View Full Version : Female "Circumcision"
2014, and millions of young girls are subjected to this.
Correctly named Female genital mutilation (FGM). 2014, and millions girls are subjected to this around the world to make them "clean" and "presentable" and "to reduce or eliminate their enjoyment for sex." Those terms I took directly from religious types trying to defend it being interviewed on CNN.
Often done with dull knives and non sterile conditions, infections and complications are common, and it goes without saying, offers no health benefits to the girl. It's simply to prevent them from enjoying sexual intercourse.
There are some things in this world that need to be respected as part of a culture and or religion, and there are some things that are a universal human rights abuse issue, and this is one of those.
Put simply, if your religion or culture calls for or condones mutilating your young women to ..."reduce or eliminate their enjoyment for sex" than your religion sucks and so does your culture,and you need to fix it. People need to stand up this. It needs to end. It's 2014 for Fu%$ sake...
From the World Health Org (WHO):
Female genital mutilation
Key facts
• Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
• The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
• Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, infertility as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.
• More than 125 million girls and women alive today have been cut in the 29 countries in Africa and Middle East where FGM is concentrated (1).
• FGM is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15.
• FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.
Cont:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
montanadave
02-07-14, 09:25
Agreed. This is some sick shit.
I have known about this for a long time. And when I learned of this, it was not called female circumcision.
It is a torture and an abomination.
Eurodriver
02-07-14, 09:37
...why would anyone not want their lady to enjoy sexy times?
...why would anyone not want their lady to enjoy sexy times?
Because women aren't supposed to have any fun?
Out of curiousity, how many people condone male circumcision but don't condone female circumcision? Why? It's well proven that cutting off the foreskin also lessens ... sensation ... during coitus. I mean, there are some proven health benefits, but overall, it's also more of a cultural thing than medical.
Circumcision of females or males is a sick and barbaric practice that needs to be stopped world wide. There is no justification of the mutilation of children.
So what do we say about the women who willingly go to a doctor to have the excess taken care of?? I know of a few who do not like the appearance of "beef curtains" and had a simple procedure
Good or bad??
its absolutely barbaric. Nat Geo has done a bit of reporting on it
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0220_020219_TVcircumcision.html
Lets not forget about breast mutilation. Some of these savages also engage in that practice as well
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_ironing&sa=U&ei=4Qf1UoytNO242QWj7YH4CQ&ved=0CAsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGn1pxk8rasHA7WjXDI1SZk9Il6-w
Eurodriver
02-07-14, 10:23
So what do we say about the women who willingly go to a doctor to have the excess taken care of?? I know of a few who do not like the appearance of "beef curtains" and had a simple procedure
Good or bad??
They weren't forced.
So what do we say about the women who willingly go to a doctor to have the excess taken care of?? I know of a few who do not like the appearance of "beef curtains" and had a simple procedure
Good or bad??
Big difference between elective cosmetic surgery and forced mutilation...
Elective surgery as opposed to mutiation of the genitals.
But if its "blown out", and you want to fix the "problem", by all means...
Because women aren't supposed to have any fun?
Out of curiousity, how many people condone male circumcision but don't condone female circumcision? Why? It's well proven that cutting off the foreskin also lessens ... sensation ... during coitus. I mean, there are some proven health benefits, but overall, it's also more of a cultural thing than medical.
Are you serious? The two are not remotely equivalent. Close to equivalent would be someone cutting off the head of your pens with a dull knife. There are known pros/cons to male circumcision and no one forcing them to do it. Many young girls are held down as young teens to mutilate them. Personally, in terms of male issue, as long as the doc discusses with the parents the proc/cons of male circumcision, then it's up to the parents to decide that one.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as a bladder infection.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of getting some types of sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV and genital herpes.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of female partners developing some types of sexually transmitted infections, such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of developing cancer of the penis.
There are pros and cons, and as long as parents are aware of them, I'm fine with that. It's far from similar or a humans rights abuse.
Are you serious? The two are not remotely equivalent. Close to equivalent would be someone cutting off the head of your pens with a dull knife. There are known pros/cons to male circumcision and no one forcing them to do it. Many young girls are held down as young teens to mutilate them. Personally, in terms of male issue, as long as the doc discusses with the parents the proc/cons of male circumcision, then it's up to the parents to decide that one.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as a bladder infection.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of getting some types of sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV and genital herpes.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of female partners developing some types of sexually transmitted infections, such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of developing cancer of the penis.
There are pros and cons, and as long as parents are aware of them, I'm fine with that. It's far from similar or a humans rights abuse.
Will, I'll admit that partly I'm adding fuel to the fire intentionally, since I find this an interesting topic (I have an anthropology minor, so I find varying attitudes interesting). And I as I said in my intial post, there ARE benefits to male circumcision. Thanks for spelling some of them out more specifically. Don't forget that foreskins can have some risks, such as phimosis.
"There are pros/cons to the male circumcision and no one is forcing them to do it?" What? Really? All those 2 and 3 day old infants are consenting? Then you directly contradict yourself in saying that parental consent is cool. So which is it - the infants are forced, or they aren't? You know the answer to that. It's the parents. So lets extend this further - young girls being held down as teens. Presumably with parent consent again. Cool, they're under 18, no problem, right? In both instances they're minors getting non-medically indicated procedures with parent consent.
You're right, in that a cliteroctomy is analagous to cutting off that glans. Removing the prepuce is similar to the foreskin, which is a form of 'mutilation.' But again, why is one socially acceptable and the other isn't? And, yes, I know about other forms of this like infibulation, which don't have male analogues.
Since this is typically a cultural thing, are you OK with it when the teen girls are OK with it? If it's "just what we do" then who are you to tell them it's wrong? In a lot of ways it's similar to other cultural ... oddities. Getting gauges in your ears, foot binding in China, those African tribes with the long neck/ring thing going on. This just happens to A) really hurt, B) cause reproductive issues, and C) involve genitals.
Personally, I'm not OK with it, but I'm not about to push my values on others. Out of curiousity, why did you start a thread on it?
Will, I'll admit that partly I'm adding fuel to the fire intentionally, since I find this an interesting topic (I have an anthropology minor, so I find varying attitudes interesting). And I as I said in my intial post, there ARE benefits to male circumcision. Thanks for spelling some of them out more specifically. Don't forget that foreskins can have some risks, such as phimosis.
"There are pros/cons to the male circumcision and no one is forcing them to do it?" What? Really? All those 2 and 3 day old infants are consenting? Then you directly contradict yourself in saying that parental consent is cool. So which is it - the infants are forced, or they aren't? You know the answer to that. It's the parents. So lets extend this further - young girls being held down as teens. Presumably with parent consent again. Cool, they're under 18, no problem, right? In both instances they're minors getting non-medically indicated procedures with parent consent.
You're right, in that a cliteroctomy is analagous to cutting off that glans. Removing the prepuce is similar to the foreskin, which is a form of 'mutilation.' But again, why is one socially acceptable and the other isn't? And, yes, I know about other forms of this like infibulation, which don't have male analogues.
Since this is typically a cultural thing, are you OK with it when the teen girls are OK with it? If it's "just what we do" then who are you to tell them it's wrong? In a lot of ways it's similar to other cultural ... oddities. Getting gauges in your ears, foot binding in China, those African tribes with the long neck/ring thing going on. This just happens to A) really hurt, B) cause reproductive issues, and C) involve genitals.
Personally, I'm not OK with it,
Then I'd say we really having nothing to discuss here and will have to agree to not agree.
but I'm not about to push my values on others. Out of curiousity, why did you start a thread on it?
I saws an interview (quotes above) on CNN with some Muslim "leaders" defending the practice and it prompted my wanting to post on it as a reminder what a bunch of worthless sh&% heads they are after they interviewed the girls who's lives were ruined by it. Some women had to flee their own country because they refused, and if found, would be held down and have their genitals mutilated. Some of course had various medical issues, and of course, psychological scars, etc. F-ing disgusting.
brickboy240
02-07-14, 14:05
I love how the American left says the right has a "war on women" because some don't want abortions at all...or abortions past 24 weeks or partial birth abortions.
However, Muslims (even some in America) can do this to women, keep them from driving or going to school and even commit honor killings and nobody on the left accuses them of a "war on women." Nope...it is only conservatives in America that are waging a war on women.
...anyone else notice this?
-brickboy240
So what do we say about the women who willingly go to a doctor to have the excess taken care of?? I know of a few who do not like the appearance of "beef curtains" and had a simple procedure
Good or bad??
A person who decides to have their body altered for cosmetic reasons (even if it produces a terrible result like Michael Jackson) is far different from a person who is forced to undergo a procedure due to religious or cultural demands.
