what were the supposed benefits of FGM

[madbr3991]

in the us we outlawed FGM. but before we did what benefits did people think FGM afforded? there must have been other reasons besides religion.

im curious, the medical profession has swept this under the rug very well. its rare to even find and mention of FGM in a general medical book.

[intact]

exactly the same as for boys. smegma, masturbation, improving sex (playgirl article)


Pretty popular into the 90s when for some strange reason it was outlawed. people saw a bloody vagina and screamed. a bloody penis still flies.

However, fgm still happens in the US. Cornell university cuts clits to reduce them in size or something about preventing girls from becoming lesbians or something.

i think female circ lacks that all important jewish support, which lead to its ban.

[MelancholyLogic]

exactly the same as for boys. smegma, masturbation, improving sex (playgirl article)


Pretty popular into the 90s when for some strange reason it was outlawed. people saw a bloody vagina and screamed. a bloody penis still flies.

However, fgm still happens in the US. Cornell university cuts clits to reduce them in size or something about preventing girls from becoming lesbians or something.

i think female circ lacks that all important jewish support, which lead to its ban.

Yes, funny how those in the Jewish community who are screaming "parental choice" and "religious freedom" now in San Francisco had nothing to say in 1996 when FGM laws were passed both at the Federal level as well as at the state level in California.

[slickskin]

Not much different then the reasons that boys are mutilated.

Control, reduction in sexual pleasure, cosmetic reasons, hygiene. Luckily girls are now protected from such abject barbarism in the United States.

[intact]

Not much different then the reasons that boys are mutilated.

Control, reduction in sexual pleasure, cosmetic reasons, hygiene. Luckily girls are now protected from such abject barbarism in the United States.

Only recently, the AFP AAFP or whatever it is called supported FGM after an initiative by muslims. Allowing the so called ritual nick.

So girls are far from protected. And, as I mentioned, cornell university circs girls. Only they don't call ti that. But it involves cutting the clitoris.

[finman]

i think female circ lacks that all important jewish support, which lead to its ban

If 1.7% of Americans are Jewish, and of these half are male, they hardly account for the enormous number of circumcisions there. It is the doctors doing the vast majority of circumcisions. If Jewish circumcisions stopped, that would hardly reduce the numbers at all.

[intact]

If 1.7% of Americans are Jewish, and of these half are male, they hardly account for the enormous number of circumcisions there. It is the doctors doing the vast majority of circumcisions. If Jewish circumcisions stopped, that would hardly reduce the numbers at all.

sure but you never talk about christianity in the circ debate. always judaism comes up. they defend the practice. on occasion some muslims might pop their head out too. although i haven't seen it. christian mgmers don't play the religious freedom card, jewish mgmers do. more so anyway.

there is no religious exception for fgm, so mgm has to deal with the conservative jews too. and they have power in the states.

[Barthos01]

Please don't think I'm a Jew hater or something like that, but damn if they don't piss me off sometimes. :mad:

[intact]

Please don't think I'm a Jew hater or something like that, but damn if they don't piss me off sometimes. :mad:

on a side note, before I used to think sikhs were strange with their unshaven beards and long ridiculous hair, but after learning that their religion expressly forbids circ, I always smile when I see a sikh and his children. For they are surely intact. Hindus consider the body holy too, so generally if you see someone from India who is not muslim, they must be intact.

Now you have a reason to smile and be happy when you see a guy with a huge turban!

[Joseph]

Hrm... the benefits of FGM...

Not that they matter, because you know nobody REALLY cares about "medical benefits," EVER, but...

