Female Genital Mutilation - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-02-2006, 06:44 PM   #16
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 02:58 AM
I'd cut off the cock of any man who did this to a little girl - period!!!
__________________

__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 11-03-2006, 03:08 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
What is the basis of this barbaric ritual? My first guess is just preventing women from sexual pleasure. Is that it? How do they rationalize this?
Do you have a better way to keep property owned?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-03-2006, 06:09 AM   #18
The Fly
 
AliR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: OH
Posts: 32
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje

I can't imagine ever being socialized to think this practice is acceptable. If a consenting adult really wants her clit hacked off, so be it, but what really gets me about FGM is that these are little girls. Not only are they physically and emotionally scarred for life, they can't ever have sex as it was meant to be, they risk infections, even going pee is painful.
The same can be said for routine male infant circumcision. Especially your last sentence.

Ali
__________________
AliR is offline  
Old 11-03-2006, 08:12 AM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliR


The same can be said for routine male infant circumcision. Especially your last sentence.

Ali
It's true, but not NEARLY to the same degree. The POINT of FGM is to make any sexual activity impossible or painful. I'm not sure there really is a point to male circumcision anymore, but when there was I believe it was part of OT covenant, not to make males feel owned and shamed by their own anatomy. I've yet to meet a circumcised male who is emotionally scarred and regrets being circumcised.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 11-03-2006, 03:41 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 04:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliR


The same can be said for routine male infant circumcision. Especially your last sentence.

Ali
Very very true. I realize some of the health issues associated with FGM don't apply (talking about complications with childbirth), but really the rest of it is all cultural bias. FGM is certainly a barbaric practice, but saying male circumcision isn't is rather hypocritical.
__________________
CTU2fan is online now  
Old 11-03-2006, 03:50 PM   #21
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 03:58 AM
I can't believe this bastard only got 10 years. His child is going to suffer for this for the rest of her life.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 11-04-2006, 09:11 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:58 AM
I don't think FGM is merely "cultural bias", it is meant to control and eliminate the sexuality and sexual "power" of women. Unless hatred of women can be deemed to be merely a "cultural bias". I'm not saying male circumcision is always right or always justified- but I don't think you can compare the physical, mental, and emotional effects. I don't think male circumcision was ever designed to control male sexuality or male power , and they can still have sex and sexual pleasure-much more pleasure than a woman who has had her entire genital area mutilated. I would venture a guess that an adult woman (let alone a child) who has had her genitals mutilated in the ways that FGM is performed would have a permanent fear of sex similar to what a rape victim might have-can you say the same about a male who has been circumcised in a normal way? If you could, seems to me there would be numerous men who wouldn't be having sex.


Obviously I'm no expert on the topic of the physical effects of either or both, but that would be my conclusion based upon what I do know.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-04-2006, 11:02 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
1stepcloser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 3,764
Local Time: 09:58 AM
Why on earth does this happen in the 21st century?
__________________
1stepcloser is offline  
Old 11-04-2006, 12:11 PM   #24
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:58 AM
Cultures which practice the various procedures that may fall under the FGM heading don't offer any one rationale for them. "Chastity" is a predominant theme, but other, less common explanations recorded by anthropologists include hygiene; belief that certain genital tissues in both males and females are childishly "hermaphroditic" and should be removed at puberty; or a belief that FGM is required by Islam (which the majority of Muslim scholars categorically reject). If there is a fear of "power" in some sense underlying any or all of these, my guess is that it boils down mostly to fear of illegitimate children (with attendant social consequences) and a belief that one good way to deal with this is ensuring that women won't desire sex enough to pursue it outside of marriage.

Anyhow, to summarize some *warning--rather graphic* info from a couple human rights law books I have containing essays on the topic:

There is one procedure sometimes classified as a form of FGM which could perhaps be described as anatomically analogous to male circumcision, and that is so-called sunna circumcision or clitoridotomy (not clitoridectomy). This is the removal of the clitoral hood and frenulum clitoris, which are the developmentally homologous female tissues to the male foreskin and frenulum. This particular operation is sometimes done on a voluntary basis in the US as a sexual enhancement procedure (which is fully legal), and there are a couple studies apparently indicating that it enhanced sensitivity in the majority of surveyed women who underwent it. Internationally, however, clitoridotomy accounts for only about 3% of all "female circumcision" procedures, according to the World Health Organization.