Are you serious? The two are not remotely equivalent. Close to equivalent would be someone cutting off the head of your pens with a dull knife. There are known pros/cons to male circumcision and no one forcing them to do it. Many young girls are held down as young teens to mutilate them. Personally, in terms of male issue, as long as the doc discusses with the parents the proc/cons of male circumcision, then it's up to the parents to decide that one.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as a bladder infection.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of getting some types of sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV and genital herpes.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of female partners developing some types of sexually transmitted infections, such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of developing cancer of the penis.
There are pros and cons, and as long as parents are aware of them, I'm fine with that. It's far from similar or a humans rights abuse.
You forgot circumcision also doesn't freak out inexperienced females the first time they see a dong with a turtleneck.
Don't' forget infibulation. How backward can you get?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infibulation
Failure2Stop
02-07-14, 14:23
Circumcision of females or males is a sick and barbaric practice that needs to be stopped world wide. There is no justification of the mutilation of children.
Agreed.
Are you serious? The two are not remotely equivalent. Close to equivalent would be someone cutting off the head of your pens with a dull knife. There are known pros/cons to male circumcision and no one forcing them to do it. Many young girls are held down as young teens to mutilate them. Personally, in terms of male issue, as long as the doc discusses with the parents the proc/cons of male circumcision, then it's up to the parents to decide that one.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as a bladder infection.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of getting some types of sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV and genital herpes.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of female partners developing some types of sexually transmitted infections, such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis.
• Circumcision may reduce the risk of developing cancer of the penis.
There are pros and cons, and as long as parents are aware of them, I'm fine with that. It's far from similar or a humans rights abuse.
These "risks" are pretty well solved with soap and water and/or condoms.
In developed nations (like the UK) that do not widely practice circumcision on infants, there are not credible reports of higher occurrences of the purported "risks".
The issue with the information pushed by the "pro-circumcision" folks is that they draw data from non-developed nations and economically disadvantaged populations within developed nations to attempt to indicate a wider spread of the "risks" in these groups.
If some dude wants to prove his dedication to his favorite religion, he is free to do to his foreskin whatever he pleases.
If some dude keeps getting urinary tract infections because he keeps banging nasty bar skanks and/or can't be bothered to apply some soap or antibiotics to the afflicted area, he is free to proceed with whatever preventative maintenance to his penis that he sees fit.
These reasons, however, do not justify the act to an infant.
There are also a huge amount of botched circumcisions, many of which the victims don't even know that they have.
Look up "botched circumcision" on google.
These mistakes may result in reduced length, removal of the tip (glans) completely (!), reduced pleasure (for both parties) during intercourse, bridges of skin (can collect debris and/or can be severed during intercourse), and death (either due to complications while under general anesthesia, or blood loss from disturbing the wound).
Male genital mutilation has become acceptable in the US, and many fight the concept that it is not acceptable/normal/good because parents are pressured to have it done by medical professionals/family/religious beliefs, and/or had it done themselves and don't know what they don't know. These reasons, however, do not mean that we have to keep doing it to our infant sons.
Male circumcision also prevents phimosis, which can lead to real horror...
I love how the American left says the right has a "war on women" because some don't want abortions at all...or abortions past 24 weeks or partial birth abortions.
However, Muslims (even some in America) can do this to women, keep them from driving or going to school and even commit honor killings and nobody on the left accuses them of a "war on women." Nope...it is only conservatives in America that are waging a war on women.
...anyone else notice this?
-brickboy240
I do not believe it is legal to do that to a minor in the US, nor a woman not willing. You'd end up in jail on charged mighty fast, and no religious tolerances would over come that as child abuse in the eyes of US law, as far as I know. Do we have example of that being done to young girls in the US and charges dropped say due to religious beliefs?
Then I'd say we really having nothing to discuss here and will have to agree to not agree.
I saws an interview (quotes above) on CNN with some Muslim "leaders" defending the practice and it prompted my wanting to post on it as a reminder what a bunch of worthless sh&% heads they are after they interviewed the girls who's lives were ruined by it. Some women had to flee their own country because they refused, and if found, would be held down and have their genitals mutilated. Some of course had various medical issues, and of course, psychological scars, etc. F-ing disgusting.
Actually Will, I think we're both on the same page about our views on it; I'm just curious as to why you don't consider circumcision to be mutilation. As F2S points out, it's much more common in the US than many other countries (which I find somewhat humerous, given how much anti-Semitism there is in some segments of society). FYI, my wife is a pediatrician, and at a lot of their conferences are large, vocal, demonstrations against circumcisions.
And thanks for explaining the sudden inspiration to start this thread . It's not a typical topic for a gun board, and I appreciate your explaining it and not being offended that I'd dare question your motives.
Failure2Stop
02-07-14, 14:35
Male circumcision also prevents phimosis, which can lead to real horror...
Phimosis happens in about 1% of the affected age group, and is generally a result of not cleaning the area during infancy and not having the child continue the practice during childhood.
And it's still not a satisfactory reason to circumcise every male.
ETA: understood that this thread is not about male circumcision, and if the tangent is not appreciated, I will discontinue my discourse on the derail.
Agreed.
These "risks" are pretty well solved with soap and water and/or condoms.
In developed nations (like the UK) that do not widely practice circumcision on infants, there are not credible reports of higher occurrences of the purported "risks".
The issue with the information pushed by the "pro-circumcision" folks is that they draw data from non-developed nations and economically disadvantaged populations within developed nations to attempt to indicate a wider spread of the "risks" in these groups.
If some dude wants to prove his dedication to his favorite religion, he is free to do to his foreskin whatever he pleases.
If some dude keeps getting urinary tract infections because he keeps banging nasty bar skanks and/or can't be bothered to apply some soap or antibiotics to the afflicted area, he is free to proceed with whatever preventative maintenance to his penis that he sees fit.
These reasons, however, do not justify the act to an infant.
There are also a huge amount of botched circumcisions, many of which the victims don't even know that they have.
Look up "botched circumcision" on google.
These mistakes may result in reduced length, removal of the tip (glans) completely (!), reduced pleasure (for both parties) during intercourse, bridges of skin (can collect debris and/or can be severed during intercourse), and death (either due to complications while under general anesthesia, or blood loss from disturbing the wound).
Male genital mutilation has become acceptable in the US, and many fight the concept that it is not acceptable/normal/good because parents are pressured to have it done by medical professionals/family/religious beliefs, and/or had it done themselves and don't know what they don't know. These reasons, however, do not mean that we have to keep doing it to our infant sons.
Agreed, it's also becoming less popular in the US, and more parents forgoing it, and that's probably a good trend. The fact remains, it's not remotely similar in any way to what is done to these girls, often by force. As the science shows less and less support for male circumcision, less people will be doing it (already a trend) other than for religious reasons. I posted the above not to defend it, but to point out that there is indeed an onging debate within the medical community as to if the pros outweigh the cons, the potential downsides. Risk/benefits are being examined, with a slow steady trend to it not being SOP.
There are no benefits, none at all, to what happens to these girls, and the procedure far more damaging, has far higher risks, and is done for one reason only: to reduce their pleasure during sex. They simply do not compare in any realistic way.
Failure2Stop
02-07-14, 14:48
A
There are no benefits, none at all, to what happens to these girls, and the procedure far more damaging, has far higher risks, and is done for one reason only: to reduce their pleasure during sex.
Absolutely agreed, and I will stop my derail of this, as the focus of the thread is this practice, which should cease immediately, and under force if necessary.
Actually Will, I think we're both on the same page about our views on it; I'm just curious as to why you don't consider circumcision to be mutilation.
I have no issue with those who wish to term male circumcision as mutilation if they want. They are not remotely equivalent in their outcomes, medical support, intent, risks, etc. You know that, I know that. As I said, if you honestly can't see the difference and consider it equal "mutilations" than we are on two different planets.
As F2S points out, it's much more common in the US than many other countries
Female mutilation? Hmmm.
(which I find somewhat humerous, given how much anti-Semitism there is in some segments of society). FYI, my wife is a pediatrician, and at a lot of their conferences are large, vocal, demonstrations against circumcisions.
And thanks for explaining the sudden inspiration to start this thread . It's not a typical topic for a gun board, and I appreciate your explaining it and not being offended that I'd dare question your motives.
Where does your wife stand on that? As for boys, that should be decided by the science, not emotional BS or religious beliefs and offered a choice to the parents with no pressure or opinion offered by the medical staff. Tell them what the risks are, what the benefits are, let then choose. It's also possible that in say 10 years time, the data will be so overwhelmingly clear there is no benefits to the boy, it may indeed be seen as unnecessary mutilation of boys genitals and banned outright.
brickboy240
02-07-14, 15:45
There were several news reports of honor killings in America in recent years, but I have not seen any reports of forced female circumcisions. It is very likely that it has happened. Muslims in America often keep to themselves, you know.
America is not the only country left that widely uses male circumcision. Canada and most all Muslim countries do this as well.
