Ritualized Genital Surgery (CIRCUMCISION)
1. Is it sexist and/or logically inconsistent to those practicing female circumcision, but not for practicing male circumcision?
2. Is it reasonable and logically consistent for those who undergo these procedures on such an immense scale while criticizing others of being "barbaric" for practicing female circumcision?
3. Does the average person have their son circumcised for medical reasons, or is it also performed simply because that is what is normally done i.e.,"tradition"?
Peoples throughout the world also differ with regard to which individuals are expected to BE CIRCUMSIZED. Americans, Jews and many other societies circumcise only male children.
Other societies, most notably in Africa and the Middle East, perform ritualized genital surgery on both males and females. Very few societies perform ritualized genital surgery exclusively on females.
Those who practice ritualized genital surgery range from peoples living in small hunting and gathering bands using very simple technology to those living in complex technologically sophisticated societies such as the United States.
Most believe that male circumcision is practiced primarily for medical reasons. Are these beliefs correct? Some individuals claim that there is a reduced incidence of penile cancer among circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males (a claim which is not supported by scientific research). Couldn't we then justify routine mastectomies for all young girls in order to prevent breast cancer which, after all, is far more common and more lethal than penile cancer?
Many peoples in Africa and elsewhere claim that they practice circumcision (male and female) for aesthetic reasons. To them, the uncircumcised is considered unattractive. Many medical health plans no longer cover circumcision, defining it as cosmetic surgery. Aesthetics are socially acquired, and people learn to appreciate and value that which is appreciated and valued by others around them.
Billions of dollars are spent every year to pay for breast implants, liposuction, collagen lip injections, tattoos, body piercing, etc. Most of these procedures are performed for cosmetic rather than medical reasons, and all of them cause pain and suffering. In addition, many result in medical complications and cause long term health problems. Our own society accepts and practices radical genital surgery. Formal procedures have been established by which individuals may undergo surgery to change their sex. Depending on which direction the change occurs, such procedures involve hormone therapy, breast elimination or augmentation, pectoral surgery, the removal or construction of a penis and the elimination or creation of a vaginal cavity. Significantly, not only have all of the more radical forms of genital surgery described above been performed on males, but so also have the overwhelming majority of sex change operations been performed on males.
Do those societies that perform ritualized genital surgery on both sexes display different gender relations than those that perform it on only one sex?
What social factors would make sense of this practice?
How might those societies that perform ritual surgery differ from those that do not?
somewhere in Africa wherein girls who survived the mutilation couldn't bear kids anymore after undergoing the "rites" while some die due to infections.
Hi Azi,
This circumsision is related to faiths and religions and cultures originating in West Asia / Arabian Gulf area and the surrounding.
Now because of relocation of the populance, these customs were also taken along with the very people originnaly from this palce.
What I would conclude is people today are not doing this exercise because it is really needed but it is thier customs rather than a medical need.
I read that book too. She became a famous model? Anyway I totally agree with Gypsy & Brandylady.
Aisha-Taweela
I think she is in Denmark...
I cant recall her name but I remember that she says she has left Islam. Anyway, what they did to her was the mutilation: complete removal of the clitoris, partial sewing of the vagina and labia. Clearly, this is not from Islam.
I once read a book, an autobiography actually by some Somali lady who had gone thru this when she was 5 years old. She went thru hell in her country and then escaped as a refugee somewhere in Europe. I am not able to recal the name of the book or the author.. Can anyone here help me?
From my understanding, circumcision for both males and females is not "obligatory" in Islam...
There is Female Genital Mutilation and then there is Female Circumcision. Circumcision is from the tradition of the prophet Abraham. All that other mutilation stuff comes from peoples' cultures. The proper way for circumcision in both males and females is by removing a portion of the foreskin of the penis/clitoris, not the whole thing!
Read the NYTimes article below for more info, also read the Islamic ruling on the issue from www.islam-qa.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html
http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/60314/female%20circumcision
-AA
are you sure you read that as female circums or maybe that's for male?
Read an artice in Readers Digest where this practise is rampant and it is done by one of the elders with sometimes a rusty blade which leads to infection. It is brutal and diabolic and should be banned.
Women do have feelings and wants and what is wrong with that.
We generally aim to please your partner but if it is mutilated how do you please them
female circumcision is sunnah in Islam. But its not what people may think horrible as it is. LoL, No way!
though, other countries in some part of Africa are doing it as traditional ritualistic cause.
male circumcision is different, they undergo minor surgery.
Hope it helps?
