Female Circumcision: Human Rights Violation?

[Zero_Vault]

Female circumcision comes in a variety of forms. Either the clitoral hood and clitoris are removed, the clitoris and the labia (the "inside" labia, not the labia that grows hair), or the most drastic form - removal of clitoris, clitoral hood, and labia in conjunction with stitching/closing/narrowing of the actual vaginal opening - leaving just enough of an opening for urine and menstrual blood to flow from. In this last case, the girl's vagina is closed with stitches or thorns, and her legs are bound together for up to six weeks to keep the girl from ripping open the wound. Wikipedia claims this last drastic form accounts for 15% of all female circumcisions.

I was under the impression that female circumcision was a fairly obscure thing, but some research shows that it is most certainly not. In Egypt, approximately 95% of girls undergo the procedure. Sudan: 91%. Guinea: over 98%. "Amnesty International estimates that over 130 million women worldwide have been affected by some form of FGC with over 2 million procedures being performed every year." That's too many girls (The average age of the girls who have these procedures is between four and eight).

Male circumcision is common in our culture obviously. I'm circumcised - not for religious reasons but because, I guess, my parents found it more aesthetically pleasing. So does that make me, and other westerners, hypocrites for finding something wrong with mutilating a young child - removing the most sexually pleasurable part of her genitalia - because their culture deems it acceptable? Not only acceptable, but preferable?

I really don't know, that's why I'm opening a debate.

Studies have shown that many females who have undergone these procedures claim to still be able to climax. Do they really? How would they know? They literally don't know what they're missing (pleasure wise, not genital wise). If my parents had injected the head of my penis with a chemical to deaden the nerves to prevent me from *********ing or wanting to have sex (one of the main reasons behind these female circumcisions) before I was old enough to have a say, I dare say I'd be rather upset. Ladies? Any thoughts on this part of the issue you can shed for the guys? Can sex really be that pleasurable without a key component of your sexual anatomy?

Another claimed benefit is increased sexual pleasure for the man (husband, of course, as the circumcision supposedly keeps the women from having pre-marital intercourse - sounds like ********), based on the idea that a tighter vagina equals more pleasure. I won't really argue that point, but reports claim that the women who have their vaginal entrances narrowed - as stated earlier - will have to actually have their husbands cut open the vaginal scar tissue with a knife on their wedding night so that he can enter her for intercourse. That doesn't sound like a good time to me. I prefer not to cut anyone during sex, definitely not down there. I can't imagine a woman likes having her most private area clumsily sliced open by an over-eager horny guy, then having the bleeding wound pummeled immediately afterward by a penis.

So I guess the issue I'm raising for debate is: Is this a moral human right issue - based on the presumption that this is basically child mutilation - or a societal issue such as male circumcision or even braces?

My instinct is to clearly state it's wrong no matter what culture you're from, but who am I to judge? I've been going back and forth on this issue in my head for a couple days now, and I can't really decide if I try to step back and take both sides of the argument fairly into consideration. I can say that if I ruled the world, no little girls would be having their vah-jay-jays sliced up.

 

[psychocheeseman]

When i did human rights law a girl in my class made a presenatation about this: worst slide show ever!

I'd say it is a violation of human rights (in its extreme forms) It treats women as second class citizens, not being trusted with sexual pleasures.

In Africa a common justification is that women who have been circumsized cook tastier food....

it's barbaric. It doesn't serve any medical purpose (such as snipping a mans foreskin might if he's too lazy to wash).

While Montaigne might agree, we shouldn't necessarily reject things just because they are not the norm for us, In this case we can logically deduce that it is a pretty silly idea which inhibits the use and enjoyment of what we are born with. The religious argument holds up about as flimsily as arguing the Thugees should have their religious freedom to murder people upheld as freedom to practice religion.

 

[Superman4ever]

It is one of the most vile human rights violations I can think of.

To illustrate how much I detest this despicable act, being trained in the medical field and surrounded in a medical environment for over half my life, this is the ONLY procedure that makes me, literally, weak in the knees. My stomach churns when I hear someone talk about it and it feels like there is a drill in my head.

I HATE, HATE, HATE this repulsive act.

 

[Zumi]

*shudders at the thought of it* Yeah, I had to do research on this for both my Woman's Studies class and my Psychology of Human Sexuality class. Not fun.

I'd definately say it's a violation of human rights. I mean if you for some inate reason want to get it done later in life(I'm sure there's someone in this insane world who'd actually like it) then go right ahead, though to do that to a child is just disgusting. What's more to make it a standard of society to the degree that the areas where this is a common practice a woman is seen as undesirable without having been circumcised is just completely sexist and barbaric.

Now I'm a pretty open-minded person. It's insanely rare that I outrightly bash something without any regard to the cultural aspects involved though in this case I find the reasoning behind the mutilation to be fickle enough that I feel absolutely no shame in completely disregarding it. Female circumcision has no purpose beside to limit the woman's desire to have sex by making it extremely painful and, especially in the case of those that are actually sewn closed/made narrower, completely horrific.

 

[William_C]

In 06-07 I read a lot about Waris Dirie who was a woman from Somalia and had to endure that. Her dad was going to give her to some old, old ass dude in exchange for some cattle. So she ran away to the city, and eventually became a super-model (along side some of the 90s most top models) but since '97 she's worked with the U.N. to help stop the mutilation.

http://www.waris-dirie-foundation.com/ is her site. In her book, she makes it clear that most girls die from this because its usually just some old lady walking around with some kind of tool box, unclean tools and God knows what else, sewing girls vaginas shut. And then once they meet a man, they have them unsewn, have a baby, and then stitched back up again. Its horrid.

 

[Dark Carnage]

Misanthropy FTW.

I'd heard of Female Circumciscion a couple of years ago, but only as removing the Clitoris. This whole sealing the Vagina thing is even worse.

It's all to do with Male insercurity and acts upon false assumptions Utterly ******ed.

 

[Chuck]

All circumcision is dumb and shallow...that is all

 

[Danalys]

female circumcision is worse tho. i'd be like chopping the whole head off your penis.

 

[Matt]

I'd say to do anything to anyone's body against their will is a violation of their human rights.

 

[Damien Rage]

I think circumcision male or female is barbaric. I was snipped and (long story as to why) but I wish I wasn't =(

 

[hammy]

Of course it's horrific. And of course it was invented by men.