-brickboy240
Circumcision of females or males is a sick and barbaric practice that needs to be stopped world wide. There is no justification of the mutilation of children.
I agree re: females, but respectfully disagree re: males. I disagree from a cultural and religious standpoint as a Jew and from a hygiene standpoint as a physician. And as someone who is circumcised I can tell you that I certainly have no issues enjoying sex after being circumcised.
Male circumcision has been shown to decrease transmission of the human papilloma virus (HPV). Certain HPV subtypes cause warts, others cause cervical cancer and oropharyngeal cancer. Vaccination against HPV will likely obviate circumcision as a protective factor in HPV transmission once everyone is vaccinated, but we are not there yet. There are also studies showing a a correlation between decrease HIV transmission and circumcision.
I agree re: females, but respectfully disagree re: males. I disagree from a cultural and religious standpoint as a Jew and from a hygiene standpoint as a physician. And as someone who is circumcised I can tell you that I certainly have no issues enjoying sex after being circumcised.
I will just say that from my own personal experience you are dead wrong in some cases. The damage is indeed real. Culture and religion should never be grounds for mutilation. And the medial side of things has already been covered. Basic Hygiene has the same end results without mutilation.
I will just say that from my own personal experience you are dead wrong in some cases. The damage is indeed real. Culture and religion should never be grounds for mutilation. And the medial side of things has already been covered. Basic Hygiene has the same end results without mutilation.
Was editing my post when you replied.
Male circumcision has been shown to decrease transmission of the human papilloma virus (HPV). Certain HPV subtypes cause warts, others cause cervical cancer and oropharyngeal cancer. Vaccination against HPV will likely obviate circumcision as a protective factor in HPV transmission once everyone is vaccinated, but we are not there yet. There are also studies showing a a correlation between decrease HIV transmission and circumcision.
Eurodriver
02-07-14, 16:42
You forgot circumcision also doesn't freak out inexperienced females the first time they see a dong with a turtleneck.
This is the only reason my son will be circumcised.
Barbaric? I don't care. You've never seen barbaric until a 16 year old girl parades through high school making fun of a guy going "Turtle turtle!"
I'm so glad I wasn't that guy...
Anti-circumcision people, change female attitudes towards it and then it won't be an issue.
^^^ ultimately that's what it's all about these days, or at least in American culture.
brickboy240
02-07-14, 17:19
I love how the non-cut people refer to us as "mutilated."
....I was maybe a week old...not like I had a choice but nice insult nonetheless.
-brickboy240
I love how the non-cut people refer to us as "mutilated."
....I was maybe a week old...not like I had a choice but nice insult nonetheless.
-brickboy240
You read my mind. Next time I speak to my parents, I want to thank them for "mutilating" me. Seriously, I'm glad they did.
Sent via Tapatalk
I love how the non-cut people refer to us as "mutilated."
....I was maybe a week old...not like I had a choice but nice insult nonetheless.
-brickboy240
Indeed. My parts work just fine, and truth be told, wouldn't want that turtle neck thing anyway. But we are suppose to be talking about what happens some poor kid who gets truly mutilated in the name of some religion, to make some A-holes feel superior they have destroyed her ability to enjoy sex, which they view as "dirty" and such. I'm not expert on the Koran, but I have been told that's not in the Koran.
Anyone confirm/deny that?
I am willing to bet that most of the people who refer to it as Mutilation had it done to them as well. I know it was in my case. And honestly it is about the only thing I have ever held against my parents.
The sad thing is that the complications are not always obvious when it happens. And due to the area involved I would also be willing to bet that problems are much more common that we think. But as men we are conditioned not to talk about issues like that.
It is not in the Koran.
It is a cultural ritual mostly carried out in parts of Africa. It pre-dates islam.
We have had issues within the Somali immigrant community here in Norway, with young girls being mutilated.
I am willing to bet that most of the people who refer to it as Mutilation had it done to them as well. I know it was in my case. And honestly it is about the only thing I have ever held against my parents.
The sad thing is that the complications are not always obvious when it happens. And due to the area involved I would also be willing to bet that problems are much more common that we think. But as men we are conditioned not to talk about issues like that.
Indeed. I'm sure some data exists on that, but may under report it due to the above.
It is not in the Koran.
It is a cultural ritual mostly carried out in parts of Africa. It pre-dates islam.
We have had issues within the Somali immigrant community here in Norway, with young girls being mutilated.
But it happens in far more countries than Africa, Middle East and others, and the people being interviewed I saw were doing it (they claimed) in the name of Islam, so for what ever reason, it was "picked up" at some point by Islam, or some there in. I'm happy to hear at least it's not in the Koran where people can use it to hide behind in the name of Allah, etc. However, it's my understanding in some countries, it's viewed as a Muslim practice by Muslims, who like in any religion, probably don't actually bother to see if it's actually part of their religion.
It is not in the Koran.
It is a cultural ritual mostly carried out in parts of Africa. It pre-dates islam.
We have had issues within the Somali immigrant community here in Norway, with young girls being mutilated.
Although its origins are pre-Islamic, it became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female modesty and chastity, and is found only within or near Muslim communities. It is praised in several hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) as noble but not required, along with advice that the milder forms are kinder to women.
Will:
You misunderstood - rates of circumcision are higher in the US vice, say, Europe. Not FGM (abbreviated for ... brevity).
My wife: Essentially treats it like an elective surgical procedure. If parents request it, she goes over risks/benefits, anesthetics, complications and repair options, aftercare for the penis, etc. Her personal observation tends to be if dad is circ'd, then baby boy gets circ'd. Like some have pointed out, rates seem to be dropping, slowly, in the US. It's no longer an almost knee-jerk thing to do when the boy is born.
To the general reading public: I've had the opportunity to speak to 2 men that had circ's as adults. Both stated that sensation during intercourse was markedly decreased. I don't know that this carries over to infant circumcisions and later sexual pleasure, but it's something to consider.
Just in case I haven't been clear, I'm not condoning FGM. And if male circs are being done in the same manner (dull knife, unclean conditions, unwilling kids that will remember it), I'd abhor it just as much. But I think, like a lot of things in life, FGM is a type of "male dominance" practice that probably has muddled roots, that somehow got twisted into a means of submission. I've heard of things like infibulations being done on very young girls (don't recall specific ages), so I wonder if some cultures view it as a way to "keep the woman a virgin" until marriage night.
Magic_Salad0892
02-08-14, 00:32
It's no longer an almost knee-jerk thing to do when the boy is born.
Uncut wieners look weird.
FGM is ****ing atrocious. I heard that it was done to slaves in the 1800s in the name of medical science. Is that true?
Agreed.
These "risks" are pretty well solved with soap and water and/or condoms.
In developed nations (like the UK) that do not widely practice circumcision on infants, there are not credible reports of higher occurrences of the purported "risks".
The issue with the information pushed by the "pro-circumcision" folks is that they draw data from non-developed nations and economically disadvantaged populations within developed nations to attempt to indicate a wider spread of the "risks" in these groups.
If some dude wants to prove his dedication to his favorite religion, he is free to do to his foreskin whatever he pleases.
If some dude keeps getting urinary tract infections because he keeps banging nasty bar skanks and/or can't be bothered to apply some soap or antibiotics to the afflicted area, he is free to proceed with whatever preventative maintenance to his penis that he sees fit.
These reasons, however, do not justify the act to an infant.
There are also a huge amount of botched circumcisions, many of which the victims don't even know that they have.
Look up "botched circumcision" on google.
These mistakes may result in reduced length, removal of the tip (glans) completely (!), reduced pleasure (for both parties) during intercourse, bridges of skin (can collect debris and/or can be severed during intercourse), and death (either due to complications while under general anesthesia, or blood loss from disturbing the wound).
Male genital mutilation has become acceptable in the US, and many fight the concept that it is not acceptable/normal/good because parents are pressured to have it done by medical professionals/family/religious beliefs, and/or had it done themselves and don't know what they don't know. These reasons, however, do not mean that we have to keep doing it to our infant sons.
Every time this topic comes up, I recall a colleague in med school who had the balls and wit to defend circumcision on rounds. Picture the scene, we are rounding on a child who had a complication from the procedure, and the attending pediatric urologist announces there is no medical evidence to support the practice. My fellow 3rd year student pulls one out of his hat by citing a JAMA article which found that circumcised men are MORE likely to receive oral sex than their uncircumcised counterparts. I shit you not - he said this in rounds, to an attending urologist, and in front of our entire team. I still recall the 4th year urology resident asking him, "What the hell were you thinking?" afterwards in the hall.