Its a tricky subject, and a consistent (not necessarily majority-held view) in the medical community in regards to circumcision is that 'if you were born with it, and everyone else has it, you probably have it for a reason - don't f*** with things that arnt broken'. as far as female circumcision it is a barbaric and brutal practise which tends to result (in developing countries) of a alot of dead young women. sure, if a consenting adult wants to remove her clitoris (or foreskin, or fingers, or toes, or ovaries or testicles, ill not stop him/her, but to remove parts of children?
male circumcision - if one was to research this topic, one would find a huge debate in the medical community. I still believe that the foreskin comes with the equipment as a standard accessorary - if you want to make your willy a coupe and take the roof off, go for it, but coupe's arnt much good in the rain...
(bad metaphor - but you might get the point..)
ill informed medical opinion based on tradition and culture can cause untold damage to an individual, it should certainly be taken into account, but it pays to research everything if possible - especially if your or your family's health.
I have faith in the medical community in general, however the goals of patient and practitioner are not always the same, and needs to be realised.
Does it take 3 words to say a description of cutting off foreskins?
Pee-ple! Why do you want to cut off your clitoris??? It's what makes men enjoy se* even more...
Plus, women'll lose the sense of orgasm if you did remove it...
"Everything in this book may be wrong." Illusions: The Adventures of The Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach
prostitution is legal in Amesterdam ;)
it is not legal but tolerated. same as Singapore ;)
Isn't Thailand the place where prostitution is legal?
In Thailand Wives cut the member of their unfaithfull Husbands when they are drunk and sleep then chop it and feed to chicken. Qatar is very safe in that aspect :)
well, u can't say that its not harmful to the individual, some have lost their penises others their life. Complications do happen.
As Gypsy and randylady have sid, they are two different things..
Female circumcision is pure and simple mutilation. It should be outlawed.
Male circumcision is religious, cultural, voluntary - but not harmful to the individual.
yep, female circumcision shud not be done.
On a side note, women shud not study too much that hampers their ability to have orgasm.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1090275.ece
for medical or religious reasons is fine if performed properly while female circumcision has no medical reasoning whatsoever and as said above barbaric and mutilation.
women have a right to enjoy sex and orgasms as much as men and female circumcision takes away that right.
What's your opinion of this...
oh , wasn't RENTAL surgery? my bad!
I am completely against it. I think it is up to the individual what they do to their teeth...
....oh...I thought it said ritualistic DENTAL surgery...
Most scientific theories are based on assumptions. they are known as hypotheses, which are tested. That is what science is mostly about.
Statistical analysis has been proven to be useful in medicine, i.e. not "stupid". There is a branch of medicine known as epidemiology which is very helpful in terms of public medicine, which involves a lot of statistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology
E.g. statistics will tell you how many people in a population you need immunise/vaccinate in order to create 'herd immunity'.
It's not stupid at all, it's essential in learning and understanding about epidemics and pandemics and other public health issues.
The news of chances of AIDS 6:1 ...is humbug. As it is not based on scientific findings. Its just an assumption and a very stupid one based on statics.
The male circumsion is common and is sometimes prescribed by the doctors. But Female circumsion is horrible.
If they knew that the G-spot existed they would have cut out the whole vagina...lol.
As for aswering the Questionnaire (the length & breadth seems to suggest a WHO questionnaire...lol) I have never heard of a female circumsion happening ever ..either here nor in the place of my origin.
As for the question on Society & social factor I imagine it might happen in a very backward, mostly illiterate village.
Ok, I've stopped cringing now at the idea of having my clitoris removed.
The very idea of female genital mutilation (and it is mutilation) disgusts me. It is only done as a way of controlling womens sexuality. One of the reasons it's done is because men in North Africa (where it is commonly practiced)prefer "dry" sex (because it's supposed to be like having a virgin) so if you take away a women's ability to enjoy sex, you are guaranteed dry sex.
This leads to tearing in the vagina, which causes infections, bleeding, etc.
Also most genital mutilation is not performed in a sterile environment by someone who knows what they are doing and many girls die from infection, or are unable to do things like Urinate without extreme pain afterwards.
Finally, I don't think any girl has ever said "Oh yes please cut off my clitoris" at least not one that would be considered clinically sane.
Male circumsision has it's routes in tradition, but mostly to do with hygene, a circumzied penis doesn't smell as bad or trap dirt as much. Also a common affliction among young boys is that there foreskin is too tight to come back off the head of the penis, which can also lead to infection and eventually extremely painful sex. I know of one couple who went on their honeymoon only to discover that the husbands foreskin was too tight and the poor man ended up in agony and had to get a circumsision the next day. My guess is that the tradition probably stems from this, and the hygene issue.