According to the following "studies," female circumcision "reduces HIV transmission."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Additionally:
"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
http://www.islamictreasures.com/manners-of-welcoming-the-new-born-child-in-islam-sku16723.html

Some may say that female circumcision causes "harm." That it "destroys a woman's ability to orgasm." However, "studies show" that even women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital cutting, are still able to orgasm.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

A recent article in Africa came out addressing this same point here.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201106280259.html

Actually, "studies show" that female circumcision, nicely euphemised as "labiaplasty" here, can actually increase sexual satisfaction for both the woman and her partner.
http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/labiaplasty-clinical-study.html

From the above link:
- The study found an overall satisfaction rate of 97.2% for women undergoing labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction
- An overall satisfaction rate of 83% in women having a vaginal tightening procedure (vaginoplasty/perineoplasty), and 91.2% for women combining both “outer” and “inner” work
- Sexual satisfaction with 92.8% of women having both experienced improvement in their sexual satisfaction
- The data also revealed that those women undergoing vaginal tightening (vaginoplasty) reported an estimated 82.2% overall improvement in their partner’s sexual satisfaction as well.

Since this information is provided by doctors who stand to gain from "labiaplasties," I'm sure the information they present is completely objective and unbiased. ;-)

I'd like to point out the double-standard here:

For female circumcision, it's unethical in advance, and there would never be enough "studies" that could ever make it "ethical."

For male circumcision, it's "study it until it's ethical."

There are some things that are simply always wrong.

Science NEVER justifies abuse.

[jeff71913]

Looking at a vagina makes me queasy, but I noticed one image from the labiaplastysurgeon link that really caught my attention. Looks like Dr. Chugay did a really poor job. The before image of the vagina looked much better. Looks like a lot of money for nothing. He really messed up that woman's vagina.
Some of the other vaginas actually looked better after surgery. I wouldn't be surprised if labiaplasty became quite common. Labiaplasty is already the fastest growing type of plastic surgery, from what I have read. I believe that a lot of guys are just a tiny bit gay and they would probably like clitoral hood reduction. This would cause the clitoris to poke out like a very small penis. I know I would like it better.

[jeff71913]

I thought it was interesting that on the WHO website they have this to say about FGM:

"Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. It has no health benefits and harms girls and women in many ways.

It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and hence interferes with the natural function of girls' and women's bodies. The practice causes severe pain and has several immediate and long-term health consequences, including difficulties in childbirth also causing dangers to the child."

Isn't that exactly what RIC is?

[intact]

I thought it was interesting that on the WHO website they have this to say about FGM:

"Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. It has no health benefits and harms girls and women in many ways.

It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and hence interferes with the natural function of girls' and women's bodies. The practice causes severe pain and has several immediate and long-term health consequences, including difficulties in childbirth also causing dangers to the child."

Isn't that exactly what RIC is?

Of course. sharp objects and genitals don't mix.

[Terato]

If 1.7% of Americans are Jewish, and of these half are male, they hardly account for the enormous number of circumcisions there. It is the doctors doing the vast majority of circumcisions. If Jewish circumcisions stopped, that would hardly reduce the numbers at all.

I agree with this. However. Jewish circumcision and anti-Semitism is ALWAYS brought up as a counter to any proposed ban or restriction on infant circ, waaay out of proportion to the actual amount of Jewish circumcisions being done. Muslim circumcision, not so much, strangely. I'm guessing this is because Jewish folks are more or less accepted in American life and public discourse; Muslim folks, not so much - they're still seen as somewhat 'foreign' and frightening to some.

Pro-intactivist Jews (and Muslims) never really seem to have much of a voice in the discussion, either, which is a shame.

[tzj38]

People who argue that female circumcision is barbaric mutilation and male circumcision is a beneficial medical procedure are often disingenuous. They often point to some crazy African or Muslim ritual that performs highly disfiguring clictorectomies with primitive tools that causes women to have no sexual pleasure at all as a reason why female circumcision is mutilation and should be illegal. Removing the clitoris is analogous to removing the penis. However, there is a less radical procedure called a clitoral hoodectomy that removes the clitoral hood, which is analogous to the male foreskin. Women actually elect to have the procedure done for various reasons ranging from increasing sexual pleasure to aesthetics. The procedure is performed by a trained MD in medical facilities using sterile equipment similar to the way male circumcisions are performed. Even knowing this, most people would still consider female circumcision barbaric and male circ a good thing. With a certain segment of the population, there is no amount of evidence to prove that male circ does harm, and there's no amount of evidence to convince them that it's as bad as clitoral hoodectomy.

