lisab said:Of course stoning for adultery seems, well, insane to me. But I know to be careful when dissecting a culture so different - even foreign - to mine. It's very difficult to see the world from such a different point of view.
For example, I remember reading about a group of Westerners were trying to convince some villagers in rural Africa that female circumcisions should be stopped. Seems a reasonable request, doesn't it? Well the biggest resistance came from the village women! How on Earth these women, who went through it themselves, want to continue to subject their daughters to it...I just don't get it.
I don't know that culture well enough to understand the women's motivations. Were they being honest? Or were they merely saying what they thought they were supposed to say, according to their culture?
It gets sticky pretty fast.
lisab said:Of course stoning for adultery seems, well, insane to me. But I know to be careful when dissecting a culture so different - even foreign - to mine. It's very difficult to see the world from such a different point of view.
Greg Bernhardt said:Are we talking about Sharia law? I don't think there is a Shia Islam law per-say.
brainstorm said:She said that if you asked most circumcized men, they would not want to be caught dead with their foreskin still attached.
edpell said:This circumcised male finds his genital mutilation completely unacceptable.
On other threads there are plenty of men saying we must fight around the world to force human rights as seen by us on them. It is interesting that none of those folks have joined us here on this thread.
Well I'll weigh in as one of those guys...but I don't find anything particularly useful about this thread. It doesn't seem to have much of a point to me...until this issue...edpell said:On other threads there are plenty of men saying we must fight around the world to force human rights as seen by us on them. It is interesting that none of those folks have joined us here on this thread.
I find it very hard to believe that it could really enhance pleasure as it almost always involves removal of the clitoris: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female...res:_World_Health_Organization_categorizationbrainstorm said:I thought the same way about female circumcision, but then I had a colleague who talked to women who preferred it for aesthetic reasons. She also told me that it doesn't interfere with the ability to orgasm and increases sexual pleasure because women are less ashamed of their bodies and therefore more comfortable.
Since there are a lot more men of each than there are women who are "circumcised", and there is much less cultural pressure about the issue, there is a lot more legitimate info to be had on both sides. And as with the above, the opinion of doctors is most important:She compared it to the practice of male circumcision. She said that if you asked most circumcized men, they would not want to be caught dead with their foreskin still attached.
Anyway, the comparison with male circumcision is a little silly because the motive for doing it makes the difference clear: male circumcision is done for reasons of cleanliness. Female "circumcision" is done [mostly] as a means/demonstration of subjugating women...wiki said:Medical cost-benefit analyses of circumcision have varied. Some found a small net benefit of circumcision,[107][108] some found a small net decrement,[109][110] and one found that the benefits and risks balanced each other out and suggested that the decision could "most reasonably be made on nonmedical factors."[111]
russ_watters said:I find it very hard to believe that it could really enhance pleasure as it almost always involves removal of the clitoris: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female...res:_World_Health_Organization_categorization
If being ashamed is an issue, then it points to the issue some women preferring it, that makes the issue mostly about cutural pressure, not about physiology. That's basically would you would expect from people who are brainwashed by an extremist religion/culture. Thus, what is more imporant is the opinion of doctors: there is a reason it is prohibited by the UN and WHO. Since there are a lot more men of each than there are women who are "circumcised", and there is much less cultural pressure about the issue, there is a lot more legitimate info to be had on both sides. And as with the above, the opinion of doctors is most important:
We exert moral suasion to promote human rights in Afghanistan by building awareness of the provisions and obligations of the international treaties and agreements to which Afghanistan is a signatory. The United States continues to support the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC). In addition, we support the courageous progressive voices within Afghanistan, including the movements that successfully engaged with the Afghan government in 2009 to excise and redraft the most restrictive and objectionable sections of the Shia Personal Status Law , although some concerns remain. We continue to support the swift implementation and strict enforcement of the Elimination of Violence Against Women law. We engage women on how they can use their roles and influence within the family and community to combat the spread of violent extremist ideologies and to cultivate support for women’s development.
http://www.state.gov/s/special_rep_afghanistan_pakistan/2010/136250.htm
[Contained within the document, which I have provided a link as noted above.]
