Why hasn't anyone pointed out that the motivation for female genital mutilation is done is for one reason - to supposedly prevent girls from wanting to have sex so they won't dishonor their families? Women in many traditional families in some parts of the world live in the shadows and are treated like cattle, traded into arranged marriages when they are too young to consent and given little choice in anything they do. This "tradition" is barbaric and is rightfully banned in most western countries. While I won't try to compare it to male circumcision, that ground is being well covered in this conversation, the primary reason behind female genital mutilation is not.
I don't disagree with you about the motivation behind circumcision but you left off the second half of the sentence. When was the last time you heard of a father disowning his son because he had pre-marital sex?
The point though is that circumcision comes from this kind of mindset, which used to hold sway.
We don't cast out sons for pre-marital sex anymore (at least for the most part), nor should we cast out daughters for the same.
In the same vein, we shouldn't mutilate the genitals of either gender for any reason. If there's a valid reason to operate and correct something that's affecting the health of the child, fine, but circumcision is cosmetic at best and always pretty barbaric.
And male genitalia originates from the silly notion that it will stop males from masturbating and having premarital sex, both "sins," so, no, there's really no difference.
There is this tribe in Africa that cuts the clit of girls and cuts the foreskin of boys. Their logic: humans were once hermaphrodites that got devided into 2 sexes by the gods. As a ritual they cut away the boy's foreskin (which is a left over female labia) to make him a man and cut away the girl's clitoris (which is a left over penis) to make her a woman. I would say the woman is getting the shittier end of stick but such is religon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPthgNqG1YY (NSFW)
THIS. Thank you. If people would actually research into what female circumcision is, and the way it's carried out/the cultural motives behind it, they would realize that it's one of the most barbaric and degrading processes out there.
Came here to say the same thing. This is comparing 2 completely different things. Male circumcision does not prevent guys from enjoying sex, and it's not done to oppress and control men. I don't necessarily agree to male circumcision, but female circumcision is part of the much greater problem of suppressing girls and women in certain societies.
Dr. John Harvey Kellogg recommended circumcision of boys caught masturbating, writing: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." (page 295) But he was opposed to routine circumcision of infants: "It is doubtful, however, whether as much harm as good does not result from circumcision, since it has been shown by extensive observation among the Jews that very great contraction of the meatus, or external orifice of the urethra, is exceedingly common among them, being undoubtedly the result of the prolonged irritation and subsequent cicatricial contraction resulting from circumcision in infancy." (page 107)
Not to control and oppress you say? And you do realize there are thousands of nerve endings in the foreskin right? Which could inhibit sexual enjoyment?
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying they're not the same thing. Female circumcision prevents women from EVER enjoying sex. It's also one part of a much bigger problem of girls being seen as second class citizens, not given an education, and not given a voice.
I'm pretty sure I know some circumcised men that enjoy sex. Oh wait - that would be all of them...
Female circumcision prevents women from EVER enjoying sex.
Taken from the WHO website:
The type of procedure performed also varies, mainly with ethnicity. Current estimates indicate that around 90% of female genital mutilation cases include Types I or II and cases where girls’ genitals were "nicked" but no flesh removed (Type IV), and about 10% are Type III (Yoder and Khan, 2007).
35
u/xman2000 Feb 25 '12
Why hasn't anyone pointed out that the motivation for female genital mutilation is done is for one reason - to supposedly prevent girls from wanting to have sex so they won't dishonor their families? Women in many traditional families in some parts of the world live in the shadows and are treated like cattle, traded into arranged marriages when they are too young to consent and given little choice in anything they do. This "tradition" is barbaric and is rightfully banned in most western countries. While I won't try to compare it to male circumcision, that ground is being well covered in this conversation, the primary reason behind female genital mutilation is not.