to society, regardles of gender, or how much you slice off. It is no more acceptable to do it to men than to women, based solely on some sense that men don't suffer as much, and I'm done arguing that.
Second of all, I really don't undrstand what yuo're arguing with that last paragraph. I said clearly that from what I understand, most female circs are not performed by doctors. That point served no purpose, other than illustrating the fact that it's not entirely a 'men doing this to women' issue.
But...regardless....I mean, it's a personal issue. I mean, what I am trying to say is that millions of us have had these procedures done, mostly with little ill effect. I don't know as much about female circumcision. Anyway, what I have found offensive with the whole discussion is the implication that to have the procedure done is to be...mutilated...and therefore, I am some sort of mutant. I also take exception to the idea of me being tortured or tramatized by the event. I went through it and have had no psychological damage as a result...but I have people who have no gone through it telling me that what I experienced is not what I experienced...or that is, at least the impression I am getting. Anyway, I still firmly believe that male circumcision has a place. I feel that it is one of those cases where the evolution of the body has not caught up to the realities the body faces, and therefore offers positive results for those who either have the procedure done at a young age, or those who decide to have the procedure done at a later stage in life.
I guess, for me as well, I have gone through several surgeries and have had different parts of my body altered or taken out completely. It's not the dramatic thing to me that I think others see it as...but that is just me.
mutant= mutated.... not mutilated. Not the same thing.
The fact that you don't remember being strapped down and having bits of your genitals sliced off, doesn't make it okay.
And yes, circumcision DOES have a place for males, in some instances. I'd never advocate keeping a man from having a diseased or infected area of his body removed. But, to remove a nondiseased, uninfected part of the body from a baby, without anaesthetic, is NOT the same thing.
Most uncirced men have no problems with their foreskin, thus the current US medical standing of 'no opinion either way'.
Well, now that the aching has died down from the idea originating this thread a couple months ago, I gotta say mutilation is mutilation is mutilation: whether it be a shot of acid into someone's face from a water pistol, an exploding land mine rirpping someone's legs off, or surgically removing healthy tissue. It's repulsive and despicable.
I understand what you're saying and although I wouldn't ever circumcize my son I don't consider it mutilation. I just think it's important to acknowledge that many women who have undergone FGM feel the same way about their genitals being cut. They don't think it's mutilating, they think it's better. They are the ones continuing the practice, much more so than men. I don't think that's reason enough to allow it to continue.
Last edited:
The stats I last read were that 80% were type 1 or 2. It didn't have a specific breakdown. Those women don't lose complete sensation though. Vaginal orgasm is still possible. I don't think anyone would say that type 2 is analogous to male circumcision. Type 1 is and type 4 can be, but even so I certainly wouldn't allow anyone to do that to my daughter. I don't think babies should be subjected to any sort of cosmetic surgery.
I would like to mention that these are purely my personal opinions. I don't mean to victimize or insult anyone. If you do feel insulted in some way let me know, and I will happily delete the post.
The human body is designed the way it is for a reason. Whether one believes in creation, evolution, or some form of hybrid between the two. We are who we are. That goes for both the physical sense as well as the psychological one. I have never really been able to grasp why people would undergo, force their children to undergo, circumcision. This applies to both males as well as females. The only plausible reason I can think of is that it is a form of control. No other reason really makes any sense to me. There have been endless studies done on the subject and the general consensus in the medical community is that there are no health benefits either way. In fact for the female variant, as has been stated earlier, there are many negative "side effects". So why do it?
There are of course degrees in this particular "problem". If it some deep religious or personal believe, and performed under the correct conditions, I suppose some of the procedures can be viewed as merely "cosmetic" and not oppressive. There are limits of course. In my opinion something like infibulations is completely and utterly wrong. The fact that someone came up with the idea just proves how messed up the human species can be. There can be no logical explanation for the fact that a group of people feel it necessary to perform such an act on their daughters. If it is a religious believe then raise your daughters to be self respecting people and have some faith that they will do the right thing, there is no reason to sow them up! If it is a personal believe or tradition it makes even less sense.