Our objectives are to:
1.Initiate, and bolster existing, program initiatives to improve women’s and girls’ access to education.
2.Initiate, and bolster existing, programs related to women’s security and the institutions that serve women.
3.Support women’s leadership development in both the public and private sectors.
4.Promote women’s access to formal and informal justice mechanisms and enforce existing laws and the Constitutional guarantee of equality.
5.Initiate, and bolster, existing program initiatives to improve women’s and girls’ access to healthcare.
6.Strengthen existing activities to support and expand economic development opportunities for women.
7.Increase women’s political empowerment and participation.
Key Initiatives
Education: Investing in girls’ education is the single most effective development decision a country can make. Beyond doubling the skilled workforce, this investment results in healthier young women, delayed marriages, and healthier children in the families that these educated young women create.
Under the Taliban, fewer than 900,000 boys – and no girls – were enrolled in Afghanistan’s schools. Today, more than 6.2 million students are enrolled in Afghan schools, 35 percent of whom are girls. Although educational indicators remain poor in Afghanistan – and are worse for women who have only a 21 percent literacy rate – USG initiatives are removing barriers and opening doors.
Since 2001, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) repaired or built more than 670 schools, printed 69 million textbooks, and improved the qualifications of 54,000 Afghan teachers in instructional methodologies, subject knowledge and professional attitudes. These programs have expanded and improved the quality of community-based education in areas where there are no government schools. USG assistance has extended to 18 provinces, 1,565 communities, more than 43,000 children (60 percent of whom are girls), and 1,565 teachers. In the last fiscal year, we provided literacy training and instruction in productive skills to more than 100,000 people from over 1,500 communities in 20 provinces. We are committed to working with the government of Afghanistan to further expand these programs, and to enhance the female literacy rate and women’s and girls’ access to formal and informal education at all levels.
Where did you read that? That's not what the consensus is. I posted a quote saying that the cost/benefit of the issue isn't clear-cut and the wiki contains references to many studies that say there is no clear evidence either way.brainstorm said:I have read that intact men experience immensely more penile sensation, but I think many circumcised men would consider that more of a liability for premature ejaculation than a reason to lament their circumcision.
Exactly for the reasons I stated above and in my previous post: Male circumcision is at worst an iffy cost-benefit scenario. That's not something that should be banned, much less worthy of significant effort in eradicating. Female genetal mutiliation, on the other hand, is generally agreed to be a bad thing.Plus I wonder why the UN and WHO don't prohibit male circumcision.
I consider the literacy issue to be a fairly obvious indicator of subjugation.ViewsofMars said:As an American woman I was very interested in this topic so did some research. I'm 100% for advancing the rights of women and girls from around the globe. The document was very informative. Here is a small section taken from January 29, 2010 -Advancing the Rights of Women and Girls: Keys to a Better Future for Afghanistan . It discusses the Shia Personal Status Law.I absolutely agree with the following whether it be here in the U.S. or abroad. I don't care what nationality a person may be or race.Education: Investing in girls’ education is the single most effective development decision a country can make.
...women who have only a 21 percent literacy rate...
I guess since babies cry at everything, crying during circumcision wouldn't count as testimony.russ_watters said:Where did you read that? That's not what the consensus is. I posted a quote saying that the cost/benefit of the issue isn't clear-cut and the wiki contains references to many studies that say there is no clear evidence either way.
I've read the argument that foreskin traps pathogens and therefore can put men at higher risk of infection, but I presume that would be the same for labias. If you say that male circumcision isn't a problem, would you also say it wasn't a problem for people to scar or brand the shaft of the penis or pierce the scrotums of babies or children in addition to or in place of circumcision?Exactly for the reasons I stated above and in my previous post: Male circumcision is at worst an iffy cost-benefit scenario. That's not something that should be banned, much less worthy of significant effort in eradicating. Female genetal mutiliation, on the other hand, is generally agreed to be a bad thing.
I'm not sure what the point of that is - just because something is painful, that doesn't have much to do with whether it is good or bad. All surgeries hurt if there is no anesthetic.brainstorm said:I guess since babies cry at everything, crying during circumcision wouldn't count as testimony.
