To cut, or not to cut.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

nerdanel, the vast majority of FGMs, whichever type, are performed by women who have undergone the procedure themselves. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a spokesperson available here to comment on whether they do, or do not, feel it is mutilation. What is known is that they continue the practice, from generation to generation. In effect, it can be tentatively surmised that the "overwhelming majority of the affected group doesn't seem to care about it very much," which is the argument you use for not calling male circumcision "mutilation". By that logic, because these women don't appear to view their Type I, II, III, or IV female "circumcision" negatively, it should not be described as mutilation!

I cannot accept such a judgement, Can you?

[vison]

The women who have been mutilated in this fashion generally have no public voice. The fact that the cutting is done by other women means nothing except that these women are not going to fight a custom they are subject to - they are subject to so much other oppression anyway.

The custom has come to North American with some immigrants and it was a cause celebre in Toronto some years ago.

It would seem that we, in this thread, largely agree that cutting pieces off infants is not a good thing. But the similarity between mutilating little girls and circumcising little boys ends there.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

But the similarity between mutilating little girls and circumcising little boys ends there.

Or the similarity between circumcising little girls and mutilating little boys ends there.

"O! be some other name: What's in a name? that which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet."

[JewelSong]

I can see that you think the two examples are not equivalent, but I cannot see why. How is infant labial removal worse than infant foreskin removal?

In the same way that a high-school student bringing a loaded gun to class is worse than a 5 year old bringing a water pistol.

Both are weapons. Both can be used to threaten people. Both will cause discomfort if fired. Etc.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I can see that you think the two examples are not equivalent, but I cannot see why. How is infant labial removal worse than infant foreskin removal?

In the same way that a high-school student bringing a loaded gun to class is worse than a 5 year old bringing a water pistol.

Both are weapons. Both can be used to threaten people. Both will cause discomfort if fired. Etc.

How is that "in the same way"?

How is foreskin removal benign whilst labial removal is malign? Your analogy appears to fail absolutely to convey any rational argument, but simply dangles there. Please elucidate, so I can grasp what I am obviously missing.

I think vison has hit on an important factor (although unsaid). The determinant is solely cultural The removal of the foreskin is culturally acceptable because... it is. The removal of labia is culturally unacceptable because... it is. At least, in the societies represented by the posters here. In "alien" societies, the cultural norms differ, and therefore the cultural imperialist response is to denigrate those cultures, with all the women involved in the activity doing so through what amounts to "fear".

Unsupported conclusions, of course, but such is often the way with cultural imperialism.

At least, that is my reading of the situation.


ETA Male circumcision is prevalent in Patriarchal societies, as female circumcision is (see vison's post above). How is the one Patriarchal cultural imperative less abusive than the other?

[vison]

I think you can take your "cultural imperialism" and put it in a safe, dark place.

Men who were circumcized as babies do not commonly raise a ruckus as adults. Most accept it and do not suffer from it.

Women who were mutilated as little girls (it is usually done when the child is 5) on the other hand, will almost always speak of the pain of the cutting, the pain and misery that she endured for the rest of her life. That it continues speaks only of the strength of custom and the oppression of women in those cultures.

You can go on saying "it's the same thing" until the cows come home, but it's not the same thing and it is not cultural imperialism to point it out. Cultural imperialism is a term people use when they have no real ground to stand on.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Women who were mutilated as little girls (it is usually done when the child is 5) on the other hand, will almost always speak of the pain of the cutting, the pain and misery that she endured for the rest of her life. That it continues speaks only of the strength of custom and the oppression of women in those cultures.

References, please, to this "almost always" speaking of the lifelong enduring of pain and misery. And the practice can be performed between the ages of 0 to 15, with some cultures having it as a rite of passage that is viewed with the same pride by those undergoing the procedure as other rites of passage.