The most common form by far--accounting for some 80% of the 130 million or so women who have undergone FGM--is what the WHO calls "Type II," which involves both clitoridectomy (clitoridotomy + removal of the clitoris) and removal of the labia minora and labia majora. In other words, ALL of the erectile/engorgeable genital tissues are removed. Anatomically speaking, it is not possible to analogize this to male circumcision because in terms of homologous structures, that would mean removal of the glans penis and both corpora cavernosa, as well as the foreskin, frenulum, scrotum and distal urethra. While sexual satisfaction surveys of women who have undergone this type of FGM are, not surprisingly, rather lacking, everything we know about the nature of women's "erogenous zones" suggests that all genitally derived pleasure, from arousal to orgasm, would be categorically impossible once this procedure has been performed.

Another 15% (again, according to WHO data) undergo the most extreme form, which is usually called "infibulation." This is the same as Type II, with the difference that the outer edges of the labia majora are left, then stitched together, leaving only a small opening over the lower part of the vaginal orifice (the urethra is thus blocked, so urine must run down underneath the stitched skin and dribble out this opening). The girl's legs are then tied together for around two weeks to prevent further disturbing the wounds. The stitches are left in so that the labia will fuse together through scarring, then partially removed (i.e., torn out) prior to first intercourse. They must be fully removed for childbirth, though in some cultures it's customary to restore them afterwards. Unsurprisingly, it's this type of FGM which is most associated with greatly increased risks in childbirth (70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage, according to the recent Lancet study), and it's also the type most likely to lead to severe urinary tract and menstruation-related infections. (However, Type II can also cause severe infections and obstructive scarring, especially when performed with unsanitary equipment, as is most often the case.)

Then another 2% or so fall under the heading of "other"-- partial clitoridectomy or clitoridectomy alone (as the father referred to above was apparently charged with doing to his daughter), various forms of episiotomy-like ritual scarring or singeing, etc. All four "types" are normally performed in prepubescence by female elders or relatives.
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
I would venture a guess that an adult woman (let alone a child) who has had her genitals mutilated in the ways that FGM is performed would have a permanent fear of sex similar to what a rape victim might have
I don't know about permanent fear of sex (permanent effective disinterest in it, maybe?), but it certainly seems hard to imagine there wouldn't be permanent psychological trauma of some sort with most of these types. Especially when it's your way of being "welcomed" into womanhood by women you always trusted as a child, and the precondition for "wholesome" relations with the man you'll spend the rest of your life with as an adult.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 11-04-2006, 03:47 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 04:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
I don't think FGM is merely "cultural bias", it is meant to control and eliminate the sexuality and sexual "power" of women. Unless hatred of women can be deemed to be merely a "cultural bias". I'm not saying male circumcision is always right or always justified- but I don't think you can compare the physical, mental, and emotional effects. I don't think male circumcision was ever designed to control male sexuality or male power , and they can still have sex and sexual pleasure-much more pleasure than a woman who has had her entire genital area mutilated. I would venture a guess that an adult woman (let alone a child) who has had her genitals mutilated in the ways that FGM is performed would have a permanent fear of sex similar to what a rape victim might have-can you say the same about a male who has been circumcised in a normal way? If you could, seems to me there would be numerous men who wouldn't be having sex.


Obviously I'm no expert on the topic of the physical effects of either or both, but that would be my conclusion based upon what I do know.
I think I wasn't that clear in my post...what I meant is that Western acceptance of male circumcision while condemning FGM is due to cultural bias; we've all grown up with cutting - in fact I know more than one woman who is turned off, even disgusted by the sight of an uncut man's genitalia.



Very true that the power dynamic associated with FGM separates it from circumcision, only the actual physical act is comparable.