You're misstating the procedure for women. Removing the labia (which would be analagous to male circumcision) isn't what is typically done. Removing the clitoris is.I've read the argument that foreskin traps pathogens and therefore can put men at higher risk of infection, but I presume that would be the same for labias.
I don't know what you are referring to.If you say that male circumcision isn't a problem, would you also say it wasn't a problem for people to scar or brand the shaft of the penis or pierce the scrotums of babies or children in addition to or in place of circumcision?
russ_watters said:I'm not sure what the point of that is - just because something is painful, that doesn't have much to do with whether it is good or bad. All surgeries hurt if there is no anesthetic. You're misstating the procedure for women. Removing the labia (which would be analagous to male circumcision) isn't what is typically done. Removing the clitoris is. I don't know what you are referring to.
Descriptions of and prevalence of each is listed in the wiki article I linked. I suggest reading it. What you describe does not appear to be a major fraction of them.brainstorm said:I've read there are different variations of female circumcision, including clitorectomy but some that spare the clitoris and remove one or both labia or just the clitoral hood, which would be the equivalent of male circumcision, I believe, since the labia is more like the scrotum, I think.
I don't really know what to say about that. It's so far outside the bounds of what is normal I can't imagine why you think it would be useful in this conversation. And even if I thought it relevant, I wouldn't be willing to stipulate to your claim without evidence to support it.Clitorectomy seems atrocious when compared with castration of the penis, but transsexual surgery removes the penis and does not limit the ability to orgasm, I believe (I'm not completely sure though).
What I was saying is that I don't know what "scarring/branding...or piercing" means.What I was saying with the scarring/branding of the penile shaft or piercing of the scrotum is that these procedures would be similar in pain to circumcision of the foreskin, so would you defend parents' right to do that to their children too?
Because it isn't. The logic is too obvious to be possible to explain any simpler than I already have.Why isn't pain a reason to recognize something as bad?
You can't just pretend that painful things that are good don't exist. It's like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who show pictures of the Pentagon lawn that don't have airplane parts visible as evidence that there was no airplane...ignoring the fact that there are plenty of pictures that do contain airplane parts. Painful procedures that are beneficial exist. You can't make them go away by refusing to acknowledge their existence!Cutting hair and fingernails isn't nicer than inflicting cuts and burns?
Whether hair and fingernail cutting involve pain has very little to do with why they are legitimate. Again, this is a red herring. You can't examine the concept of whether pain is ok unless you look at legitimate procedures that are painful...and you can't do that if you won't even acknowledge the obviousness of their existence!My basis for legitimating hair and fingernail cutting is that it's not physically painful. Some people disagree with the identity effects of cutting hair, especially shaving heads.
Here's something a lot of people in the west with that view don't get: We used to be like them. Granted we didn't have female genital mutilation, but untl the last century women had no rights at all, even 100 years ago most European countries were still ruled by absolute monarchies, and before industrialization all western countries used to be poor and feudal. The biggest difference between African, most Asian, and middle eastern cultures and our own is that they have not gone through these changes. That is why they can be thought of as backward, because they still hold onto attitudes about certain things (especially women's rights) that are decades, and in some cases centuries behind ours. We should not apologize for progress or for being (at least at this time) the leading civilization.EDIT: As for your point about the women resisting not having their genitals mutilated, keep in mind that people can be brainwashed into going along with something that is very harmful. North Korea today and China during Mao's time are classic examples of this.lisab said:Of course stoning for adultery seems, well, insane to me. But I know to be careful when dissecting a culture so different - even foreign - to mine. It's very difficult to see the world from such a different point of view.
For example, I remember reading about a group of Westerners were trying to convince some villagers in rural Africa that female circumcisions should be stopped. Seems a reasonable request, doesn't it? Well the biggest resistance came from the village women! How on Earth these women, who went through it themselves, want to continue to subject their daughters to it...I just don't get it.
I don't know that culture well enough to understand the women's motivations. Were they being honest? Or were they merely saying what they thought they were supposed to say, according to their culture?
