Why are we so obsessed with genital mutilation?
Since the time of the old testament mankind has been taking knives to genitalia. At some point men had the, not so bright, idea of doing this to little girls. To this very day it is done by the thousands, and it begs the question, are we nuts?
The main pros of male circumcision are that it can help to avoid becoming infected with HIV. It is not a guarantee. It simply lowers the chances because the foreskin can hold in moisture, and that can allow the virus to linger. I would say if your having that kind of risky sex, it probably has not crossed your mind. Another plus to circumcision is the decrease seen in infections, and guys are never happy about anything infected. Some women do find it aesthetically pleasing though. Mostly it is preformed for religious reasons. Apparently god is concerned if you have foreskin or not, but couldn't be bothered to make you without it. Another flaw in the divine creation.
So what is the down side here? Well first of all, no new born baby has any clue who all of us are, or why we want to cause it severe pain. After all it just got here, and a fine how do you do comes along with a knife. In modern times most of these are done in hospitals, unless you are a Jew. Then at eight days old, a briss is preformed where a man in a funny hat shows up to whack off the tip of your penis. Sure you bleed, and it can get infected, and crusty. But this is about god. He wants to play a part in your penis suffering, mostly because he said so. So you are welcomed to the world by strangers in a horrible fashion by having the tip of your penis cut off.
I am sure no harm can come of childhood trauma. After all who remembers the first time they were mutilated in the name of god? Sure your new, and we have no clue what neural connections your making, and if it will cause long term emotional harm, but god said so. Currently the world health organization finds there are not many reasons to preform this barbaric act. After all in modern times, with general cleaning and care, an uncircumcised penis is equal to all others, and it comes with a built in hoodie.
Now for the ladies. You get the worse end of the mutilation stick. After all what would this world be without horrific trauma. Because most girls are circumcised between three years old and ten. They are given no anaesthesia, unlike hospitalized boys who do receive it. In fact they are not even offered a clean knife, or steril surroundings. Usually this procedure takes place in a hut. Or an open place in the tribe, where the young girl is held down against her will and a knife or sharp piece of glass, or razor blade is used to cut out her clitoris, and the skin around it. Sometimes down to the vaginal opening. She is then sewn shut and left only a small hole for urine to flow out of. I want to add that the person doing this procedure is not a doctor. It is usually an elder and he is not trained. So whatever mutilation he does remains. The girl will then remain closed up until she is married, her husband will then cut her back open to have sex with her. This painful procedure has no excuse. I
Female genital mutilation is preformed to keep girls virgins. It is said to detour them from cheating if they do not have sexual desire. Little do these men know that sexual desire begins in the brain. Be careful with that info or men will want to start giving women lobotomies. Sexual arousal is still possible even without the clitoris. In fact the g spot remains. The only thing this mutilation does is offer a lifetime of horror for the young girl.
The clitoris has forty thousand nerve endings in it. So not only do they desensitize a woman, but when the procedure is preformed cause tremendous pain. After all forty thousand nerves are screaming. Males have twenty thousand in the tip of their penis, which is only half, but plenty to suffer a great deal of pain. A portion of those twenty thousand must extend into the foreskin.
The biggest question is why we do this? After all science has shown us that it is not necessary, and thousands of girls die from mutilation. Males have suffered functional problems, or even had too much skin removed. This really benefits no one. But the problems are many. After all not one of these people chose this. In fact, it makes you wonder how parents are allowed to treat their children as property. Even in a court of law they are allowed their own legal representation. We know that in court cases the will of the parents is not what is always best for the child, so how do we stand by in the name of religion, when it comes to mutilation? I don't see where it benefits any child to be choiceless about their genitalia. When they grow up they will notice, and many men and woman are not happy about it being forced on them as infants. In fact most of them say that they would not have chosen it. So why does religion always get a free pass. Prove to me that this is in the best interest of men or women, and prove that it does no harm!!!!Either that or it is time for religion to get its hands off our genitals.
Since the time of the old testament mankind has been taking knives to genitalia. At some point men had the, not so bright, idea of doing this to little girls. To this very day it is done by the thousands, and it begs the question, are we nuts?
The main pros of male circumcision are that it can help to avoid becoming infected with HIV. It is not a guarantee. It simply lowers the chances because the foreskin can hold in moisture, and that can allow the virus to linger. I would say if your having that kind of risky sex, it probably has not crossed your mind. Another plus to circumcision is the decrease seen in infections, and guys are never happy about anything infected. Some women do find it aesthetically pleasing though. Mostly it is preformed for religious reasons. Apparently god is concerned if you have foreskin or not, but couldn't be bothered to make you without it. Another flaw in the divine creation.
So what is the down side here? Well first of all, no new born baby has any clue who all of us are, or why we want to cause it severe pain. After all it just got here, and a fine how do you do comes along with a knife. In modern times most of these are done in hospitals, unless you are a Jew. Then at eight days old, a briss is preformed where a man in a funny hat shows up to whack off the tip of your penis. Sure you bleed, and it can get infected, and crusty. But this is about god. He wants to play a part in your penis suffering, mostly because he said so. So you are welcomed to the world by strangers in a horrible fashion by having the tip of your penis cut off.
I am sure no harm can come of childhood trauma. After all who remembers the first time they were mutilated in the name of god? Sure your new, and we have no clue what neural connections your making, and if it will cause long term emotional harm, but god said so. Currently the world health organization finds there are not many reasons to preform this barbaric act. After all in modern times, with general cleaning and care, an uncircumcised penis is equal to all others, and it comes with a built in hoodie.