Read more about Clitoral Hoodectomies at:
http://www.gynaecologists.co.uk/clitoral_hoodectomy.html
http://www.clitoralunhooding.com/

[intact]

People who argue that female circumcision is barbaric mutilation and male circumcision is a beneficial medical procedure are often disingenuous. They often point to some crazy African or Muslim ritual that performs highly disfiguring clictorectomies with primitive tools that causes women to have no sexual pleasure at all as a reason why female circumcision is mutilation and should be illegal. Removing the clitoris is analogous to removing the penis. However, there is a less radical procedure called a clitoral hoodectomy that removes the clitoral hood, which is analogous to the male foreskin. Women actually elect to have the procedure done for various reasons ranging from increasing sexual pleasure to aesthetics. The procedure is performed by a trained MD in medical facilities using sterile equipment similar to the way male circumcisions are performed. Even knowing this, most people would still consider female circumcision barbaric and male circ a good thing. With a certain segment of the population, there is no amount of evidence to prove that male circ does harm, and there's no amount of evidence to convince them that it's as bad as clitoral hoodectomy.

Read more about Clitoral Hoodectomies at:
http://www.gynaecologists.co.uk/clitoral_hoodectomy.html
http://www.clitoralunhooding.com/

I don't think removing the clit is the same as removing the penis. Remove the penis, and you have the balls left. Remove the clit, and you still have the rest of the vagina to have sex with. The penis is much bigger than the clit.
Supposedly the prepuce contains around 20K nerve endings, the clit about 8K.

[stretchmyhoodie]

I don't think removing the clit is the same as removing the penis. Remove the penis, and you have the balls left. Remove the clit, and you still have the rest of the vagina to have sex with. The penis is much bigger than the clit.
Supposedly the prepuce contains around 20K nerve endings, the clit about 8K.

I agree,
I am sure that removing either the female prepuce (clitoralhoodectomy) or the female clitoris (clitorectomy) would be believed by some to be the equivalent of removing the penis. I don't believe such how ever. I would have to say that I understand that the clitoris is like a penis that never developed as a penis but instead, with the female hormone effects, became the perfect organ for the female's vulva as nature intended. To further clarify my understanding of the human female's genital design, I will say that the vagina is also of major importance and no doubt not comparable to any male counterpart. Hence if the clitoris and/or clitoral hood is removed the human female still has another sexual organ intact and complete. But in the case of a human male who's penis is removed ( penectomy ) he has none of his sexual organs remaining. I don't see how the scrotum would compare to a vagina in a sexual organ comparison.

Tho not a truly solid source; I have found posts and blogs etc from men that had penectomies and still report that they have sexual pleasure and even orgasms from other forms of stimulation since they no longer have their penis!
Finding this has me wondering and giving a bit more credit to the claim from some that support female circumcision aka (clitorectomy and infibulation) saying that such mutilated females have retained their orgasmic abillities. In my research I find many circumstances where the human body finds a way to accomplish and re-invent sexual function/ pleasure, once the psycological and psycosexual barrier/s are overcome, despite the mutilation it has intentionally recieved. Quite amaizing imo.

[intact]

Of course clit or female foreskin removal still allows for sexual enjoyment.

And yes some guys come long before the genitals are even touched by the partner. IMO the whole body is erogenous, ears, lips... all of it.
IMO being able to come does not mean the orgasm is good.

However the body works it is friggin perfect from birth.

[madbr3991]

its amazing how sexually restrained the US is. so many people in the US still think that sexual pleasure is a bad thing.