It gets sticky pretty fast.
"Scarring/branding" are just two examples of painful cosmetic procedures that would be similar to circumcision. If you took a circumcised or intact baby boy and made incisions or burn the shaft of the penis to give it a certain "look," that would be very similar to circumcising it. The issue is whether it is legitimate to perform these kinds of painful procedures on a child's genitals or other body parts for aesthetic reason based on the cultural preferences of the parents or other adults. It is a question of cultural rights and whose prerogative it is to decide what to subject others to or not, for what reason, and when people/children should be protected from that.russ_watters said:What I was saying is that I don't know what "scarring/branding...or piercing" means.
Because it isn't. The logic is too obvious to be possible to explain any simpler than I already have. You can't just pretend that painful things that are good don't exist. . . .
Painful procedures that are beneficial exist. You can't make them go away by refusing to acknowledge their existence!
Whether hair and fingernail cutting involve pain has very little to do with why they are legitimate. Again, this is a red herring. You can't examine the concept of whether pain is ok unless you look at legitimate procedures that are painful...and you can't do that if you won't even acknowledge the obviousness of their existence!
So be clear here: do you consider an apendectomy a "legitimate" procedure? Do you recognize that it involves pain (even when anesthetic is used)?
In any case, this whole line of argument has very little to do with the issue. Circumcision and female genital mutilation can be done with relatively little pain if people want to do it that way. Again, that doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not they can be considered legitimate. Whether they are legitimate is based only on the after-effects.
aquitaine said:Here's something a lot of people in the west with that view don't get: We used to be like them. Granted we didn't have female genital mutilation, but untl the last century women had no rights at all, even 100 years ago most European countries were still ruled by absolute monarchies, and before industrialization all western countries used to be poor and feudal. The biggest difference between African, most Asian, and middle eastern cultures and our own is that they have not gone through these changes. That is why they can be thought of as backward, because they still hold onto attitudes about certain things (especially women's rights) that are decades, and in some cases centuries behind ours. We should not apologize for progress or for being (at least at this time) the leading civilization.
Some people are claiming that women are still oppressed by the cultural expectation that they cover their breasts on public beaches, for example.
Why would someone assume that women with bikini tops on at the beach are less oppressed that a women wearing a head scarf or full body/facial covering.
The fact that one woman feels comfortable covering her breasts at the beach and another feels comfortable covering her hair, while yet another feels comfortable covering her whole body except her eyes, or even wearing a veil may suggest that each of those women feels equally oppressed and/or liberated in her clothing choices.
Then, claiming that the woman wearing the bikini is more free than the one wearing a head scarf, when there are other women who are free to go topless is a false claim of liberation that has little more point than to praise one society/culture over another.
As intolerance and militancy sweep across the Muslim world, personal and academic freedoms diminish with the rising pressure to conform. In Pakistani universities, the veil is now ubiquitous, and the last few unveiled women students are under intense pressure to cover up. The head of the government-funded mosque-cum-seminary (figure 4) in the heart of Islamabad, the nation's capital, issued the following chilling warning to my university's female students and faculty on his FM radio channel on 12 April 2007:
The government should abolish co-education. Quaid-i-Azam University has become a brothel. Its female professors and students roam in objectionable dresses. . . . Sportswomen are spreading nudity. I warn the sportswomen of Islamabad to stop participating in sports. . . . Our female students have not issued the threat of throwing acid on the uncovered faces of women. However, such a threat could be used for creating the fear of Islam among sinful women. There is no harm in it. There are far more horrible punishments in the hereafter for such women.6
The imposition of the veil makes a difference. My colleagues and I share a common observation that over time most students—particularly veiled females—have largely lapsed into becoming silent note-takers, are increasingly timid, and are less inclined to ask questions or take part in discussions. This lack of self-expression and confidence leads to most Pakistani university students, including those in their mid- or late-twenties, referring to themselves as boys and girls rather than as men and women.
Does it liberate women to be told that their society is less oppressive than another? I don't think so.
