Posts
Ummm...I think we are comparing apples to oranges here.
Male circumcision is simply removing extra skin from the head of the penis...which yes, does have the effect of reducing sensitivity. This does not hinder a man from enjoying sex however, and the purpose is not to prevent sexual activity outside marriage.
However female circumcision is a brutal destruction of the female's vagina, including the clitoris (to prevent enjoyment of sex) and labia.
The intended rationale for one is quite different from the other.
Female circumcision (well let's call it what it is...mutilation) is based on the idea that sin resides with women, and that by making sex less enjoyable, the woman will not stray. This is upheld in both Christian and Muslim faiths as well as western and middle-eastern cultures.
To make a point that there is some inequality in males vs females being circumcised is pretty callous. No female should be mutilated...period. The rationale for male circumcision is long past it's expiry date...there is a wonderful thing called soap, to keep it clean.
I am by no means advocating male circumcision, but we can hardly compare the two.
AO
Dear Ann:
I really couldn’t agree with you less. You are repeating the familiar claims that my post was written to counter; what can I do but repeat in turn the points I made?
Male and female circumcision are functionally indistinguishable, in that both reduce sexual enjoyment. The details of the operation necessarily differ, because male and female anatomies differ. Whether one reduces sexual enjoyment more than the other, we cannot know. But if one is genital mutilation, they both are. If one is brutal, they both are. If one should not be tolerated, neither should be.
I don’t much care whether one’s stand is pro or con; but seeing the two as apples and oranges, because one is done to a female and the other to a male, is textbook-perfect sexual discrimination.
You are wrong to suppose that either the Christian or Muslim faiths mandate female circumcision. Neither do. Both Islam and Judaism, however, do mandate male circumcision.
You are wrong in your description of female circumcision. The WHO defines female “genital mutilation” to include “all procedures that involve … injury to the female genitalia.” That is very broad. The most common practice, within the rarefied world of female circumcision, is simple clitorectomy. More extreme procedures are also sometimes practiced—but so are more extreme forms of male circumcision, up to and including castration. Generally by the same tribal groups in both cases.
You are wrong to suppose that we know the “intended rationale” for either male or female circumcision. When asked, those who practice female circumcision most often do not know—it is simply the custom. Some think it enhances fertility, or child survival, or health. So too with male circumcision—in Judaism and in Islam, it is simply a sign of submission to God. But we have probably always been aware that both reduce sexual sensations; this seems the logical effect of tampering with the genitalia. The classic British paediatric textbook Diseases of Infancy and Childhood recommended both male and female circumcision to prevent masturbation from 1897 through 1936.
So why the outrage for the goose, but not the gander? Other than because what happens to women is more important than what happens to men?
3 comments:
Male and female circumcision are functionally indistinguishable, in that both reduce sexual enjoyment.
Are you joking?
One is a removal of specific segments of the vagina that allow for pleasure. I should say that removing the clitoris cannot be compared to removing some skin off the end of the penis. Clearly you have had zero sexual contact with a woman if you believe in the "functional equivalence" of male and female circumcision. Removing the clitoris DRASTICALLY reduces the ability of a woman to have sexual pleasure, far far more than the loss of some skin off the head of a penis does to a man.
Do not get me wrong. I do not advocate either, but I again must renew my objection to your argument. You "functionally" equate the two where you cannot. My "apples and oranges" was not male vs female but rather degree of harm. It is quite obvious that the female version is extraordinary in it's ramifications, while you overemphasize the "harm" to the male, you undervalue the excessive brutality of the female version.
That is crux of my objection to your post.
Now as to motivation, it is clear why these things are done...the female version is done to prevent a woman's enjoyment of sex. Period. This has been reported in numerous articles and television programs.
I reiterate it is an exercise in stupidity brought about by the judeo/christian/muslim belief that woman are the weak and fallible, and cause of sin.
As to what they thought in the 1800's...so what?
Oh and by the way I clicked the "Anonymous" radio button. That does not make be "Anne", my real name is Stephen...and yes I am a male.
Stephen, you are missing something important here. Let me tell you a story: once upon a time, Zeus and Hera fell into an argument over who enjoyed sex more, men or women. As they soon realized, however, there was only one person who had ever lived who could answer that question: Tiresias, who had been a woman for seven years and had been turned by the gods back into a man. Fortunately, he was alive at the time. You do not have that advantage.
And in your case, the problem is even worse. To know which form of genital mutilation inhibits the sexual experience more, you must find someone who has been in turn, though not necessarily in order, a sexually active adult uncircumcised man, a sexually active adult circumcised man, a sexually active adult uncircumcised woman, and a sexually active adult circumcised woman. I'd say that's a bit of a challenge you face, in order to back up your claims that female circumcision clearly inhibits the enjoyment of sex more than male circumcision. And if you could, you would still be only at step one. A Tiresias is still only anecdotal; it is not enough in scientific terms. One person would not be a statistically valid sample, and even many informants are capable of telling you a lie, say, under social pressure. You would also have to make the test double-blind.
Without that, the best we can do is count nerve endings; and perhaps divide against the total number of nerve endings in the area. I don’t know those figures, if anyone does; the actual figures are blocked in Qatar. Only that there are a lot of nerve endings in both the foreskin and the clitoris—the same order of magnitude.
But this, if figures are found, is inconclusive: there is no direct correspondence. Many women insist, for example, that there is a “g-spot” in the vaginal canal, important to their orgasms; yet the nerve endings do not indicate this. If it exists, the elimination of the clitoris may be much less significant than you think. Other women insist they can achieve orgasm solely through stimulation of the nipples.
So we really don’t know, and cannot know, which is worse.
To repeat, it is not clear why these things are done. Feminists insist that female circumcision is solely intended to reduce the sexual pleasure of the woman, but that is political theory, not fact. This is not what anthropologists hear from those who actually follow the practice. There is no more anthropological evidence for this claim than for the equivalent claim that male circumcision is solely intended to reduce the sexual pleasure of the man.
Nor, I repeat, is female circumcision advocated or practiced by Christians or Jews. It is practiced in some Muslim lands, but is not a part of Islam. It is more common in tribal, shamanist cultures, and those retaining shamanist influences.
Do not believe everything you read in magazines or see on TV.
Incidentally, Tiresias's answer? He claimed that women enjoy sex more.
Stephen here with a follow up...
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/07/27/circumcision-sensation.html
Post a Comment