[Cerin]

GBG, I also reject your use of 'mutilation', your attempt to impose your definition on the discussion, and your attempt to equate circumcision with FMG. I think the Webster unabridged offering of an example of mutilation is instructive:

mutilate: 1 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of a body : CASTRATE

Labia are not the equivalent of the male foreskin, therefore their removal are not equivalent. There is no part of the female genitalia that equates to the male foreskin.

Additionally, I'm sure you're aware that describing two different things with the same (in one case loosely applied) term doesn't imply any equivalency of degree or magnitude. Someone who's stubbed their toe and someone who's at death's door after a car accident could both be described as injured, but only a fool would try and use that fact as a basis for claiming the two examples to be equivalent, which seems to me to be what you are attempting here.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

GBG, I also reject your use of 'mutilation', your attempt to impose your definition on the discussion, and your attempt to equate circumcision with FMG. I think the Webster unabridged offering of an example of mutilation is instructive:

mutilate: 1 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of a body : CASTRATE

Why are the labia essential? By your own definition, female circimcision, like male circumcision, cannot be described as mutilation. I think this is erroneous, on both counts.

Labia are not the equivalent of the male foreskin, therefore their removal are not equivalent. There is no part of the female genitalia that equates to the male foreskin.

Would the "hood" of the clitoris directly equate to the foreskin. Of course, there is more to "equating" than direct identifying. Different reasons for grieving can be equated, but the death of a pet or the loss of a job, producing equivalent grieving, are not directly equitable.

Additionally, I'm sure you're aware that describing two different things with the same (in one case loosely applied) term doesn't imply any equivalency of degree or magnitude. Someone who's stubbed their toe and someone who's at death's door after a car accident could both be described as injured, but only a fool would try and use that fact as a basis for claiming the two examples to be equivalent, which seems to me to be what you are attempting here.

The forced removal of a body part, whether the foreskin or the labia, can, and should, be equated. Your example provides events of vastly differing scale. My example provides events of equivalent scale. You have provided no reasoning to suggest that labial removal is in any way more "serious" than foreskin removal.

[Cerin]

The labia are essential because they are part of a woman's arousal apparatus. Only someone who believed that a woman's pleasure in the sex act was unessential, would consider the labia unessential.

Would the "hood" of the clitoris directly equate to the foreskin.

You tell me. You go find a man with a foreskin, examine it, it's thickness, it's degree of integration with the whole and it's retractability (you might even give this skin a little surreptitious pinch and see what kind of reaction you get), and then go find a woman willing to show you her genitalia. Examine the woman's genitalia, and if you find a piece of skin in there that seems comparably thin, loosely attached and easily pushed out of the way (and a comparable reaction to the pinching of such) we'll talk some more.

My example provides events of equivalent scale.

They are not of equivalent scale. That's the point on which you are mistaken. Clearly you view the events as equivalent on principle (the removal of a body part), but they are not equivalent physically.

The forced removal of a body part, whether the foreskin or the labia, can, and should, be equated.

Nonsense. Would you equate the cutting of a fingernail with the amputation of the finger?

You have provided no reasoning to suggest that labial removal is in any way more "serious" than foreskin removal.

As I suggested above, go examine a foreskin and some labia, and then come and tell me in what way you find them similar.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Cerin, I caught my foreskin in my zip when I was young, and believe me, it was agony.

And a fingernail grows back. A finger doesn't, so, no, they are not equivalent.

I know a woman who was embarrased by her labia, and had cosmetic surgery to reduce the size. It seems that the excess skin removed wasn't exactly "essential" to her.

"Tidying it up" was the description...

I find there is almost a desperate need to make one surgical procedure "bad", and the other "good", and the reasoning behind this is... puzzling.

[Cerin]

I know a woman who was embarrased by her labia, and had cosmetic surgery to reduce the size. It seems that the excess skin removed wasn't exactly "essential" to her.

Presumably what was left of her labia continued to function in the normal way.

I find there is almost a desperate need to make one surgical procedure "bad", and the other "good", and the reasoning behind this is... puzzling.