You could say this, but is it really oppressive to cover up? Are men oppressed by having to cover up their pelvic regions in public? Are people oppressed by not being able to go to work in underwear?aquitaine said:That is most certainly not the case in Europe, where nude beaches are the norm, not the exception.
You don't think there are women who would prefer to cover up more but they are afraid to be seen as prudish if they do? You don't think there are women who flaunt their bodies for no other reason than to appeal to male-voyeurism?Because the bikini women have a choice as to how much they choose to cover and expose. Compare this with 100 years ago when women were required to cover everything below the neck, even showing bare legs was considered "scandalous". In today's western country she has a choice, she can if we wants but she is under absolutly no obligation to do so according to anything but what she feels like. Isn't that freedom?
I always question the translation of divine revelation into worldly law, but that is because I question the relationship between God's will and human-application of it. This may be a derivative of Christian culture, with its emphasis on forgiveness, but I believe it also comes from the freedom to sin granted to Adam and Eve to pick the forbidden fruit. I thought the Adam and Eve story was common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam so I don't know why the same model of freedom to sin and reap the consequences isn't being practiced by all muslims, not that it is by all Christians or Jews either.In most islamic societies it isn't about comfort, it's mandatory and they are forced into into it either by the state (through sharia law) or by society (acid attacks anyone?). Also having to wear the veil does make a difference, more on that later.
It depends on whether you see praise as having liberating or repressive effect. Praising progress can stimulate hope for continuing progress, which may be liberating. It could also generate hegemonic social forces where conformity, adherence, dogma, etc. are emphasized over continuing criticism and reform. People who think they are liberated sometimes fall into the peculiar conservatism that they've achieved the paradise so now they'll devote their energy to protecting it and resisting change.I don't recall making that claim anywhere. 100 years ago a wife was the LEGAL PROPERTY of her husband (at least in Canada), she had NO right to vote, after marriage she was REQUIRED to stay at home, violence against women was accepted, women were socially obligated NOT to go to university (although a few did), women are highly discouraged from entering into politics (that being a "man's job" and all), and I'm sure there are plenty more examples that prove quite conclusively that a great deal of progress has been made. While I'm not saying progress has been enough, it is certainly far above and beyond anything that has been done in the Islamic world. Why shouldn't we praise our progress?
That's interesting. I wonder why they become child-like. I wonder if it is a direct effect of the veil, or just a by-product of a strong desire to submit to authority, which motivates them to wear the veil AND act in other submissive ways. For some reason, people who are abused or even those who aren't abused, develop a desire to submit to authority to gain rewards and power. One thing I like about religion is that it transforms the will to submit into submission to a supernatural authority that is not of the world, so that people can only discover it within themselves. That way, submission is taken from being temptation for someone else to enslave you to being a vehicle for liberation from worldly authority. Of course, leading the horse to water requires responding to the seeker's will to submission.As for the veil, being forced to coverup does made a difference. I'm going to quote something written by a professor in a pakistani university:
Only to the extent that it frees women from submitting to approval and rewards of the male sexual gaze.So, with the above quote in mind, how is being forced to cover up somehow not a tool of oppression?
Ask any woman you know who feels like first class citizen and ask them if they feel better about themselves when they are dressed professionally and tastefully or when they dress up like they're going to a dance club. I would bet that everyone you ask says that they feel more powerful when they are dressed professionally - even though they probably have more seductive power dressed up to go to the club. Maybe the question you should be asking is why women don't embrace their sexual power of seduction? Could they at some level be uncomfortable with encouraging men to become driven by sexual desire? Could women actually gain some feeling of liberation by liberating men from sexual desire?It helps. So do you think we shouldn't let them know they don't have to be satisfied with being second class citizens?
adrenaline said:Male circumcision has some public health benefits, prevents penile cancer, decreases transmission of AIDS and HPV ( human papilloma virus) , no public health benefits of female circumcision to women. The WHO estimates public wide circumcision may prevent heterosexual transmission of AIDS by 60%. What a cheap, one time action to curb the worldwide aids epidemic.
I think condoms are more effective that 60%, monogamy even more effective than condoms, and abstinence even more effective than monogamy. Condoms are also cheaper than circumcision, monogamy cheaper than condoms, and abstinence cheaper than monogamy.
