FGM in America

G

Gustav

Banned
Banned
On 26 April 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a “Policy Statement – Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors” that in effect promotes changes in US federal and state laws to “enable pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick” such as “pricking or incising the clitoral skin to satisfy cultural requirements.





really?
a new and improved reach out program? whats next? have the cops return 13 year old runaway brides to marital bliss?

/snicker

leaving the bombast aside for the moment, who here agrees with the inference made by equalitynow....."in effect promotes changes in US federal and state laws":..??
 
Damn savages. It should be banned around the world, not given a compromise.
 
As sick as this sounds, if it means they get a tiny incision rather than full blown mutilation elsewhere..I think it's the lesser of the evils.

You don't notice a tiny incision when you're grown up. You do notice a missing clitoris, inner labia, and the ability to orgasm, urinate normally, and give birth normally if you want kids.
 
The trade-off

Visceral Instinct said:

As sick as this sounds, if it means they get a tiny incision rather than full blown mutilation elsewhere..I think it's the lesser of the evils.
Click to expand...

I'm of two minds about this at present. To the one, I acknowledge the sentiment that any mandatory female genital mutilation is savage. To the other, though, it's not just the lesser of all evils, but rather a long-term outlook.

If a tiny nick satisfies the cultural demand, the practice can have a long-term effect. The topic article notes that the ritual nick has made "some progress toward eradication or amelioration", and in the context of eradication, if this practice replaces full-blown mutilation, there will be many whose outlook is one of fence-sitting with some deference to cultural demand who will eventually view the nicking as pointless. Over the course of a couple generations, societies can make great progress toward eradication.

And this is a good thing. The problem is that FGM won't disappear overnight. While the hard line against the practice has merit, it isn't necessarily a practical approach. Hardline headbanging often results in nothing more than mutual headaches.

Certainly, in this long-term outlook, there will be some prejudice against those who have been fully mutilated, and this is problematic, but if full-blown FGM is culturally marginalized, yes, we can call that progress.
____________________

Notes:

American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. Policy Statement Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors. Pediatrics. April 26, 2010. Pediatrics.AAPpublications.org. July 21, 2010. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2010-0187v1.pdf
 
People just need to be educated. There's no need for a nick or anything in the USA. We just need to shame this practice out of existence.
 
Well now, as much as I dislike it, it is what they do. Obviously it has some significance to them, or they wouldn't do it. If it's what they do, then fine. Keep me out of the loop. The world is sickening enough, I don't want to hear about all the evil and bullshit in the world, just the stuff that directly affects me... It's their culture, if they want to do it, then who the hell are you to judge what's right and wrong? Perspective perspective perspective. Get some.
 
It's a fairly simply symptom to interpret

Kernl Sandrs said:

Obviously it has some significance to them, or they wouldn't do it.
Click to expand...

It is, at its basic level, a context of ownership, nor just of body in general but sexuality in particular. The symbolism is blatant, the social attitude clearly neurotic, and the cultural aspects represent an ideology that has not yet reconciled itself to fundamental reality.
 
How about labiaplasty instead? No damage to the clitoris and it tidies the place up, sort of like a male circumcision, perhaps even the same thing as the foreskin and labia are descended from the same ambiguous fetal tissue. If we allow male circumcision on infants then we should allow female labiaplasty on infants.
 
God is human

ElectricFetus said:

No damage to the clitoris and it tidies the place up ....
Click to expand...

The theology on that one would be crazy: God loves you. He created you in His image. He just thinks your pussy is ugly.

And if no pussy is good enough, does that make God gay? Or just human?
 
Tiassa said:
The theology on that one would be crazy: God loves you. He created you in His image. He just thinks your pussy is ugly.

And if no pussy is good enough, does that make God gay? Or just human?
Click to expand...

Same argument but in reverse for male circumcision?
 
electric said:
If we allow male circumcision on infants then we should allow female labiaplasty on infants
Click to expand...

OK. How are you planning to persuade the FGM promulgators to restrict their modifications to something analogous to male circumcision?
 
iceaura said:
OK. How are you planning to persuade the FGM promulgators to restrict their modifications to something analogous to male circumcision?
Click to expand...

My argument is academic, but I guess the same why you would persuade them to make any change to their traditions.
 
I know it might seem that way, but ....

ElectricFetus said:

Same argument but in reverse for male circumcision?
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Male circumcision is covered in Abramism. I do not recall that female genital mutilation is likewise. That is, specifically, God has a thing about getting guys to cut their foreskins. There is even a famous massacre in the Bible surrounding a circumcision; see Genesis 34.

And if you want a chuckle involving male circumcision and sexal violence, see Michael Glass, "What the Bible Reveals About Circumcision and Sexual Violence". It's a poorly written, simplistic analysis, but it's still funny.

At any rate, though, the components of justification come from seemingly quite different directions.
____________________

Notes:

Weigle, Luther A., et al. The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version. Second edition. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. July 27, 2010. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/

Glass, Michael. "What the Bible Reveals About Circumcision and Sexual Violence". Circumcision Information Resource Pages. April 2003. CIRP.org. July 27, 2010. http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass3/
 
I'm aware of that Tiassa, my argument is in the motive of fairness if male circumcision is allowed then female "circumcision" must be allowed, of course that would not allow removing the clitoris anymore then the head of the penis.
 
This isn't exactly one of them

ElectricFetus said:

I'm aware of that Tiassa, my argument is in the motive of fairness if male circumcision is allowed then female "circumcision" must be allowed, of course that would not allow removing the clitoris anymore then the head of the penis.
Click to expand...

A very simplistic approach. I admit, I find such superficial logic amusing some days.
 
visceral_instinct said:
You do notice a missing clitoris, inner labia, and the ability to orgasm . . . .
Click to expand...
There are vaginal orgasms. I don't know if anyone is keeping statistics on what percentage of women are able to have them. The last time this topic came up a Muslim woman (probably Sam but my memory is not totally reliable) insisted that lots of women with clitoridectomies reported having orgasms routinely.

Based upon my conversations with American women I'd guess that the majority of them would not be able to have orgasms under those circumstances, but some would. Of course as a man my sample may be too small to be statistically valid.

And of course we have no measure of the reliability or statistical validity of the anecdotal evidence from the Islamic region either.

Many people--especially Muslims naturally--compare clitoridectomies to circumcision, and indeed it has lately become fashionable in some circles to call them "female circumcision" as a way of making them seem respectable. I accept the assertion that an uncircumcised penis is somewhat more sensitive than a circumcised one, but nonetheless it doesn't seem to interfere materially with our ability to climax. In fact anything that can retard the speed of our climax would be regarded as a boon by exactly half the population of this planet.

If people want to campaign to end male circumcision, then let them. (Although the final tally is not in on the public health value of circumcision in the battle against AIDS.) But I think it's disingenuous to compare it to clitoridectomy, and the comparison shows the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the campaign to legitimize clitoridectomy.

If we can stop those people from hiding their women under a shroud, we should certainly be able to stop them from mutilating them. If the arguments are entirely religious, then this is yet one more reason why religion sucks.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Many people--especially Muslims naturally--compare clitoridectomies to circumcision, and indeed it has lately become fashionable in some circles to call them "female circumcision" as a way of making them seem respectable.
Click to expand...

How prevalent is this practice, is it just Muslims, what purpose does it serve, and what the hell does it actually have to do with Islam? Don't tell me this is in the Quran?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top