Well, he was right and here is the article:
CIRCUMCISION IN THE UNITED STATES
Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice
Edward O. Laumann, PhD; Christopher M. Masi, MD; Ezra W. Zuckerman, MA
JAMA 1997;277:1052-1057
In terms of lifetime sexual experience, the greatest differences occurred for heterosexual oral sex. In models with controls, circumcision status was associated with active heterosexual oral sex with a probability of insignificance of 0.07 (OR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.97-1.92) and with passive heterosexual oral sex with a probability of insignificance of 0.08 (OR, 1.36; 95%CI, 0.96-1.93).
Every time this topic comes up, I recall a colleague in med school who had the balls and wit to defend circumcision on rounds. Picture the scene, we are rounding on a child who had a complication from the procedure, and the attending pediatric urologist announces there is no medical evidence to support the practice. My fellow 3rd year student pulls one out of his hat by citing a JAMA article which found that circumcised men are MORE likely to receive oral sex than their uncircumcised counterparts. I shit you not - he said this in rounds, to an attending urologist, and in front of our entire team. I still recall the 4th year urology resident asking him, "What the hell were you thinking?" afterwards in the hall.
Well, he was right and here is the article:
CIRCUMCISION IN THE UNITED STATES
Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice
Edward O. Laumann, PhD; Christopher M. Masi, MD; Ezra W. Zuckerman, MA
JAMA 1997;277:1052-1057
I really didn't need a study to know that.
@Will and Steyr:
I never said it wasn't predominant in muslim communities/countries or that it doesn't happen outside of Africa. Immigrants from these countries often take their customs with them, and as I said we have seen this in the Somali community here in Norway.
There are statistics that show where it happens.
As with all religions, the people who invent them will continue several traditions or customs that existed prior, even if they are not specifically adressed.
This is a tradition, albeit a horrible one, that originated in Egypt and spread to sub-saharan Africa, and is not an all-encompassing muslim religious ritual.
The religious angle is really irrelevant, as the act is horrible regardless of the god people pray to.
montanadave
02-08-14, 06:49
Every time this topic comes up, I recall a colleague in med school who had the balls and wit to defend circumcision on rounds. Picture the scene, we are rounding on a child who had a complication from the procedure, and the attending pediatric urologist announces there is no medical evidence to support the practice. My fellow 3rd year student pulls one out of his hat by citing a JAMA article which found that circumcised men are MORE likely to receive oral sex than their uncircumcised counterparts. I shit you not - he said this in rounds, to an attending urologist, and in front of our entire team. I still recall the 4th year urology resident asking him, "What the hell were you thinking?" afterwards in the hall.
Well, he was right and here is the article:
CIRCUMCISION IN THE UNITED STATES
Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice
Edward O. Laumann, PhD; Christopher M. Masi, MD; Ezra W. Zuckerman, MA
JAMA 1997;277:1052-1057
Well, that pretty much closes the book on any further discussion on male circumcision.
@Will and Steyr:
I never said it wasn't predominant in muslim communities/countries or that it doesn't happen outside of Africa. Immigrants from these countries often take their customs with them, and as I said we have seen this in the Somali community here in Norway.
There are statistics that show where it happens.
As with all religions, the people who invent them will continue several traditions or customs that existed prior, even if they are not specifically adressed.
This is a tradition, albeit a horrible one, that originated in Egypt and spread to sub-saharan Africa, and is not an all-encompassing muslim religious ritual.
The religious angle is really irrelevant, as the act is horrible regardless of the god people pray to.
Good info, thanx Arctic. A Muslim defending the practice said: "It is in the hadiths, Muhammad says for female circumcision 'prune but don't uproot' or something to that extent"
What ever that means, but some defend it as being rooted in Islam it appears.
Look up "botched circumcision" on google.
These mistakes may result in reduced length
Well that explains EVERYTHING then. I can just use that as my excuse now....
"It was bigger, but the doctors botched my circumcision"
I really don't care and if I have a boy I'll have to look into it more.
However I recall in basic training that the dudes who weren't circumcised all got infections out in the field.
Will:
You misunderstood - rates of circumcision are higher in the US vice, say, Europe. Not FGM (abbreviated for ... brevity).
My wife: Essentially treats it like an elective surgical procedure. If parents request it, she goes over risks/benefits, anesthetics, complications and repair options, aftercare for the penis, etc. Her personal observation tends to be if dad is circ'd, then baby boy gets circ'd. Like some have pointed out, rates seem to be dropping, slowly, in the US. It's no longer an almost knee-jerk thing to do when the boy is born.
To the general reading public: I've had the opportunity to speak to 2 men that had circ's as adults. Both stated that sensation during intercourse was markedly decreased. I don't know that this carries over to infant circumcisions and later sexual pleasure, but it's something to consider.
Just in case I haven't been clear, I'm not condoning FGM. And if male circs are being done in the same manner (dull knife, unclean conditions, unwilling kids that will remember it), I'd abhor it just as much. But I think, like a lot of things in life, FGM is a type of "male dominance" practice that probably has muddled roots, that somehow got twisted into a means of submission. I've heard of things like infibulations being done on very young girls (don't recall specific ages), so I wonder if some cultures view it as a way to "keep the woman a virgin" until marriage night.
Thanx for the in depth response. It was helpful to the topic. :)
Good info, thanx Arctic. A Muslim defending the practice said: "It is in the hadiths, Muhammad says for female circumcision 'prune but don't uproot' or something to that extent"
What ever that means, but some defend it as being rooted in Islam it appears.
Hadiths are not considered "primary source material" in Islam.
There are many contradictions between the hadiths and the Koran. For example, there is no mentioning of stoning as the proper punishment for adultery in the Koran, but it is mentioned in different hadiths. Depending on which school of Islam this guy subscribes to, it is easy to cherry pick aspects that you agree with, and discard whatever doesn't match your beliefs.
The same with different branches of Christianity, really.
Hadiths are not considered "primary source material" in Islam.
There are many contradictions between the hadiths and the Koran. For example, there is no mentioning of stoning as the proper punishment for adultery in the Koran, but it is mentioned in different hadiths. Depending on which school of Islam this guy subscribes to, it is easy to cherry pick aspects that you agree with, and discard whatever doesn't match your beliefs.
The same with different branches of Christianity, really.
That's religion 101 right there.
The religious angle is really irrelevant, as the act is horrible regardless of the god people pray to.
It is hardly irrelevant because it is typical of the kind of barbaric practices still observed by entire countries of Muslims. This is just one of their barbaric practices. Unlike most other religions, they have still not climbed out of their "dark age."
It is hardly irrelevant because it is typical of the kind of barbaric practices still observed by entire countries of Muslims. This is just one of their barbaric practices. Unlike most other religions, they have still not climbed out of their "dark age."
Again, this was a ritual performed before these countries became muslim, before Islam even existed.
Can you with certainty say that the ritual would have been "discontinued" if Christianity had become their primary religion?
Is the issue here female genital mutilation or "dirty smelly muslims" performing female genital mutilation?
Several of the african countries where this ritual is common place has 1) made the practice illegal and 2) a mix of muslim and christian and other religions.
Respectfully, this is a cultural issue rather than a religious one.
Don't get me wrong, Islam has several issues that need to be fixed, and practices that should be abolished. Hopefully what we are seeing in many muslim countries is perhaps their descent to rock bottom before they ascend out of the Dark Aged they currently find themselves in.
Again, this issue is cultural, not religion.
Again, this was a ritual performed before these countries became muslim, before Islam even existed.
Can you with certainty say that the ritual would have been "discontinued" if Christianity had become their primary religion?
Is the issue here female genital mutilation or "dirty smelly muslims" performing female genital mutilation?
Several of the african countries where this ritual is common place has 1) made the practice illegal and 2) a mix of muslim and christian and other religions.
Respectfully, this is a cultural issue rather than a religious one.
Don't get me wrong, Islam has several issues that need to be fixed, and practices that should be abolished. Hopefully what we are seeing in many muslim countries is perhaps their descent to rock bottom before they ascend out of the Dark Aged they currently find themselves in.
Again, this issue is cultural, not religion.
Interesting note on that from the report I had watched, one country that made it illegal had no luck with it going away, as it (as such things always do...) went underground and just became that much more dangerous. What they did was legalize and regulate it. Now, they bring their young girls to a sterile place where a medical doc just uses a pin to pin prick (no jokes please!) the girls genitalia causing no physical changes or long term harm. It's essentially become a symbolic act that does not harm the girls and appears to be working well for radically reducing rates of true mutilation.
Again, this was a ritual performed before these countries became muslim, before Islam even existed.
Can you with certainty say that the ritual would have been "discontinued" if Christianity had become their primary religion?
Is the issue here female genital mutilation or "dirty smelly muslims" performing female genital mutilation?
Several of the african countries where this ritual is common place has 1) made the practice illegal and 2) a mix of muslim and christian and other religions.
Respectfully, this is a cultural issue rather than a religious one.
Don't get me wrong, Islam has several issues that need to be fixed, and practices that should be abolished. Hopefully what we are seeing in many muslim countries is perhaps their descent to rock bottom before they ascend out of the Dark Aged they currently find themselves in.
