News Is Sharia Law Oppressive Towards Women?

[brainstorm]

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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?

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'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."

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.

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.

A big part of this is understanding the fear/terror in sexuality culture. I bet you if you would talk to many men or women who favor male circumcision that they were legally required to leave their baby boys intact, they would fear for the child's sexual future and possibly resort to having the procedure performed covertly. Genital skin is very sensitive and cutting skin without anesthesia is painful in general, but people have no problem doing it to their newborns out of tradition, so if you can figure out what to do about male circumcision, you might get some ideas for the even more violent female procedure.

 

[Evo]

Brainstorm, you have been refuted over and over. You don't back up anything you say, you're telling a doctor that she doesn't know medical procedures.

The thread seems to be stuck in a rut.

Thread closed.