Should male transsexual surgery also be banned, along with female circumcision then?I did my ob/gyn in south central LA where a gynecologist tried to alleviate the horrible suffering that women who have undergone female circumcision..., they have horrible dyspuronia, scarring, chronic pelvic pain and 99% cannot achieve orgasm.
brainstorm said:adrenaline said:Male circumcision has some public health benefits, prevents penile cancer, decreases transmission of AIDS and HPV ( human papilloma virus) , no public health benefits of female circumcision to women. The WHO estimates public wide circumcision may prevent heterosexual transmission of AIDS by 60%. What a cheap, one time action to curb the worldwide aids epidemic.
I think condoms are more effective that 60%, monogamy even more effective than condoms, and abstinence even more effective than monogamy. Condoms are also cheaper than circumcision, monogamy cheaper than condoms, and abstinence cheaper than monogamy.
Should male transsexual surgery also be banned, along with female circumcision then?
Regarding condoms, many African countries do not have access to condoms. Trust me, I am active member of Doctors without Borders. It is not cheap to keep a supply of condoms on hand for years at a time. Now if a country or the society will supply the condoms for free, then, that would be ideal as you stated since it is the safest for spread of all STDS.Now male circumcision in this country is probably less cost effective or of less public health benefit ratio since men in this country have easy access to condoms ( or women who insist on it), are more educated . Even though uncircumcised male penisis account for the majority of penile cancers, the prevalence of that cancer is so low in this country it may not be worth the cost of routine circumcisions. Now with the HPV vaccines, it may be less of an issue to be uncircumcised in this country.
Any trained midwife can do a male circumcision with supplies that any third world country can have on hand. The contrary is true for female circumcision which requires much more sophicasted tools and surgical technique.
Monogomy is just not a part of the cultural norm for many African and middle eastern cultures. Physicians cannot stop a man from raping ( like the rape cultures in rural ethopia ) these men are certainly not going to put on a condom, but if we can prevent him from giving the girl AIDS by 60% during that encounter because he was cirumcised we have done a great service. .
Female circumcisions have no utility, depending on the transexual surgery ( adult conversions which are entirely voluntary and the surgeries are very sophisticated and done to keep sexual pleasure intact and there are numerous conotations for infants born with ambiguous genitalia ex. congential adrenal hyperplasia etc. ) you can't with one fell swoop even begin to put transsexual surgery into female circumcision catgory.
How can you accept rape as a cultural norm and still call it "rape?" Wouldn't you just say that female consent is dictated by cultural norms. I.e. Women consent to male sexual control by submission to normative culture?adrenaline said:Monogomy is just not a part of the cultural norm for many African and middle eastern cultures. Physicians cannot stop a man from raping ( like the rape cultures in rural ethopia ) these men are certainly not going to put on a condom, but if we can prevent him from giving the girl AIDS by 60% during that encounter because he was cirumcised we have done a great service.
Female circumcisions have no utility, depending on the transexual surgery ( adult conversions which are entirely voluntary and the surgeries are very sophisticated and done to keep sexual pleasure intact and there are numerous conotations for infants born with ambiguous genitalia ex. congential adrenal hyperplasia etc. ) you can't with one fell swoop even begin to put transsexual surgery into female circumcision catgory.
brainstorm said:How can you accept rape as a cultural norm and still call it "rape?" Wouldn't you just say that female consent is dictated by cultural norms. I.e. Women consent to male sexual control by submission to normative culture?
In the case that you are willing to accept such sexual behavior as normative, then why not accept disease and suffering as normative as well? How do you draw a line between moral relativism in one area and moral values in another?
Removal of penis and reconfiguration of the remains of the scrotum and so forth for cosmetic purposes is not similar to removal of the clitoris and labia for aesthetic purposes? It's not "one fell swoop." These physical structures just seem analogous, as is the cosmetic motive of the surgery. I don't think you should assume that female circumcision doesn't have the intent to intensify sexual pleasure for both sexes by repressing sexual desire and relegating it to special situations. It also elevates the sense of importance of sexuality to focus attention on the genitals through mutilation. This may not be the manifest intent expressed for female circumcision, but how could it be if the latent intent is to enshroud the sex act with mystery and allure, i.e. eroticize it?