Again, this issue is cultural, not religion.
Islam is the perpetuating issue at hand here and defines the current culture. This is why Islam can go to other countries and arrest cultural development.
Islam has never had a renaissance and it desperately needs one.
Islam is the perpetuating issue at hand here and defines the current culture.
Incorrect.
Several of the african countries where this ritual is common place has 1) made the practice illegal and 2) a mix of muslim and christian and other religions.
Just to offer up some numbers here:
In Guinea, FGM affects 96% of women, however, only 85% of the population is Muslim.
In Eritrea, FGM affects 89% of women, however, 50% of the population is Christian, 48% is Muslim.
In Sierra Leone, FGM affects 88% of women, however only approx 60% of the population is Muslim, with Christians making up 20-30%
In Burkina Faso, FGM affects 76% of all women, however only approx 61% of the population is Muslim, with Christians making up approx 28%
In Ethiopia, FGM affects 74% of all women, however approx 63% of the population is Christian, with Muslims making up approx 34%
In Liberia, FGM affects 66% of all women, however approx 86% of the population is Christian, with Muslims making up approx 12%
In Kenya, FGM affects 27% of all women, however approx 83% of the population is Christian, with Muslims making up approx 11%
So, it is not a ritual confined only to Muslim countries or communities.
The reason I mentioned Somalia, is because it is one of the worst countries wrt this ritual, with 98% being affected by this and the population is close to 100% Muslim.
So, it is definitely not a Muslim issue, it is a cultural one.
Islam has never had a renaissance and it desperately needs one.
Completely agreed.
Moose-Knuckle
02-08-14, 16:37
Wow, just wow. I’m really not surprised though but yeah we have people in this world and on this forum that actually make comparisons and even arguments of circumcisions performed in a sterile hospital environment by licensed physicians to that of udder ****ing barbarians holding young girls down by fire light in some third world shit hole and mutilating their genitals with a knife that they probably just butchered their evening meal with.
News flash, the reason these ****ing barbarians do this is all about CONTROL. To them women are lower than oxen and every aspect of their lives must be controlled to include their sexual climax.
Incorrect.
LOL. Saying something is "incorrect" does not make it so. If Buddhism was the dominant religion of Africa such barbaric practices would have ended centuries ago.
Just to offer up some numbers here:
In Guinea, FGM affects 96% of women, however, only 85% of the population is Muslim.
In Eritrea, FGM affects 89% of women, however, 50% of the population is Christian, 48% is Muslim.
In Sierra Leone, FGM affects 88% of women, however only approx 60% of the population is Muslim, with Christians making up 20-30%
In Burkina Faso, FGM affects 76% of all women, however only approx 61% of the population is Muslim, with Christians making up approx 28%
In Ethiopia, FGM affects 74% of all women, however approx 63% of the population is Christian, with Muslims making up approx 34%
In Liberia, FGM affects 66% of all women, however approx 86% of the population is Christian, with Muslims making up approx 12%
In Kenya, FGM affects 27% of all women, however approx 83% of the population is Christian, with Muslims making up approx 11%
So, it is not a ritual confined only to Muslim countries or communities.
The reason I mentioned Somalia, is because it is one of the worst countries wrt this ritual, with 98% being affected by this and the population is close to 100% Muslim.
So, it is definitely not a Muslim issue, it is a cultural one.
Incorrect (see what I did there?). All your numbers demonstrate is that Islam need not be the majority religion to force it's values on the rest of the population. Islam is not a majority religion in Denmark but they are now very careful about the cartoons they draw.
Now I'm not going to suggest Africa doesn't have LOTS of messed up CULTURAL practices but there is a reason that "culture" is so compatible with Islam and it's a two way street with Islamic values and dictates reinforcing and perpetuating such practices.
So really what happened is Islam has found a suitable "culture" in which it can flourish and perpetuate it's barbarity.
LOL. Saying something is "incorrect" does not make it so. If Buddhism was the dominant religion of Africa such barbaric practices would have ended centuries ago.
Incorrect (see what I did there?). All your numbers demonstrate is that Islam need not be the majority religion to force it's values on the rest of the population. Islam is not a majority religion in Denmark but they are now very careful about the cartoons they draw.
Now I'm not going to suggest Africa doesn't have LOTS of messed up CULTURAL practices but there is a reason that "culture" is so compatible with Islam and it's a two way street with Islamic values and dictates reinforcing and perpetuating such practices.
So really what happened is Islam has found a suitable "culture" in which it can flourish and perpetuate it's barbarity.
How on earth did you reach this conclusion?
There are no stats, no numbers, no history, no nothing that even remotely supports this position.
I would like to see you prove what you stated above.
How on earth did you reach this conclusion?
There are no stats, no numbers, no history, no nothing that even remotely supports this position.
I would like to see you prove what you stated above.
Name another religion besides Islam which still has actual theocracies complete with witch trials and things everyone else stopped doing almost 1,000 years ago.
Iran was a modern, mostly secular state until the Islamic revolution. If fundamentalists end up taking over Iraq you will see the same thing.
This is why we figured out 1,000 years ago we didn't want the church running things and why the Pope became a mostly symbolic leader in Europe.
So many abhorrent (and often otherwise illegal) acts are allowed if they are considered religious in nature. FGM is done solely to contribute to the subjugation of women. It's the 'hidden hijab'. The whole idea is "if my wife were to enjoy sex then nothing would stop her from screwing the whole town!! This must be prevented!"
Although it's nowhere near in the same ballpark, I don't condone male infant mutilation either. It's not always neat and tidy either especially if done for religious purposes. Metzitzah B'Peh is still legal.
If I have any boys they aren't going to be circumcized.
Name another religion besides Islam which still has actual theocracies complete with witch trials and things everyone else stopped doing almost 1,000 years ago.
Iran was a modern, mostly secular state until the Islamic revolution. If fundamentalists end up taking over Iraq you will see the same thing.
This is why we figured out 1,000 years ago we didn't want the church running things and why the Pope became a mostly symbolic leader in Europe.
How is this even relevant to the topic at hand?
How is this proof that Islam forced the ritual of FGM on Christian communities in Africa?
Eh...no point really. The practice of FGM is barbaric, regardless of why it is done. You can blame it on Islam all you want. I don't care either way, was only trying to interject some facts into this discussion, rather than preconceived notions.
As I said, there are many issues that Islam and the muslim society needs to work out and I agree that Islam needs its rennaisance. Religious extremists and political extremists of all types are potential threats and must be dealt with if they decide to act.
However, I will hate the right wing extremist who kills nearly 80 people (mostly youths) in order to influence immigration policies just as much as I will hate the Islamist extremist who commits terrorism....YMMV
The common denominator for female circumcision is CLITORIS removal, and of course the purpose is to prevent female pleasure. Not having it done would ruin marriage suitability from the male viewpoint. When performed by a trained surgeon in a medical setting, the outcome is achieved without disfigurement, mutilation, infection, and pain. When the witch doctor, sheep shearer, or barber operates, the expected terrible medical disaster is guaranteed.
Wealthy families can afford surgeons--like in the cities of India and Pakistan and in the USA also.
The common denominator for female circumcision is CLITORIS removal, and of course the purpose is to prevent female pleasure. Not having it done would ruin marriage suitability from the male viewpoint. When performed by a trained surgeon in a medical setting, the outcome is achieved without disfigurement, mutilation, infection, and pain. When the witch doctor, sheep shearer, or barber operates, the expected terrible medical disaster is guaranteed.
Wealthy families can afford surgeons--like in the cities of India and Pakistan and in the USA also.
A female doc friend of mine who has treated women who have been mutilated:
"female circumcision has 4 different degrees of mutilation, from only having the clitoris removed to having the entire labia removed and sewn shut, leaving only a tiny hole to pass urine and menstruate through. This latter type often leads to chronic health problems and pain from chronic urinary tract infections etc. It's barbaric and I guarantee this interpretation of Islam was not created by a woman. Mysogyny appears to be the foundation of the Islamic religion in my opinion."
As Arctic points out, it's not limited to Islamic followers, but does seem to be most associated with Islam, whether correctly or not. Me, don't care if it's your culture, your religion, or both, per OP.
The common denominator for female circumcision is CLITORIS removal, and of course the purpose is to prevent female pleasure. Not having it done would ruin marriage suitability from the male viewpoint. When performed by a trained surgeon in a medical setting, the outcome is achieved without disfigurement, mutilation, infection, and pain. When the witch doctor, sheep shearer, or barber operates, the expected terrible medical disaster is guaranteed.
Wealthy families can afford surgeons--like in the cities of India and Pakistan and in the USA also.