As far as "solutions" go, well this is one of those subjects where there are no quick fixes. Laws are already in place against the more extreme cases, and those laws are broken. So the only real option is education. Education regarding a particular subject takes a very long time to truly filter through a culture. Look at global warming for example, only in the recent years has the general populace really started to pay attention to the temperature of our little speck in space. Yet people have been preaching about it for decades. This delay from problem identification to a noticeable change in the populace is especially pronounced in a subject like this one. There are many religious and cultural undertones to the female circumcision issue, these deep set believes will of course slow the process.
This may be a bit of a cliché but the first step is admitting that the problem exists. Only then can any education program be successful.
The human body is designed the way it is for a reason. Whether one believes in creation, evolution, or some form of hybrid between the two. We are who we are. That goes for both the physical sense as well as the psychological one. I have never really been able to grasp why people would undergo, force their children to undergo, circumcision. This applies to both males as well as females. The only plausible reason I can think of is that it is a form of control. No other reason really makes any sense to me. There have been endless studies done on the subject and the general consensus in the medical community is that there are no health benefits either way. In fact for the female variant, as has been stated earlier, there are many negative "side effects". So why do it?
There are of course degrees in this particular "problem". If it some deep religious or personal believe, and performed under the correct conditions, I suppose some of the procedures can be viewed as merely "cosmetic" and not oppressive. There are limits of course. In my opinion something like infibulations is completely and utterly wrong. The fact that someone came up with the idea just proves how messed up the human species can be. There can be no logical explanation for the fact that a group of people feel it necessary to perform such an act on their daughters. If it is a religious believe then raise your daughters to be self respecting people and have some faith that they will do the right thing, there is no reason to sow them up! If it is a personal believe or tradition it makes even less sense.
As far as "solutions" go, well this is one of those subjects where there are no quick fixes. Laws are already in place against the more extreme cases, and those laws are broken. So the only real option is education. Education regarding a particular subject takes a very long time to truly filter through a culture. Look at global warming for example, only in the recent years has the general populace really started to pay attention to the temperature of our little speck in space. Yet people have been preaching about it for decades. This delay from problem identification to a noticeable change in the populace is especially pronounced in a subject like this one. There are many religious and cultural undertones to the female circumcision issue, these deep set believes will of course slow the process.
This may be a bit of a cliché but the first step is admitting that the problem exists. Only then can any education program be successful.
But...isn't it just as bad, in sense your saying, to tell people who believe that it is a good thing and see an importance in it that it is wrong. Mind you, maybe the issue is more making the decision for someone before they have the ability to make it for themselves? I don't know. Anyway, again, when it comes to female circumcision, I do not know a whole lot about it. I can only say how I feel about what has happened to me own body. I haven't been mutilated. I was not tortured. I was not strapped down and gone at. A very small piece of skin was removed from me by a doctor. My parents were present. I have not been traumatized by the events. I think it is unfortunate that some are portraying what I went through as this horrible, gastly deal. I don't think it is...for male babies anyway. I think it is very minor. Not a great amount of skin is taken off. It really is a very minor procedure. It isn't a slasher film come to life. I think some have blown it out of all perspective.
That's the big problem isn't it? I can't imagine anyone in our culture thinking FGM is ok, but we also have to acknowledge that the people practicing it think it's best for their children. You can't change something if you don't acknowledge the reality of it. I still think it needs to be changed though. I don't subscribe to the notion that we have to respect every cultural practice. Some are just wrong and should be changed.
I do think the same will eventually happen with male circumcision, but it's another issue. I wouldn't support minor FGM even if it was done under sterile conditions, safely by a trained medical professional so I can't support male circs either.
I do think part of the issue is choice. I work as a nurse with babies, and I don't participate in circumcisions partly because of that. Our babies are strapped to a board, usually given a pacifier dipped in some sugar water and then the procedure is done. If parents want that done to their baby, I'm not going to butt into their business, but part of my job is to support patient autonomy and health and I can't see how it's in an infant's best interest to undergo any type of unecessary cosmetic surgery. If they wanted it done, they could get it as an adult. It would actually be less painful as an adult man because the foreskin isn't attached to the head of the penis anymore like it is in infants, so there is less actual cutting. Plus, an adult would be given meds for pain and babies around here generally aren't. I wouldn't call it a minor procedure just because I have seen some really bad circs in my time. I've seen two infants in the last six months who needed stitches afterwords because they wouldn't stop bleeding. 6 stitches in a baby's penis causing it to swell to twice its size isn't minor to me. It was heartbreaking to see a once happy sweet baby go through that pain and become inconsolable for a time. It certainly isn't the norm, but I've seen it often enough that I would never do it. But like I said, I wouldn't participate in "minor" forms of FGM either even if they were clean and safe. I just don't want to cut an infant's genitals for no reason.
