You’ll have to direct me to examples. I don’t know of any types practiced on girls in infancy that would meet our “exactly the same” criteria, or help your argument in any way. Apparently neither does WHO. I don’t know of any childhood instances that routinely involve a physician or some kind of standard practice, and I would be very interested in knowing about any procedures, anywhere, that attempt to minimize pain and trauma.
Even if that’s true, the future of this practice among immigrants to the U.S. hinges on the approach anti-FGM activists take. If they identify those factors as the key stumbling blocks, then those will be what is banned and families will have their daughters’ genitals cut within the bounds allowed by U.S. law. Perhaps for you, that would be the shape of an anti-FGM victory. To my way of thinking, it would not—and it would be an unfortunate missed opportunity to keep pushing for a complete ban (which then inexorably leads to MGM being reconsidered on the same basis).
I think there is an underlying, not-quite-explicitly-acknowledged subtext here that goes something like this:
“Women have suffered for millennia under rape culture, harassment, and neglect of—or repression of—female sexuality. To pile forcible cutting of young girls’ genitals on top of all that is just unacceptable. It’s ‘punching down’. But for men to take a hit below the belt? That’s ‘punching up’, and you know what? Fuck it, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.”
It seems strange to me to haggle about how much of a person’s own body they are allowed to keep. Cutting off a hand is too much, but what about the pinky finger? Okay, an entire finger is too much, what about the last digit of the pinky finger?
What if Deaf parents have a hearing child, and they want to surgically remove the child’s eardrums so the child will be fully immersed in “Deaf Culture” and not later stray into the hearing world? Who are we to judge? Lots of people live perfectly happy lives being completely deaf.
That’s the problem with identity politics gone amok. Instead of viewing people as individuals, they view people as members of either the Oppressed or the Dominator classes. In that framework, men as a class dominate women as a class. Whites as a class dominate People of Color. This has been going on for too long, and the tables need to be turned. There are some on the Left that don’t want true equality. They want revenge. A world where the social hierarchy is inverted, and men (especially white men) are on the bottom of the hierarchy instead of on the top. Thus the suffering of men is considered completely unworthy of their attention. Men have had it too good for thousands of years, so fuck it.
You apparently haven’t been paying attention in this thread, or to the linked references to the frequently-mentioned closed GD thread. If you had, you’d have found multiple references like this one to such examples, including the ones in this article that I’ve cited several times now:
A lot of this conversation- particularly the parts about how the glans becomes calloused and less sensitive, leading to less satisfying sex- reminds me of an article I read that talks about the difference between men and women when talking about “good sex” and “bad sex.”
When we talk about MGM, we are talking about the unnecessary removal of some tissue, that results in a less sensitive sex organ. When we talk about FGM it’s usually a good deal more than just a reduction in sensitivity. Not always, there are varying types and different cultures. It could be a purely symbolic nick in the clitoral hood; it may be complete removal of the clitoris. It may even be infibulation. Usually male circumcision occurs in infancy, and female circumcision occurs anywhere between 0-15 years. Usually before puberty, so… The girls are likely to remember the experience. The average I saw in age was ten years, though Kimstu’s cite contradicts that, at least in regard to Indonesian FGM.
I don’t support male circumcision. I also can’t work up nearly the same amount of sympathy for those who had their foreskin removed in infancy as for victims of FGM. Especially when those men come into a discussion of something ranging from a feminine equivalent of foreskin removal to being sewn shut to complain of reduced sensitivity. About 10% of FGM is Type III. Is there an an equivalent in male circumcision?
It’s actually possible for circumcised men to run their own experiment on this. They can keep the head of their penis covered with a condom for a few weeks. This will allow their glans to become decalloused. They can then discover for themselves whether there is any difference in sensation.
If you want to do such a thing, knock yourself out. But to come into a discussion about FGM and talk about this is inappropriate. Because guess what – it’s not possible for a girl who’s gone through infibulation to regain “sensation”. There’s a hell of a lot more there than just “less satisfying sex” to worry about, and THAT is often a huge part of what people want to talk about. Why can’t you accept that, and take YOUR discussion elsewhere?
I agree. Your problem is institutional. My concern is for immigrants. (I have nothing invested really in ending all manner of genital cutting, you may go ahead and judge me but I prefer to leave penis matters to those that have them.) The flip side of your post is the anti-circ people successfully merging the two entities and then female circumcision eventually becoming an institution as well.
This thread is old, I’d forgotten about it, and I didn’t read the thread in GD. My apologies.
Your cite is exactly as described as it pertains to the practice of routine female clinical circumcision by religious decree. It’s really a best-case scenario, and it’s really not why I’m here, but you know that. This is why I’m here. To give props to Indonesians for promoting safer cutting is still endorsing this kind of thing, in Indonesia:
…and we don’t want to promote that kind of culture here now, do we?
Let’s be clear about this: it’s possible for FGM victims, even those with infibulation, to have orgasms through the g-spot or nipple stimulation. It eliminates the ability to have a particular type of orgasm (via the clitoris). This is no way justifies the practice of course, but it’s not neccesarily true that infibulation victims completely lose the ability to enjoy sex.
You’ve managed to make this thread all about penises. That isn’t enough, apparently. Now you are actually minimizing the experience of millions of females.
In a culture that cuts girls for the purpose of keeping them from enjoying sex, that’s the culture in which you think girls/women will somehow learn to have orgasms by nipple stimulation and/or g-spot? So, gee, not so bad after all. Right?
Now that I actually am talking about female anatomy and moving on from penises, I’m still getting complaints.
I’m utterly appalled at FGM. If you interpreted what I wrote to any way condone the practice, I can assure you that’s not the message I wanted to convey.
One is done to control females and their sexual autonomy. It’s extremely misogynistic and harmful to females. It’s common that this results in women living in pain for the rest of their lives.
The other is done because of tradition and misinformation. It’s not done to exert control over male sexuality. And in almost all of the cases it does not result in the male having pain after the procedure has healed.