Then they are not men, but animals. Yes, culturally insensitive of me no doubt. However, respecting culture is important, and respecting religion, also important. They do not however trump (what I view at least) as what are Basic Human Rights/Universal Rights. This one such example, at least for me. Your mileage may vary.
When you start mutilating little girls for no other reason than to reduce their physical pleasure as women, then your culture and or your religion be damned.
I was watching a documentary on "Man Love Thursday", and I'm paraphrasing, but one of the interviewees basically said "Little boys are for pleasure and woman are for breeding…" What I got out of it was the fact that women aren't supposed to derive pleasure from sex and that their purpose is reserved solely for breeding and birthing.
I think people who do this to young girls and women should be given the same treatment.
Wow, just wow. I’m really not surprised though but yeah we have people in this world and on this forum that actually make comparisons and even arguments of circumcisions performed in a sterile hospital environment by licensed physicians to that of udder ****ing barbarians holding young girls down by fire light in some third world shit hole and mutilating their genitals with a knife that they probably just butchered their evening meal with.
News flash, the reason these ****ing barbarians do this is all about CONTROL. To them women are lower than oxen and every aspect of their lives must be controlled to include their sexual climax.
Right, cuz every mohel out there is a licensed physician. :rolleyes: And they have really sterile mouths as they're doing their ceremony and sucking the blood off little Timmy ("Mezizah").
And if they have cell phones, I'm sure they have light bulbs (this is sarcasm, so read it in that context)
Speaking of licensed docs doing circ's though (this is in part on why circ's are a bit barbaric too), do you know what they use for anesthesia, a lot of the times? Sugar water. Or letting the kid suckle on a finger. Yup. "We're lopping off part of your dick, here, have some syrup." Now, some docs use actual injected pain killers to do a penile block, and some use EMLA cream (which from what I've heard, isn't all that great). Looking at research there's some debate on just how much pain the infants are really in - some thinking goes "The kid just got squeezed through a vagina, this can't hurt that much compared to it." And it seems that, based on some surrogate measures, anesthesia doesn't make a big difference on pain responses, but still, I'd want my kid to have more than sugar water.
Just to forestall arguments, I'm sure FGM hurts a shit-ton more. Absolutely. And I'm sure most knives are sharper on the boys and probably weren't recently used on livestock.
It's not the "how" it's done that I'm arguing, it's the cultural bias of one form of amputation versus another.
Though, yes, it's about control, I think we all agree on this.
On to another poster - Arctic 1, where did you pull those stats? My wife also happened to do Peace Corps in Burkina Faso before med school, and never heard/saw of FGM in her village. She was aware of the practice in-country, however. Since she was teaching school for kids of a variety of ages, I'd assume that she would have seen girls after the fact (I assume the girls would be in pain, walk funny, something, to make my wife wonder what happened). From what she's mentioned, most of the folks of different religions got along pretty well. Granted, she's a n=1, so small sample size.
Eurodriver
02-09-14, 19:14
I was watching a documentary on "Man Love Thursday"....
http://troll.me/images/chris-hansen/please-have-a-seat.jpg
How is this even relevant to the topic at hand?
How is this proof that Islam forced the ritual of FGM on Christian communities in Africa?
I give up. Islam has NOTHING to do with it. If Africa's primary religious influences were Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism it would be just as prevalent as it is now.
In fact it's probably African Christians who are mostly perpetuating it in order to make Islam look bad. That's what I think.
On to another poster - Arctic 1, where did you pull those stats? My wife also happened to do Peace Corps in Burkina Faso before med school, and never heard/saw of FGM in her village. She was aware of the practice in-country, however. Since she was teaching school for kids of a variety of ages, I'd assume that she would have seen girls after the fact (I assume the girls would be in pain, walk funny, something, to make my wife wonder what happened). From what she's mentioned, most of the folks of different religions got along pretty well. Granted, she's a n=1, so small sample size.
The numbers are from this UNICEF report from 2013:
http://www.unicef.org/media/files/FGCM_Lo_res.pdf
And yes, in many african countries muslims and christians and other religions co-exist very well.
I give up. Islam has NOTHING to do with it. If Africa's primary religious influences were Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism it would be just as prevalent as it is now.
In fact it's probably African Christians who are mostly perpetuating it in order to make Islam look bad. That's what I think.
Never mind that FGM outdates both Christianity and Islam, never mind that FGM is not mandated in any religious scripture of either religion.....
An excerpt from the report above:
Role of religion in the continuation of FGM/C
FGM/C is often seen to be somehow connected to Islam, a view that is perhaps unsurprising given the frequency with which it is practised
by many Muslim African groups. However, not all Islamic groups practise FGM/C, and many non-Islamic groups do. Gruenbaum has emphasized
that followers of all three monotheistic religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – “have at times practised female circumcision and consider their practices sanctioned, or at
least not prohibited, by God.”121
Despite the fact that FGM/C predates the birth of Islam and Christianity and is not mandated by religious scriptures, the belief that it is a religious requirement contributes to the continuation
of the practice in a number of settings. As illustrated in the previous section and confirmed by ethnographic studies, in certain settings FGM/C is widely held to be a religious obligation.122
Tables 6.2 and 6.3 show that in countries such as Guinea, Mali and Mauritania, significant proportions of women and men reported that FGM/C is required by their religion. This is often closely
linked to the response of cleanliness/hygiene, since FGM/C has become understood in some Muslim communities to be a cleansing rite that enables women to pray in a proper manner.123
The importance of religion is further confirmed by other MICS and DHS data. In some surveys, interviewees were asked specifically whether FGM/C was required by religion. Results, shown in Figure
6.12, indicate that even larger percentages of respondents answered affirmatively. In Mali, for example, nearly two thirds of girls and women and 38 per cent of boys and men regard FGM/C
as a religious duty.
A great deal of effort by scholars and activists has concentrated on demonstrating a lack of scriptural support for the practice. In Egypt, for example, the most authoritative condemnation of FGM/C
in Islam to date is the 2007 fatwa (religious edict) issued by the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research, explaining that FGM/C has no basis in Sharia (Islamic law) or any of its partial
provisions, and that it is a sinful action that should be avoided. Several regional and national fatwas have followed in the years since, with the original statement as their basis.124
In Sudan, a national campaign is working to promote the positive association of Islam to saleema, a term identified and widely promoted to describe a happy, healthy girl who is uncut, as God made her.125
In Senegal, religious leaders have played an important role in publicly addressing the practice, confirming that FGM/C is not sanctioned anywhere in Islam or the Koran and violates a woman’s dignity.126
However,because religious beliefs often exist alongside other social norms surrounding FGM/C, the lack of clear scriptural dictates does not automatically cause religious motivation for the practice to diminish.
For instance, Janice Boddy, writing on Sudan, found that “religion and tradition are not merely intertwined, they are one and the same.”127 Similarly, Michelle Johnson, writing about the Mandingas in Guinea-Bissau, describes a total
correspondence between FGM/C, ethnic identity and Islamic identity; she also says the practice is widely considered a prerequisite for ritual purity necessary for prayer, and a marker of belonging to an Islamic community.128
Studies among Mandinga and Somali immigrants in Europe have shown that exposure to a broader Islamic community in which FGM/C is not often practised caused many to question the link between tradition and religion, and to become
ambivalent or opposed to the continuation of FGM/C.129 Members of migrant Mandinga communities in Portugal, among whom FGM/C is not widely practised, apparently do not subscribe to the beliefs linking the practice to Islamic requirements.
Presumably, this is because they are exposed to ‘modern’ Islam, as understood and practised by those outside Africa. Johnson describes how this has led many to make the distinction between religion and culture, which in some
cases has helped call the practice of FGM/C into question.130 This example illustrates the process by which re-examination of practices and social norms attributed to religion can result in changes in understanding. While religious leaders have
at various times and places actively campaigned against the practice, facilitating dialogue with the larger religious communities is likely to contribute to the process of abandonment, particularly when religious leaders are able to speak effectively about the lack of theological support for FGM/C.
Available survey data show that, predictably, the association between religion and FGM/C varies widely across countries.131 Figure 6.13 presents data on prevalence among girls and women aged 15 to 49 according to their faith. Religious
categories differ across surveys to reflect the faiths present within each country, making comparisons across surveys somewhat challenging. This analysis considered differences and similarities among girls and women of three
main religious groups: Muslims, Roman Catholics and other Christians, including Protestants and Orthodox Christians. In many countries, FGM/C prevalence is highest among Muslim girls and women. The practice, however, is also
found among Catholic and other Christian communities. In some countries where a particular religion is almost universal, as is the case with Islam in Sudan, the extent to which people of other religions practise FGM/C has little influence
on overall prevalence. Clearly, variations in prevalence among people of different faiths demonstrate that FGM/C is a challenge for all religious groups in affected countries. Religious leadership may have to further engage in understanding
FGM/C in their communities to promote a change in the practice.