My point is that while you can claim that a "rape culture" is simply an "anthropological fact," you seem to have trouble recognizing female circumcision, the work of missionaries, etc. as equally relevant "anthropological facts." In other words, you choose to accept certain cultural practices while rejecting others, all in the name of scientific objectivity.adrenaline said:This has nothing to do with public health. No moral relativism involved, just the basic anthroplogical fact that such societies exist and we need to address the health issues in the context of the society it resides in. My experience is that the usual forces that promote abstinence in a society also prevents good birth control ( condoms) aka catholic church.
I have heard other data that say otherwise. Methodologically, my concern is with reporting and perception of respondents. Do the women reporting no or little sexual pleasure do so because they are embarrassed to talk about sexual pleasure? If they underwent the ritual before becoming sexually active, is there any way for them to compare functionality with and without? If you asked most circumcised men how circumcision of the penis affects sexual pleasure, I don't think they would have a clue.Medical facts don't support that female circumcision intensify sexual pleasure. Neither does my public health experience with these women in Afganistan and Africa.
I think I mentioned it in another post, but I am personally opposed to cosmetic surgical procedures, especially when they are either painful or of questionable value. Someone else was arguing that pain is not an object and you have to look at the various benefits. You were the one, I think, who was claiming that circumcising baby boys was a good way to reduce STI transmission. Why not go further and say that female circumcision is a good way to discipline female sexuality, which is what it's used for, right? Like I said, I question these various cultural practices, but I don't regard them as "anthropological facts" that have to be accepted because they're simply a feature of people's lives. All culture, even when it conflicts or attempts to undermine other culture, is still an "anthropological fact." If you're going to be relativist, why not accept any and every cultural form, no matter what its cause or effects?Little girls are not given a choice about female circumcision in these societies, the men who choose transexual surgery are fully aware, have them done under the expertise of skilled surgeons ( the primary tool of choice in most countries for female circumcision is the metal lid of a can and they are held down kicking and screaming ). Your logic does not differentiate between consensual sex and rape.
I've never heard of hormonal therapy to shrink the penis. I have only heard that orgasm is still possible despite genital removal. I don't know the specifics. Like I said, I personally don't favor cosmetic procedures to the genitals or otherwise. I just try to understand the "anthropological fact" that some people do. I don't know why people are so fixated on the terror of female genital mutilation but not male circumcision. I also don't know why you never hear the stories of women who feel more animal-like if their genitals would be left intact, similar to men I've heard describe intact penises as animal-like. People are mostly insane and they're willing to accept violence and suffering for relatively irrational beliefs. It's an "anthropological fact" that I'm morally opposed to, except to the extent that clear benefits can be demonstrated for the "victim."In addition, removing the clitoris removes the woman's capacity for sexual pleasure and orgasm. When I did urology, a man's penis was first shrunk by hormonal therapy . None of the parts required for sexual pleasure and orgasm ( remember the male penis is just an enlarged clitoris with a fused vagianl labia) were removed. The transexual still has all his sexual pleasure organs intact.
I think, like anything else very violent and unfamiliar, this procedure is a terror. What bothers me about that is that terror leads to violent reactions, and I don't know if reacting violently to this practice is the way to stop people from doing it. If feminists started a powerful political movement against male circumcision, do you think that it would motivate people to give up their faith in penis circumcision? I doubt it. So, like anything else the best you can do is make leaving women intact a culturally respectable option for the girls/women who are vulnerable.Now if you are talking a voluntary removal under surgical expertise of a redundant clitoral hood, that is entirely different than what most of these societies consider "female circumcision". We may be getting our semantics crossed. I refer to the majority of practices where female circumcision as a method of controlling women and their sexualitythat is usually mutilitory (rather than symbolic) and leads to widespread female urogenital problems. Not talking about simple hood removals that leave the pleasure organ intact or voluntry plastic surgery.
