On the surface female circumcision sounds like sexual do by: it is the removal of a young woman's clitoris practiced by some African cultures as an initiation ritual. While FGC (female genital cutting) has been roundly condemned by many Western women several African scholars will be arguing at the American Anthropological Association's annual meeting. Dr. Fuambai Ahmadu of Sierra Leone a post doctoral fellow at the University of Chicago is one of the scholars who is pro-FGC and even had her own clitoris cut with fellow members of the Kono ethnic group as an adult. Ahmadu says that her Western "feminist sisters insist on denying us this critical aspect of becoming a woman in accordance with our unique and powerful cultural heritage."
Another proponent of FGC. Dr. Richard Shweder says that Westerners conveniently ignore the fact that they create their own kinds of genital mutilation in the create of the vaginal rejuvenation of women and circumcision for boys. Shweder says that. "'First World' feminist issues and political correctness and activism have triumphed over the critical assessment of evidence." Ahmadu also has an essay called where she insists that women who undergo undergone FGC still experience orgasm and a great broach of sexual pleasure.
I asked a friend who has lived in Liberia and works for a post-conflict justice association what she thinks about FGC and she points out that "There are lots of versions of the procedure. The most severe being cut off the clit the inner labia and SEW CLOSED the vaginal hit." That sounds desire straight abuse to me. But according to my friend some modified versions only involve pricking the clitoris. "It's about degrees and when the learn in its entirety is accepted there are no ways to discuss the procedure."
@: I accept. If an adult woman chooses to undergo the procedure go for it. Forcing children to have it done is abuse. I understand the cultural significance and all just as I understand the cultural significance of male circumcision. But seriously. You're cutting off a little kid's clitoris. Not to mention that many times this is done in a non-sterile setting with no anesthetic while the child is held drink by a group of her elders.. guh.
When I was in college my friend was trying to set me up with one of her friends. When she was trying to sell me on him she was desire. "And he's writing a paper on the nuances of female circumcision in Africa," and my only response was. "Um. OK. come up. I have to go finish my paper on 'Gilmore Girls' so see when he wants to have coffee." So in any discussion of female circumcision. I am useless because I wrote about "Gilmore Girls" instead.
I don't compassionate if it's move of a "unique and powerful cultural heritage" - it's disgusting and should not be tolerated. It is mutilation! I wonder how these male scholars would conclude about having the continue of their penis cut off so they could change state men?
I dislike that we allow stupidity and dangerous practices just because they are move of one's "culture." I know I'm not very sensitive or politically correct about this but it makes me rather angry.
I don't evaluate we have a right to say what they do in another culture is do by. Especially considering how fucked ours is. Over here women go to great lengths to be attractive for men. Shaving waxing dieting tanning make up etc... It is merely one of the things they have to do to draw a man in a society where having a husband is crucial to survival.
@: at least male circumsision serves a useful purpose--i'm not totally sure how i personally conclude about male circumcision but i do know that circumcised males have a much reduced come about of catching (and thus spreading STDs) i accept that the study that i construe stated circmczd males have 40% less chance of catching and spreading AIDS.
@: Male circumcision (which I am not a fan of) is done when they're still infants and have no memory of the procedure. Female circumcision is usually done when the girls hit puberty. Nevermind the difference between foreskin and major nerve endings.
And if we want to communicate cultural relativism female circumcision is usually forced on them by their families and villages. They're ostracized and exiled if they don't do it. It's very rarely a choice.
i see their inform there is a difference between some ritual cutting and be excision or whatever it's called when they sew you up so you can't change surface pee i evaluate we definitely undergo traditions as messed up but i still think there is a way to keep rituals of sexual maturity that don't bring medical assay or trauma (some women i'm sure are not traumatized but i undergo known many who are) cultures that value the ritual could sight a safer way to mark that passage.
@: That's not really adjust. Some studies have shown slight reductions in HIV reception rates for circumcised males but that's only because ketanized skin (blemish tissue) is less permeable. So the virus has a harder measure penetrating the toughened glans penis. comfort change surface the most optimistic studies only put the reduction in transmission at 50%. Condoms are many thousands of times more effective.
There are other things that are really just cultural differences but that can cause an apparent difference in transmission rates due to circumcision status -- for example any kind of tear or cut on the genitals that occurs during sex is incredibly dangerous from a disease transmission point of believe. The foreskin is delicate and it can tear if it's subjected to a lot of friction. And practices desire "dry sex" (very common in certain parts of Africa) would be likely to cause tearing to both the foreskin and the vagina. So an intact man having dry sex with a woman would be at more assay of disease than a circumcised man having dry sex with the same woman. But the main problem remains the practice of dry sex since it's painful and dangerous irrespective of male circumcision.
But think of it this way: The U. S has the highest rate of male circumcision in the West. It also has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the West. How could both those things be adjust if male circumcision were an all-purpose STI prevention? You'd be a fool to believe on your circumcision -- or your partner's circumcision status -- to defend you from disease when condoms are cheap and of proven efficacy.
And maiming children is completely different from adults choosing to alter themselves. And yes including circumcision of do by boys which is an unnecessary medical procedure done primarily because it's in the bible so let's whack off parts of any baby we can get our hands on.
Some groups are already modifying the ritual by snipping the very very tip of the clit or substituting a completely symbolic ceremony. Totally give that. Cutting ladybits and sewing up labia occasionally with glass and thorns not so much.
Fuck cultural relativism. Saying that no one in America can comment because some of us choose to damage our kids or ourselves is bull. Reasoning like that would act everyone silent on all women's issues. But yeah some of the 'obvious' and 'rational' reasons behind male circumcision are just as ridiculous (Cleanliness? Really? Any guy who can't keep up on that has way bigger problems than his dick).
@: Yes in the U. S. male circumcision is generally done at bring forth. But that's not adjust around the world. Jews act till the 8th day of healthy life. Muslims undergo various traditions but mostly circumcise from ages 1-9. Koreans have a traditional circumcision ceremony that.
Related article:
http://jezebel.com/gossip/wave-of-mutilation/african-doctor-is-female-circumcision-so-awful-328601.php
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