Now for the ladies. You get the worse end of the mutilation stick. After all what would this world be without horrific trauma. Because most girls are circumcised between three years old and ten. They are given no anaesthesia, unlike hospitalized boys who do receive it. In fact they are not even offered a clean knife, or steril surroundings. Usually this procedure takes place in a hut. Or an open place in the tribe, where the young girl is held down against her will and a knife or sharp piece of glass, or razor blade is used to cut out her clitoris, and the skin around it. Sometimes down to the vaginal opening. She is then sewn shut and left only a small hole for urine to flow out of. I want to add that the person doing this procedure is not a doctor. It is usually an elder and he is not trained. So whatever mutilation he does remains. The girl will then remain closed up until she is married, her husband will then cut her back open to have sex with her. This painful procedure has no excuse. I
Female genital mutilation is preformed to keep girls virgins. It is said to detour them from cheating if they do not have sexual desire. Little do these men know that sexual desire begins in the brain. Be careful with that info or men will want to start giving women lobotomies. Sexual arousal is still possible even without the clitoris. In fact the g spot remains. The only thing this mutilation does is offer a lifetime of horror for the young girl.
The clitoris has forty thousand nerve endings in it. So not only do they desensitize a woman, but when the procedure is preformed cause tremendous pain. After all forty thousand nerves are screaming. Males have twenty thousand in the tip of their penis, which is only half, but plenty to suffer a great deal of pain. A portion of those twenty thousand must extend into the foreskin.
The biggest question is why we do this? After all science has shown us that it is not necessary, and thousands of girls die from mutilation. Males have suffered functional problems, or even had too much skin removed. This really benefits no one. But the problems are many. After all not one of these people chose this. In fact, it makes you wonder how parents are allowed to treat their children as property. Even in a court of law they are allowed their own legal representation. We know that in court cases the will of the parents is not what is always best for the child, so how do we stand by in the name of religion, when it comes to mutilation? I don't see where it benefits any child to be choiceless about their genitalia. When they grow up they will notice, and many men and woman are not happy about it being forced on them as infants. In fact most of them say that they would not have chosen it. So why does religion always get a free pass. Prove to me that this is in the best interest of men or women, and prove that it does no harm!!!!Either that or it is time for religion to get its hands off our genitals.
Great topic as we enter Holy Week which ends with the celebration of the "Risen Lord". Gives new meaning to Jesus' r's'erection
ReplyDeletehttp://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1303676895453_2436329.png
//"Because most girls are circumcised between three years old and ten. They are given no anaesthesia, unlike hospitalized boys who do receive it"//
ReplyDeleteThis is simply not true. In the US, a recent study found that only around 4% of neonates got pain relief when being circumcised.
The inanity of comments about the sterility and professionalism of circumcision are just red herrings - this is an amputative surgery performed on the sex organ of people who cannot consent. No amount of sterility or pain relief would change that, no amount would make it right.
You go on to describe the most extreme, and the rarest, form of female genital cutting. The commonest form of female genital cutting removes a very small amount of the tip of the clitoris. Other common forms include removing parts of the clitoral hood and labia - the exact same tissue as removed in male genital cutting.
The commonest female genital cutting removes less tissue than the commonest form of male genital cutting.
The infibulation that you write about is incredibly rare, but you and so many others speak about it as though it were the only form of FGC.
You also neglect to speak about the fact that many circumcised women are happy and proud. They have satisfactory sex lives and gladly have the procedure done to their daughters. They don't see this as some form of patriarchal social or sexual control. They see it as tradition and culture. They see it as a rite of maturation, and many are indignant that while we demonise the coming-of-age ritual they have for girls, we encourage the same ritual for boys. They feel they are being told they cannot hold onto their tradition, while men are being permitted theirs.
I get so tired of seeing well-meaning feminists talk about female genital cutting, because so often they're just repeating the same old mantra, the same old mistakes. They minimise the genital cutting of males while demonising the genital cutting of females.
Please, let's for once have an honest and sensible discussion about this. Our views about genital cutting should be the same for either sex. If the person is a consenting adult, they deserve the same support they'd get for any other elective surgery. If the person is non-consenting or unable to consent, then the very idea of cutting their healthy, sensitive bodies ought to disgust any humane person.
//"A portion of those twenty thousand must extend into the foreskin."//
ReplyDeleteThe foreskin itself has 20,000 nerve endings of its very own.
It also has the only specialised nerve endings in the penis, that are specifically evolved to sense fine touch (the same sort of nerve endings that make your lips and fingertips so sensitive).
//"Males have suffered functional problems, or even had too much skin removed"//
Men have suffered far worse. Infants have only enough blood to fill a cola can. If they lose just a tablespoon, they may die of haemorrhagic shock. Circumcision KILLS over a hundred boys every year in the US alone.
Others suffer complete loss of the penis due to a "slip" of the surgeon(or the untrained intern)'s hand. In Africa, in tribal conditions, men get infections and die by the dozen, every year.
If a person claims that a child's foreskin (or clitoral hood), or any other part of their genitals, should be removed, their statement should be treated with the same response as if they claim that the child's lung or kidney needs to be removed.
They must prove it is medically necessary.
If it is not, then that child should be left intact, because the alternative is forcing someone to undergo cosmetic surgery. And we don't allow that, do we?