I got that idea from my son’s screams for three or four days *after *the procedure, particularly when I was smearing Aquafor on the incision site to minimize it sticking to his diaper. The pain cry is a very distinct cry.
I know the pain cry and my son was never in any pain. He got a topical, and then a shot, and then analgesic. He healed up in a couple days without any issues.
Different body parts, different locations, different procedures, different reasons, different results. The penis is -analogous- to the clitoris, not -identical-. If you want to argue that biology is unfair, take it up with Mother Nature.
Actually, I’m not personally arguing anything about the male procedure itself. I’m saying that if you want to convince people that male circumcision is barbaric, “it’s not fair!” is about the lamest argument you can muster.
From where I’m sitting, it looks like opponents of male circumcision, knowing they can’t overcome thousands of years of male testimony that it’s not a big deal, want to hitch their argument to the more obviously intimate and brutal female practice.
Look if you argue that male circumcision is brutal, you have to find a way to counter all the millions of men who will tell you that they’re circumcised and it’s no big deal. (Yes I know, some men do feel it’s a big deal. The vast majority do not, going back, as I said, thousands of years.) You’re not going to win with this argument. If you want to oppose male circumcision you’re on much stronger grounds doing so on civil rights grounds, that it’s not something parents should decide for their sons.
Regardless. I don’t need to be convinced of the brutality of the male practice before I concern myself with the brutality of the female practice. I don’t have to enact legislation about the male practice before I can enact legislation about the female practice. I don’t have to address the male practice at all before I can stand up and say, FGM is brutal and needs to stop.
FGM is not brutal because of its connection with male circumcision. It’s brutal, period, sui generis. If you want to get anywhere opposing the male procedure, you need to make that argument.
I don’t think I can put it better than Merneith did.
What do you mean now? (Or for that matter, “we?”) I think standards in the West at least have been consistent for a long time.
Already addressed. The harm really isn’t comparable but there’s also no logical reason to pierce an infant’s ears, so if people want to ban that I won’t object. If you’re trying to compare pricking or cutting the genitals of an infant with piercing the ears of a young girl who wants to have it done, I can’t say much beyond “give me a break.”
No, and that’s why I don’t think something that’s just a pinprick would be a big deal.
There were several posts about ‘a clitoris with a dent in it,’ which implies a permanent scar.
Except that certain forms of it are not brutal. If you hold that cutting off a boy’s foreskin is not brutal, then you simply can’t make a convincing argument that a slight pinprick to a girl’s clitoris is brutal.
You can conceivably argue, as I said, that the pinprick should be considered unacceptable because it’s in the “penumbra” of a tradition of various FGM practices that are mostly more brutal and oppressive than male circumcision is. But you can’t rationally argue that the pinprick procedure in itself is brutal. Not if you think that male circumcision is okay.
I never said the two were identical: I said that the clitoris is biologically the female homologue to the penis, which it is. Just because the clitoris and penis are not exactly the same organ doesn’t mean that we can’t make meaningful comparisons between them.
Women who have had mild and non-damaging female circumcision procedures will also tell you that it’s no big deal. Hell, there are even many women who have had horrifically drastic and disabling FGM procedures who will tell you it’s no big deal, and who routinely put their daughters and granddaughters through the same procedure. Assessing the brutality of a procedure based on whether there are lots of people who don’t feel bad about having experienced it is not a very reliable approach.
And by the way, I’m not arguing that male circumcision is necessarily brutal. I’m just pointing out that there’s no logically consistent way to consider male circumcision less brutal than a slight clitoral prick or nick that produces no significant change or damage to the female genitals in any way.
As it happens, I don’t particularly oppose the male procedure per se: I would probably not choose it for a child of mine, but I don’t think there’s sufficient medical evidence against it to justify banning it.
And given that position, I can’t help noticing that there is no more medical evidence against certain mild and non-damaging forms of FGM than there is against male circumcision. So I can’t come up with a logically consistent justification for banning the former while permitting the latter.
And so far, neither can any of the other posters in this thread.
Well, as noted above, a circumcised penis has a permanent scar too: the technical term for it, in fact, is the circumcision scar.
“More obviously intimate”? In what way is, say, a slight pinprick to a clitoris more “intimate” than cutting off a foreskin? Are the male genitals somehow automatically less “intimate” just because they stick out while the female genitals fold in? How you figure?
Hmm–I thought that there was no mark left with this. From what I’ve read it’s like getting your finger pricked to draw blood…but I could be wrong. Does anyone know what it entails precisely?
See post #50; there are various types of procedures classified as “Type IV FGC”, ranging from the pinprick for drawing a single drop of blood, to nicks in the clitoris or clitoral hood that heal with no visible damage, to cuts that are meant to leave a visible nick or “dent” when healed, to diverse other weird ideas.
Personally, I have no problem with doctors specifying that they will only do FGC procedures that make no visible change to the genitals (and of course, I also have no problem with individual doctors refusing to perform FGC at all, any more than I object to individual doctors refusing to perform circumcisions or abortions for personal ethical reasons).
That was our experience also.
Look, the point of allowing this it because we figure that the people who want their girl babies circumcized are unacculturated. They’re first generation immigrants, and we don’t want them cutting off their baby girls’ clits.