Here is a good diagram showing the numbers I posted previously:
http://imageshack.com/a/img822/7369/i7ee.png
So, as I have stated previously, yes many people of the muslim fatih BELIEVE the practice is mandated by religion, something that is reflected by the prevalence of the practice in certain muslim countries in Africa. However, the ritual itself is NOT something that Islam brought with it, or forced onto other religions.
Again I ask the question: Where is the proof that the ritual of FGM was introduced to the world by Islam?
You made the statement that this is the case, then you need to document it. There is loads of information that says otherwise....
Never mind that FGM outdates both Christianity and Islam, never mind that FGM is not mandated in any religious scripture of either religion.....
Amazing...you still can't see it.
Amazing...you still can't see it.
Well, I have given you plenty of opportunity to disprove my arguments.
Still nothing....
If what you say is fact, it should be easy enough to prove by referencing the information.
And I don't even see what the issue is. Yes, the ritual is barbaric. ¨
Yes, muslims perform the ritual. Yes, muslims condone the practice. However, that does not equate to all. That does not mean that Islam is the origin of the practice.
Is that so controversial to you?
Eurodriver
02-10-14, 07:30
This is why we figured out 400 years ago we didn't want the church running things and why the Pope became a mostly symbolic leader in Europe.
Fixed it for you.
Well, I have given you plenty of opportunity to disprove my arguments.
Still nothing....
If what you say is fact, it should be easy enough to prove by referencing the information.
And I don't even see what the issue is. Yes, the ritual is barbaric. ¨
Yes, muslims perform the ritual. Yes, muslims condone the practice. However, that does not equate to all. That does not mean that Islam is the origin of the practice.
Is that so controversial to you?
NOBODY is even debating that. In fact so far everyone has been very specific that the practice PREDATES ISLAM. Go back and reread my posts, I think I said it two or three times.
However, it is ISLAM that is the cultural influence that continues to perpetuate this and other barbaric practices, you know like killing cartoonists for drawing pictures of Mohammed. Several of us have been VERY CLEAR as to the role of Islam perpetuating this practice. But here it is again, just for you.
From Page 2:
Although its origins are pre-Islamic, it became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female modesty and chastity, and is found only within or near Muslim communities. It is praised in several hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) as noble but not required, along with advice that the milder forms are kinder to women.
There is your Islamic influence that is driving the practice today.
You want sources? Here you go...
Mackie 1996, pp. 1004–1005: "FGM is found only in or adjacent to Islamic groups (some Christians practice it to avoid damnation). This is curious, because FGM, beyond the mild sunna supposedly akin to male circumcision, is not found in most Islamic countries nor is it required by Islam."
Mackie 1996, p. 1008 (also here): "FGM is pre-Islamic but was exaggerated by its intersection with the Islamic modesty code of family honor, female purity, virginity, chastity, fidelity, and seclusion."
It isn't simply cultural as you suggested on Page 2. That was the SOURCE, but it was supported and perpetuated by Islamic beliefs, specifically several hadith.
And so we don't keep going circular saying the same things and posting facts, sources and numbers let me trying and simplify this with a similar example that doesn't involve Islam.
Belief in witches, witchcraft and the occult PREDATE Christianity. But it was Christianity in the Middle Ages, when the religion was a strong enough influence to become law, that was responsible for European witch trials and books like The Witches Hammer that helped drive those barbaric practices.
The original source of the beliefs in witchcraft really became irrelevant with respect to the practices of witch hunting and witch trials.
The above premise I do not disagree with, that the practice found support in Islam. I have even acknowledged that fact several times.
The issues I have taken are with the assertions that the practice would not have been as commonplace if other religions had been more prominent, as well as the assertion that it is influence by Islam that is the reason behind the Christian communities also doing this today.
The above premise I do not disagree with, that the practice found support in Islam. I have even acknowledged that fact several times.
The issues I have taken are with the assertions that the practice would not have been as commonplace if other religions had been more prominent, as well as the assertion that it is influence by Islam that is the reason behind the Christian communities also doing this today.
If Buddhism has become the primary religious influence in Africa it would be less commonplace. That is because Buddhism doesn't have the same views of women that Islam does so it wouldn't have been supportive of the custom and there are no Buddhist sayings giving the practice validity. Ironically the "culture" of most of Africa would prevent Buddhism from being a primary religious influence.
As for Christians in Africa engaging in the practice, or more correctly the practice existing in Christian communities. It's simple math.
Barbaric stupidity began in Africa (still with me?), then comes Islam which not only condones such barbaric practices but supports them which helps perpetuate them (still with me?) and it becomes so commonplace and accepted that even the influence of Christianity in some parts of Africa cannot offset centuries of barbaric stupidity (still with me?). Even if you established a Buddhist community it just wouldn't be a strong enough influence this late in the game to change things to any significant extent.
Barbaric stupidity began in Africa (still with me?), then comes Islam which not only condones such barbaric practices but supports them which helps perpetuate them (still with me?) and it becomes so commonplace and accepted that even the influence of Christianity in some parts of Africa cannot offset centuries of barbaric stupidity (still with me?). Even if you established a Buddhist community it just wouldn't be a strong enough influence this late in the game to change things to any significant extent.
Does it make you feel more superior by adding snarky remarks? "Are you still with me?". Real mature.
I don't have the time or the desire to go in to the religious evolution of certain parts of Africa and how that pertains to FGM.
The practice is horrendous regardless of why it is done.
Does it make you feel more superior by adding snarky remarks? "Are you still with me?". Real mature.
Fer ****s sake. I wasn't being snarky. Somewhere along the way of explaining the same thing several times I obviously kept losing you. So I was making sure you understood each point I was making. IF NOT then we could identify the point of misunderstanding / disagreement and potentially resolve it.
And if you "don't have the time or the desire to go in to the religious evolution of certain parts of Africa" then why the hell did you start the debate to begin with?
Do you really see a point in continuing? We will not agree on the matter, that is why I cannot be bothered to continue.
You believe Islam is bad, and that is fine. I have a more nuanced view, based on my own experiences.
As for starting "the debate", fine. Whatever. We have agreed on the key points here, I also agree on some deficiences that needs to be adressed within Islam. I disagree with some assertions you have made. That is that.
If FGM was not practiced in pre-Islamic Indonesia, then it seems to be inextricably tied to Islam, even if it originated in pre-Islamic Africa.
http://www.indonesiamatters.com/1626/fgm/
Read page 8-10 of this report.
http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/frontiers/reports/Indonesia_FGM.pdf
FGM was practiced in pre-Islamic Indonesia.
Do you really see a point in continuing? We will not agree on the matter, that is why I cannot be bothered to continue.
You believe Islam is bad, and that is fine. I have a more nuanced view, based on my own experiences.
As for starting "the debate", fine. Whatever. We have agreed on the key points here, I also agree on some deficiences that needs to be adressed within Islam. I disagree with some assertions you have made. That is that.
No there is no point in continuing because you don't take the time to understand what people post. You assume tone, inflection and intent. Then when people support their position and simplify it down to the key points you become dismissive and suggest they just hate Islam. I guess when I made the comparison about how Christianity drove the witch trials that makes me hate Christianity using your logic.
Moreover, that Islam is a preserving factor of FGM is not one of "my assertions", it is not opinion, I clearly cited the hadith which is a saying of Mohammed which supports the practice. You don't get much more "Islamic seal of approval" than writings from the prophet declaring it good. Just because that hadith doesn't fit in with your opinion that Islam is not a mitigating factor in acceptance and the continued practice of FGM is irrelevant.
Read page 8-10 of this report.
http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/frontiers/reports/Indonesia_FGM.pdf
FGM was practiced in pre-Islamic Indonesia.
And here you are again, debating a point that nobody has ever debated. In fact everyone has agreed on this point all along. I guess that makes the Druids responsible for the European witch trials.
You really need to just accept all of the facts. Your belief that everyone else is simply trying to demonize Islam and that you are the only one with a more enlightened view (and you tried to suggest I thought I was acting superior) does not make your opinions fact. All it means is you are willing to overlook things like hadiths which encourage FGM so that you can feel more enlightened about the matter.
So by all means please continue to ignore the Islamic hadith that supports the practice and tell us again how the practice predates Islam and therefore makes Islam a non issue when it comes to the practice of FGM. You know were are all just idiots who didn't get it the first 20 times it was mentioned.
I may not have time to continue this discussion. I have to go watch Al Jizzera and practice hating Islam today.
No there is no point in continuing because you don't take the time to understand what people post. You assume tone, inflection and intent. Then when people support their position and simplify it down to the key points you become dismissive and suggest they just hate Islam. I guess when I made the comparison about how Christianity drove the witch trials that makes me hate Christianity using your logic.