There's nothing puzzling about it. There is no female equivalent to the male foreskin. If there were, I assume that everyone who regards circumcision as an acceptable modification would also regard the removal of the female equivalent as acceptable.


edit to remove unnecessary comment

[Alatar]

For what its worth, I agree with GBG here. The only reason people seem to have no problem with circumcision is because its the norm. Its "acceptable". There is a reason men have foreskins. Its to protect the sensitive head of the penis. By removing it, you reduce the sensitivity of the penis. You directly affect a man's enjoyment of sex. Perhaps not to the same extent as female circumcisions, but it is very similar to labial removal (from my understanding).

As I said in an earlier post, if I decided to give appendectomies to my kids just in case they might suffer from a burst appendix at some stage, I'm sure you'd all be horrified. And there's more likelihood of that happening than them needing circumcision. So why on earth is it considered acceptable to cut healthy flesh off a child?

[JewelSong]

The only reason people seem to have no problem with circumcision is because its the norm. Its "acceptable".

And as *I* said in a previous post, even if this is the case, cultural "norms" take a very long time to change, especially if you have been specifically commanded by God to do it, as is stated in Genesis. Christians are no longer bound by this command (thank you, St Paul) but Jews are. (And also Muslims, I think.)

So why on earth is it considered acceptable to cut healthy flesh off a child?

See above.

[Cerin]

The only reason people seem to have no problem with circumcision is because its the norm.

I'd say, because it's the norm, and because it apparently has no ill*, and possibly some good effects.

*You don't often hear about circumcision negatively impacting a man's health, the way you hear that about FMG. Also, circumcised men don't seem to experience a lack in their sex lives, as attested to by men here.

[Alatar]

Cerin, I'm deaf in one ear. I "don't seem to experience a lack" in my life, but I'll never know what its like to hear in stereo. I still love music. I sing. I play guitar. But my ability to enjoy music is not what it might have been had I two functional ears.

People who were circumcised at birth enjoy sex. Do they enjoy it as much as they would have (or even in a different way) than if they were uncircumcised? I don't know. But thats not really the point. The point is that there's no real benefit, and cultural norms are no excuse to continue doing something wrong. Remember, slavery was a cultural norm too. Didn't make it right. (And no, I'm not equating the two in case anyone suggests it)

[Cerin]

The point is that there's no real benefit <snip>.

It doesn't seem that there is agreement on whether there is 'no benefit' to circumcision. In fact, it would seem that the reason for non-religious circumcision becoming the norm is because it was judged to be beneficial (in terms of hygiene, less instances of infection, etc.).

[JewelSong]

the reason for non-religious circumcision becoming the norm is because it was judged to be beneficial (in terms of hygiene, less instances of infection, etc.).

That is exactly right. I don't think it was coincidence that it became much more common after WWII - I am sure my uncle was not the only one who had to undergo the procedure in service as a result of infection.

Here are a few links about the medical and health benefits/risks to circumcision. From what I can gather, there seems to be a general benefit to the procedure, although how much of a benefit remains unclear.

http://www.essortment.com/all/circumcisionunc_rmdj.htm
http://men.webmd.com/guide/circumcision ... s-benefits
http://www.circinfo.net/
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen ... e/042.html

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I pointed this out before. One procedure is statistically disease reducing. In other words there is an objective benefit to it.
The other is statistically disease inducing. There is an objective detriment to it.

The point that circumsized men seem on the whole to be neutral in their attitude to it and that women who have undergone FGM loathe it seems to have been buried in distractive cultural relativism.

[Alatar]

Again. Would you recommend appendectomies? Or removal of tonsils as a matter of course?

I can tell you right now that there would be a statistical reduction of appendix and tonsil related illnesses if we took them all out. Why is nobody considering it? Maybe because we don't as a rule excise healthy functioning parts of our anatomy on the off chance that they might cause us problems later.