Also the unsanitary way in which it's done (in the bushes, or with scissors, etc)...not to mention that as a father I could never raise any kind of blade to my daughter.
__________________
CTU2fan is online now  
Old 11-04-2006, 07:36 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by CTU2fan


I think I wasn't that clear in my post...what I meant is that Western acceptance of male circumcision while condemning FGM is due to cultural bias; we've all grown up with cutting - in fact I know more than one woman who is turned off, even disgusted by the sight of an uncut man's genitalia.

Very true that the power dynamic associated with FGM separates it from circumcision, only the actual physical act is comparable.

Also the unsanitary way in which it's done (in the bushes, or with scissors, etc)...not to mention that as a father I could never raise any kind of blade to my daughter.

Then what exactly is the point of bringing it up in a thread like this? It seems to happen every time FGM is discussed, even though we all seem to agree it's comparing apples to oranges...
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 11-04-2006, 10:08 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 04:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje



Then what exactly is the point of bringing it up in a thread like this? It seems to happen every time FGM is discussed, even though we all seem to agree it's comparing apples to oranges...
When did I say it was apples to oranges? Because it's certainly not...and what gets brought up "in every thread about FGM" isn't my concern. What I'm saying is while the power dynamic isn't there, the physical mutilation is very very comparable. In both cases it's slicing away at a child's genitalia because of tradition or whatever.

Hell I think some folks even throw a party over it, just like with one of the FGM cases cited...and have it done by a non-doctor to boot...
__________________
CTU2fan is online now  
Old 11-04-2006, 10:17 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by CTU2fan


When did I say it was apples to oranges? Because it's certainly not...and what gets brought up "in every thread about FGM" isn't my concern. What I'm saying is while the power dynamic isn't there, the physical mutilation is very very comparable. In both cases it's slicing away at a child's genitalia because of tradition or whatever.

But that's the only comparison, like apples and oranges both = fruit and that's about it. It's not really the same at all. My concern with it always coming into these discussions is they turn into "well, people have been doing this to guys for centuries so yadda yadda yadda..." It tends to downplay the significance of FGM or turn the focus towards circumcision, which is an entirely different issue. I've seen many a circumcised male penis and the physical mutilation isn't comparable (unless it was done wrong). FGM often leaves such extensive scarring that just going pee can be painful, for life. It's a lifelong health hazard, not just for the short time while it's still healing. Not only is part or all of the clitoris removed, but often other areas are sewn together in such a way that any form of sexual activity and childbirth are risky. Male circumcision is so vastly different, it's not even worth bringing into this type of discussion, unless there's some useful comparison....
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 11-04-2006, 10:36 PM   #29
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 07:58 PM
This makes me so appalled and angry i can't even begin to describe it.

Just another way thats shows the STUPIDITY and ARROGANCE of men and their followers in this world. I cannot understand how they honestly believe forcing this pain onto a woman is something the think they have the right to do

argh im angry...i can't think properly
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 11-04-2006, 10:50 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 03:58 AM
I don't think it's fair to exclusively blame men. I'd bet there are women who've had it done who will allow and even advocate it being done to their daughters.

Also, I was just reading the wikipedia entry on FGM, and it says that "infibulation" is actually performed by a women and the wounds are maintained by female relatives. Here is an example (don't look unless you really want to know):
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billede:Infibulation.jpg

Basically, the woman sews everything shut. When the girl is basically forced to have sex (since she will be married as early as age 12), another woman has to open the wound, then close it again and tie the girls legs together so it can heal. Then, they cut it back open for childbirth, close it, heal it, open it again for sex, and so on....

I also thought this bit was interesting:
Quote:
The expression “female genital mutilation” (FGM) gained growing support in the late 1970s. The word “mutilation” not only establishes a clear linguistic distinction with male circumcision, but also, due to its strong negative connotations, emphasizes the gravity of the act. In 1990, this term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) in Addis Ababa. In 1991, the World Health Organization recommended that the United Nations adopt this terminology and subsequently, it has been widely used in UN documents.

The use of the word “mutilation” reinforces the idea that this practice is a violation of the human rights of girls and women
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com