Moreover, that Islam is a preserving factor of FGM is not one of "my assertions", it is not opinion, I clearly cited the hadith which is a saying of Mohammed which supports the practice. You don't get much more "Islamic seal of approval" than writings from the prophet declaring it good. Just because that hadith doesn't fit in with your opinion that Islam is not a mitigating factor in acceptance and the continued practice of FGM is irrelevant.
And here you are again, debating a point that nobody has ever debated. In fact everyone has agreed on this point all along. I guess that makes the Druids responsible for the European witch trials.
You really need to just accept all of the facts. Your belief that everyone else is simply trying to demonize Islam and that you are the only one with a more enlightened view (and you tried to suggest I thought I was acting superior) does not make your opinions fact. All it means is you are willing to overlook things like hadiths which encourage FGM so that you can feel more enlightened about the matter.
So by all means please continue to ignore the Islamic hadith that supports the practice and tell us again how the practice predates Islam and therefore makes Islam a non issue when it comes to the practice of FGM. You know were are all just idiots who didn't get it the first 20 times it was mentioned.
I may not have time to continue this discussion. I have to go watch Al Jizzera and practice hating Islam today.
SteyrAUG
I seriously do not know what I have done to offend you in this thread. Do you react like this with everyone who disagrees with you?
My reply above was DIRECTLY related to Pi3's question, in reference to whether or not FGM pre-dated Islam in Indonesia. How on earth is that offensive to you?
Second, I do actually understand what you are writing, despite your efforts to label me as dense. I merely disagree with some of the things you have said, and some of your conclusions.
And if you stopped for a second and read MY posts, you would se that I AGREE (in several posts) that FGM found support within certain groups of Islamic believers, and that that is why it is seen in muslim countries today. I just disagree with what I regard as blanket statements regarding Islam by you.
My comment on you thinking Islam is bad is based on several threads where Islam and muslims have been a topic, where your replies have inferred a less than ideal impression. If that is not the case, then I apologize for making an incorrect assessment. I am not, despite what you think, assuming that I am somehow enlightened compared to you. My thoughts on this matter are based my experiences with Islam, muslims and muslim countries.
And with regards to your post where you brought up the hadith referrals, you directly copied that reply from Wikipedia.....whatever.
I have even tried to stop this, twice now, but you cannot seem to let it go.
I cannot believe that my reply to Will's question would start SteyrAUG's crusade against me.....
SteyrAUG
I seriously do not know what I have done to offend you in this thread. Do you react like this with everyone who disagrees with you?
My reply above was DIRECTLY related to Pi3's question, in reference to whether or not FGM pre-dated Islam in Indonesia. How on earth is that offensive to you?
Second, I do actually understand what you are writing, despite your efforts to label me as dense. I merely disagree with some of the things you have said, and some of your conclusions.
And if you stopped for a second and read MY posts, you would se that I AGREE (in several posts) that FGM found support within certain groups of Islamic believers, and that that is why it is seen in muslim countries today. I just disagree with what I regard as blanket statements regarding Islam by you.
My comment on you thinking Islam is bad is based on several threads where Islam and muslims have been a topic, where your replies have inferred a less than ideal impression. If that is not the case, then I apologize for making an incorrect assessment. I am not, despite what you think, assuming that I am somehow enlightened compared to you. My thoughts on this matter are based my experiences with Islam, muslims and muslim countries.
And with regards to your post where you brought up the hadith referrals, you directly copied that reply from Wikipedia.....whatever.
I have even tried to stop this, twice now, but you cannot seem to let it go.
I cannot believe that my reply to Will's question would start SteyrAUG's crusade against me.....
First you assumed I was being condescending.
Now you are assuming I feel offended.
You should probably stop assuming things.
I never labeled you as dense. Simplifying things so that we can find out the exact point of misunderstanding is not the same thing as calling a person dense. As for the whole enlightened/superior thing, I only have your words to go by.
You believe Islam is bad, and that is fine. I have a more nuanced view
You stated specifically that my view is biased and your view is "more nuanced." So let's look up that word.
1
: a subtle distinction or variation
2
: a subtle quality : nicety
3
: sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)
Looks to me like you are saying you have a more enlightened, experienced or more profound understanding of the subject than I. Perhaps you simply didn't choose your words well, I don't know and don't like making assumptions so I can only go by your chosen words.
And yes, regarding hadiths, I copied wikipedia BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY I provided the source wikipedia used. Are you now disputing the source?!? Are you suggesting that hadith doesn't exist?
Again a post by you where you choose to ignore the broader content, and instead fixate on irrelevant issues in order to continue picking a fight. And it is funny that you accuse me of making assumptions, when you do the same about me....I gauge your attitude towards different topics based on your posts, as well as your attidtude towards me.
If your true intent was to clear up misunderstandings, it could have been done in a more cordial tone that inserting three "Are you with me?" remarks.
Are you now disputing the source?!? Are you suggesting that hadith doesn't exist?
No. Where have I done that? Point it out to me please.
I have adressed the hadiths in several posts, something you again choose to ignore. The hadiths are not considered primary source material in Islam, but they are used depending on the "school" of Islam, or whoever the "Imam" of the day is. I have also acknowlegded SEVERAL times that FGM is found in muslim communities, and that there is support for the ritual, citing religion (Islam) as the source of the requirement.
However, if you look at the material, most Islamic scholars know that it is not a religious requirement, but the ritual has been performed for so long, that it is mostly/also part of tradition. Which is what I have been trying to say all along. Christianity was present in Africa for several centuries prior to Islam becoming a power in the northern parts of Africa. Did these Christian communities in Africa not perform FGM? Was the practice of FGM suspended in Africa due to Christian influences? Nope. It is a tradition that transcends religion, despite it being adressed in hadiths. This is obviously clear since Christian communities in Africa STILL perform the ritual. You say that is due to Islam forcing it's ways on other religious communities. When you look at FGM history, that is a difficult sell.
Hell, US and European doctors/gynaecologists peformed surgeries to remove the clitoris on women during the 19th century, in order to cure hysteria and mania (or what we call masturbation):
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/articles/duffy.htm
Just look at this quote from some french doctor:
"In my opinion, neither the plague, nor war, nor smallpox, nor a crowd of similar evils have resulted more disastrously for humanity, then the habit of masturbation: it is the destroying element of civilized society."
Islam does not hold a monopoly on conservative views on sexuality....
As for experience, I have spent 19 months in muslim countries working closely with the locals. The two countries I have been to are very different in terms of religious influence. How much time do you have in muslim countries? Direct experience with muslims in their native land? If I remember correctly from a different thread, you have not been to one.
The mistake you seem make is assume that Islam is a homogenous religion, with no variations at all. This is not the case at all. Islamic practices vary greatly from country to country, community to community and individual to individual. Just like Christianity and Christians. Just look at many posts here in GD when there are discussions on the Bible; many people argue the true meaning of passages in the Bible as well.
You cannot make blanket statements on Islam, because you need to factor in nation-specific issues as well, in order to adress whatever issues there are. Islam in Asia is practiced differently from Islam in the Middle-East, which again differs from North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa.
This is why you will find support for traditional female clothing, by the females themselves, in various muslim communities. In others they are mandated by law. You will also find support for FGM (or what they call circumcision) in different muslim communities, as well as resistance to it.
When you cut to the bone, many muslims are very similar to us. They like the same jokes, they watch porn, they drink, they party. Yes, even in more conservative muslim nations.
Still, as we agree on, there is a need for a renaissance in Islam, especially in the regions where a more conservative Islam is practiced. In many muslim countries they are far behind wrt gender equality, they have inhumane practices wrt legal affairs, general freedom of society, they are lacking in religious freedom, there are great inequalities in quality of life, the rate and standard of education is poor and so forth.
Again a post by you where you choose to ignore the broader content, and instead fixate on irrelevant issues in order to continue picking a fight.
This will be my last post on the subject.
The irrelevant issues were simply ME responding to your assumptions that I was being condescending or was offended. Since neither was true I had to address those issues that YOU brought into the discussion.
Then you attempted to reject one of my points because it was a wiki copy/paste. So I had to point out I provided the original source.
Then I had to address the fact that you did suggest I had a bias view and yours was more "enlightened" although you used the word "nuanced" and I had to point out the result is the same.
And now you criticize me for addressing these issues and ignoring the broader content.
Wow.
I had already addressed the broader content several times. When it seemed we still had a disconnect someplace I simplified the broader content as much as possible trying to find where the point of disagreement with the facts was.
And when I did that you went off on several tangents, IGNORING the broader content, and made all sorts of comments about me personally.
It is entirely possible for you to continue this back and forth forever so I am done wasting my time with somebody that makes personal assumptions and accusations when presented with facts and then when those assumptions are corrected complains about how the person they are debating is now ignoring the broader content.
This might be the most absurd discussion I've ever had on this forum and I'm not interested in continuing with it. I've explained the issue so completely and simply that discussion should have ended some time ago.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.