Interesting. Well, I learned a few things there. From what my mother has told me, there was no strapping to a board in my case...so, I'm glad. I don't know...it's confusing. I mean, I don't have any memories of my life before...3 maybe? I don't recall being circumsized. I don't recall anything about it. As far as I am concerned, I wasn't even there. I think it may be an issue of looking worse on the outside...from an adults perspective...than it really is to the one who has the procedure done. The botched cases...well...that's not so good.
An argument can be made that circumcision in males is purely cosmetic...but I think it has benefits beyond that. I don't believe that it is only cosmetic. I know that isn't why my parents had me circumsized. Anyway, it does seem from all the conversation that it is a very detailed and complex issue. I still believe that perspective becomes different with age. I think that the non physical effects of the procedure are not as dramatic in the long run than it would seem from an adult perspective...the way I am seeing it, based on my own experience as someone who looks down everyday and sees that I have been circumsized, but have no ill psychological effects as a result, and don't even recall being there for that matter.
But...but....so...you are saying that I have been mutalated? That hurts! I mean, I don't believe that I have been mutilated. We often lose parts of our bodies for various reasons...from wisdom teeth to gall bladders to...whatever. Anyway, I take objection to this idea that I have been mutilated in any way. I don't believe I have been. I mean, if it were done to you and you said that you feel as though you were mutilated, that's different...that is how you feel. But to just say it is mutilation...well...to me, having had it done to myself, I do not see me as being mutilated, and I feel insulted and angry at the idea that someone would say that I am.
Routine Infant Circumcision is cosmetic surgery, not a therapeutic operation. That's why no medical group recommends it anymore. That's not a political statement, it's just what it is.
You wouldn't remember your circ, of course. But babies wouldn't remember a lot of things we could do to them, and that doesn't make them all ok. I don't believe for a second that babies aren't harmed when they are caused unecessary pain or that it looks worse on the outside. Causing pain is harm. Sometimes it's unavoidable and we live with that. I cause pain with a lot of the things I do to my patients, but those things have to be done and we still do everything we can to minimize the pain they'll feel. Even if there are no long term psychological effects (and like you, I doubt that there are), it isn't ok to subject infants to serious pain for no reason and not try to manage it beyond giving them a pacifier. That's cruel. I don't believe any parent could watch us cut into their baby and not react strongly to their baby screaming in pain.
We used to think babies didn't feel pain. Now we know better. We know that they feel pain the same way you and I feel pain. If you wouldn't want to have a very sensitive piece of skin cut off without any pain medication I can't see how you could want that done to a baby. Anyone who advocates doing that should experience it for themselves as far as I'm concerned. At the very least babies deserve pain management. An adult can understand why they have pain and that helps them to cope with it, without any medication. That isn't the case for a baby. They don't understand why they have sudden pain. They just experience it. Circumcisions can be done using lidocaine, emla cream and even plain old tylenol yet most docs just come in and cut. That's sick.
So if a woman who has been infibulated doesn't think it's mutilation is she right or are we right because we think it's mutilation?
She's right because she does not think she has been mutilated. Trying to tell someone they have been mutilated when they don't believe they have been mutilated is...well...it doesn't make sense? I don't believe I have been mutilated and object to someone telling me that I have been!
So then the question becomes how do we get that practice changed?
The main reason we call FGM what we do is because people didn't want it to be compared with male circumcision. Here we almost all agree that the practice of FGM needs to be changed and that it is mutilation. But, in order to change it we have to work with people who like you would be insulted by the very name we give it. It is largely women who have been subjected to FGM that have their daughters done. How do we approach the subject with them and convince them to change?