Especially now, male circumsision is performed in a sterile environment by someone who knows what they are doing.
Frankly I think either procedure should be left up to the decision of the individual.
[img_assist|nid=13228|title=I feel your scorn and I accept it-Jon Stewart|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=180|height=180]
With men, it's acceptable because it's a common practice. But, with the women, I call it mutilation as women who were subjected to this practice wasn't given a choice...it's part of their society's beliefs and traditions.
i've seen on cable tv how these rites are done and what happens to these women afterwards...Inhumanely gross...
"Circumcision does not impair a male's ability to derive sexual enjoyment and fulfillment or have an orgasm."
Precisely. Whatever the ritual or medical value of these precedures for either males or females, the overarching purpose of female "circumcision" is to control female sexuality by rendering women incapable of feeling pleasure. There is no parallel for males, so any argument of equivalence between the sexes is empty.
as far as i am concerned these kind of things should done only for medical reasons .. just my thoughts
First, circumcision (male) and clitorectomy (female) (I won't call it female mutilation although that's what I think it is) are for different purposes. Circumcision does not impair a male's ability to derive sexual enjoyment and fulfillment or have an orgasm.
Secondly, circumcision is usually performed (except for medical reasons or religious conversion) in the first few days of life. There is some evidence that the nervous system of newborn babies is wired differently with lower pain thresholds (or else how would anyone survive the trip down an 6-8" birth canal?)
Thirdly, I don't know of any religious canon that commands a clitorectory although circumcision is part of the covenant Y*hw*h/Allah made with Abraham.
It has been known for a long time that women of circumcised partners have a low incidence of cervical cancer. The studies concerning HIV transmission rates are more recent.
cant comment im not finished reading yet...to be continued later :-)
Btw, had my tooth problem removed :-)
Make it a pleasant day!
Understanding the statistics and the other facts associated with circumcision, infibulations, sub incision and emasculation requires a conceptual approach to sex, gender and the study of gender relations that is far more complex and systemic than the simplistic explanations proposed by experts. As with any belief that is not supported, it is important to ask why individuals continue to believe when it is not true.
Check this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3570223.stm
Circumcised men may be six times less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised men, research suggests
Thats really going above my head don like such big stories to read make it short next time :S
[img_assist|nid=13339|title=.|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=180|height=180]
I'm a bit conflicted about this issue myself.
At this point, if I had a baby boy I possibly/probably would have him circumcised*, but if anyone suggested that I circumcise a baby girl, I would be horrified. [*Having said that, that's my initial feeling, if the situation actually arose, I would do much more reading and find out more information about the pros and cons before making a final decision.]
I don't know why I make that illogical distinction in my mind, male circumcision is okay whereas FGM is abhorrent. I guess I have been swayed by arguments about health and hygiene. I don't think those are supported in the case of FGM whereas there is scientific evidence to suggest that male circumcision is beneficial (latest reports suggest that it may help spread of HIV).
As for mutilating breasts at birth to prevent breast cancer, that's a good comparison to the penile circumcision case in some respects, because the diseases and problems being prevented by male circumcision would occur later in life and not in infancy. Likewise breast cancer. But in other respects, it's not a similar enough scenario.
It was in the news in the UK recently -- if I recall this correctly -- that a couple have been given the go ahead to select and implant only those embryos that aren't affected by the BRCA1 gene (which causes or is a factor causing breast cancer). This is arguably one step away from offering pre-natal testing and abortion. Lots of women carriers of BRCA1 in adulthood choose mastectomies as a preventative measure if they find out they are carriers of the gene. However, this is not without risk. Because I think (again all this is vague recollection), women who have these preventative mastectomies go on to have a higher risk of suffering other cancers, affecting their ovaries or womb. This is probably related in some way to the hormones.
I don't think that circumcision has been proven to increase risks of other cancers in men in the way that mastectomies have been proven to increase risks of other cancers in women.
Also, isn't it a bit different in that women are often defined by their breasts, it's partly what distinguishes their form from the male, they use their breasts to feed infants, breasts are so much more integral to society's idea of what is a woman than a foreskin is to society's idea of what is a man.
NB: All the mentions I've made to increased risk of cancer and health and hygiene issues are vague recollections of stuff I've read and watched, don't take them as 100 per cent accurate.