The reason the slippery slope will never lead to clitoridectomy, is that these baby girls are going to grow up in America, and when they grow up they’re not going to want to cut their baby girls’ clits off. Because they’ll think like we do. And because their clits will be intact, they’ll realize what their daughters will be missing if they cut their daughter’s clit off.
This isn’t invoking the slippery slope argument, it’s ski-jumping off slippery slope mountain.
I don’t think so. I live amongst a huge immigrant population, and many of my classmates have had FGM of one kind or another…and most of them admit that they will arrange the same for their daughters, out of fears that they won’t get them married off if they don’t. They admit it’s painful, and fervently wish they could get by without it, but their fears of spinsters and family repercussions outweigh their new American bias against it.
Your point might stand for immigrants moving in isolation to small town America and becoming “white bread”, but here in Chicago, the “old ways” are still practiced in strongholds of ethnic neighborhoods. And it’s the very same cultures which practice FGM which are *least *likely to educate their women or allow them to acculturate into “mainstream” America (whatever that is.)
…Besides, there are always more people coming here; this isn’t a one generation influx, but people of all ages moving here over time.
(Emphasis added.)
This is more of a language note than anything else, but I wanted to point out that you said there is “no getting around some troubling facts,” then listed two things which are not facts in any way whatsoever. The first is your unflattering, disputed characterization of the doctors’ actions, while the second is simple speculation. I suspect that this is nothing more than a minor case of laziness about a certain turn of phrase, but still, in a place that’s formally intended to host debates, it’s probably best not to label as *fact *that which is plainly something else.
Not a very well thought out statement, ignorant to say the least.
The thread title seems kind of misleading, as we aren’t really talking about ‘Cutting off Clitorises’, we are talking about a ritual cut that may or may not leave a scar (I haven’t seen any actual proof either way thus far). I don’t think it’s going to lead to any slippery slopes here in the US, as I seriously doubt that we’ll go from a ritualized pin prick (don’t, presumably, by a doctor under anesthesia and in a sterile environment) to full blown clitoridectomies. I think what bugs folks here is that these rituals have connotations of religion or cultural mores that they are uncomfortable with.
Personally, I’d MUCH rather this be done in a hospital or by a pediatrician than the alternative, which will be that it will be done anyway, but by someone more willing to do more damage and less able to mitigate the pain and possibility of infection or secondary issues. ETA: I see it in a similar light to what would happen if you outlawed abortion…people who are so inclined will still get them done, but they will be done in back allies and by butchers, instead of by trained professionals under controlled conditions that will mitigate the possibilities of complications.
As for male circumcision, I’m with others who say it’s really no big deal. I haven’t had any issues or problems, and neither have my 3 sons. I’m sure that problems can happen, and that sometimes it goes wrong, but I have friends who are uncircumcised and they have problems and issues too (in fact, one of my friends actually had the operation when he was an adult, due to those issues…something that I wouldn’t want to do for any money, thanks all the same). I think this is one of those ‘to each their own’ kind of thing, and I can see pros and cons both ways. I certainly don’t understand the fervor of the anti-circumcision crowd and all their heated talk about male mutilation and all that…I mean, seriously folks, get a grip (no pun intended).
(on preview, what Lemur866 said)
-XT
But it won’t necessarily be done anyway. Particularly if the overseas route is outlawed, which it should be.
I disagree that it won’t be done anyway, especially in the short term. What tends to happen from my own somewhat limited experience with people who believe in this particular charming cultural ritual is that they will find a way. A female relative will do it, the mother will do it (less common in my own experience, but as I said, my experience with this is limited to a few acquaintances I’ve met overseas), or they will have someone do it who I guess specializes in the procedure (and who may or may not actually have a clue what they are doing). What I haven’t seen is people not getting it done simply because a doctor wouldn’t do it for them.
Personally, I’d rather see a doctor or pediatrician do it for those who want it done, and not make a big issue out of it, as I think that taking this path here in the US will mean that eventually the practice will die the death it should, with, perhaps, only a few recent immigrants still continuing the practice, which will die in the 2nd or 3rd generation. After all, unlike male circumcision, this doesn’t even have a facade of medical necessity. But making a big deal about stopping this, making it illegal for doctors or pediatricians from doing the procedures for parents (and to be clear, I’m talking about a small ritual pin prick here, not full blown ‘Cutting Off Clitorises’ thingy…that is an entire different kettle of fish and I’m vehemently opposed to this practice) will only serve the dual purpose of making people more determined to get it done anyway, and drive them to get it done by quacks and butchers and people who aren’t going to settle for a small ritual scar (or who bungle the procedure and cause all sorts of secondary infections and problems) instead. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all, and I think this is one of those cases where the good intentions of people may actually cause MORE harm in the long run than just accepting the ritual, then making damn sure it’s ONLY a small ritual scar.
-XT
Except your classmates who’ve been mutilated are the ones who would plan on mutilating their daughters. It’s the women who haven’t been mutilated who will be the ones who won’t get their daughters mutilated. So if these kids can undergo a ritual procedure that doesn’t leave them mutilated, then that’s the end of the practice.
Let grandma cut off the baby’s clit with a rusty can opener, and we have another woman who’ll grow up ready to let the practice continue. I bet you won’t find a single unmutilated woman who wants this for their child, it’s always the ones who have been mutilated themselves who want it.
Exactly.
-XT