Mothering Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I got in a very heated discussion this morning and I'm still worked up. I'm too worked up to type out the whole scenario, but I will later.
Basically, I was being told it's not eq. to male circ, and that it wasn't legal in the US or even practiced after 1958 they sited Wikipedia *rolls eyes*

Also, please help me respond to this email:
Female circumcision HAS NOT been practiced in the US. In fact we have approached the UN several times to get it eliminated in Africa. Secondly female circumcsion is a mutilation which prevents sexual gratification, is painful and even causes majot problems for childbirth. Circumcision of males removes foreskin only and has no lasting effects. Scientific research over DECADES has shown nothing conclusive as to whether one way is healthier or not-it keeps going back and forth-and is a cultural/religious issue.Most recent research,dones on THOUSANDS of people. does indicate that women who are partners of men with intact foresin are more at risk for HIV and some other STDs. Little boys can have phimosis,which is a constriction of foreskin which requires painful surgery later in life.Their foreskin is not supposed to be retracted for cleaning until after age 3,so it can be harder to keep them clean.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,212 Posts
Read Secret Wounds by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein. Blue Shield (insurance company) paid for female circ until 1976.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,770 Posts
There's a new book out by a woman who was circed in the 50s...I'll try to post the link.

Also, send them to http://research.cirp.org - kinda hard to argue with papers published in the British Journal of Urology on the structure and function of the foreskin.

If nothing else, ask whether it would be OK to remove JUST a clitoral hood - i.e., the female foreskin - without consent of the owner. That is apples to apples (well, functions may be different but structurally no one can argue with that).

ETA: http://www.genitalintegrity.net/blouch/category/female/

http://www.aesculapiuspress.com/ (Her book is called The Rape of Innocence)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol 3, No 2, Spring 2003, has a piece on the history of female circ in the US: http://www.bioethics.net/journal/index.php?jid=10
http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.c...3.2webber.html

You could get it from a library.

Quote:
Webber, Sara "Cutting History, Cutting Culture: Female Circumcision in the United States"
The American Journal of Bioethics - Volume 3, Number 2, Spring 2003, pp. 65-66
The MIT Press

Excerpt

Michael Benatar and David Benatar (2003) argue that cultural influences account for the differing intuitions we have regarding male and female circumcision and that focusing exclusively on the medical implications of the procedures will show them to be analogous. However, by focusing only on selected African practices of female circumcision where the procedure involves more than the removal of the clitoral prepuce, the authors obfuscate the fact that the clinically analogous procedure-prepuce removal for "medical" reasons-has existed for females in the United States since at least the nineteenth century. Because of the historical differences in how female circumcision has been practiced in the United States, it is not equivalent to male circumcision and hence cultural and historical considerations cannot be dismissed in the moral evaluation of these practices.

Female circumcision has been practiced in the United States since at least the nineteenth century. Cases of its use in the late-nineteenth through the early-twentieth century were for the treatment of masturbation (by both women and girls) and nymphomania-a term used interchangeably with masturbation and with what was regarded as excessive amounts of sex. Both of these phenomena were considered abnormal sexual behavior. Willard, in his 1910 textbook on the surgery of childhood, noted that an irritated clitoris-one whose hood bound it down too tightly and therefore caused irritating adhesions to remain trapped-could cause a woman or girl to masturbate in order to quell the discomfort. Willard stated that "an adherent prepuce should be stripped or circumcised." Hale (1896).
See also http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/ (link to female on left side of page)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
Quote:
Female circumcision HAS NOT been practiced in the US.
Lies and denial. Simple research will disprove it. It is a skelton in our dark closet so to speak. It was only outlawed in 1996. IT HAS been performed in the US, and there are female victims who are finally telling their stories. Like Patricia Robinette for instance (Rape of Innocence).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Here's an unfuriating update. Another person who participated in the thread said something about babies in the US don't suffer because the are anesthetised. I sent her a response that in fact only 29% of the babies recieve anesthetic, and sent her a circ video to prove that babies do feel the pain and scream and cry. She responded telling that she will not watch the video, and we'll have to agree to disagree that they don't remember the pain or trauma.
:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by frenchie
Here's an unfuriating update. Another person who participated in the thread said something about babies in the US don't suffer because the are anesthetised. I sent her a response that in fact only 29% of the babies recieve anesthetic, and sent her a circ video to prove that babies do feel the pain and scream and cry. She responded telling that she will not watch the video, and we'll have to agree to disagree that they don't remember the pain or trauma.
:
She won't watch the video. What a coward. Tell her so, PLEASE! Just because babies survived the Holocost and don't remember it doesn't mean it was an ok thing to do! Just because children survived Rwanda and don't remember it doesn't mean its ok to do. Just because Kara Shepard doesn't remember her sexual abuse at 6 months of age doesn't mean it was ok to do. Just because my son doesn't remember his circ at 12 hours old doesn't mean it was ok to do. I know it was clearly traumatic and clearly wrong. I knew it was wrong the minute they started.

Tell her she just lost the debate if she refuses to actually watch the truth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by momto3boys
She won't watch the video. What a coward. Tell her so, PLEASE! Just because babies survived the Holocost and don't remember it doesn't mean it was an ok thing to do! Just because children survived Rwanda and don't remember it doesn't mean its ok to do. Just because Kara Shepard doesn't remember her sexual abuse at 6 months of age doesn't mean it was ok to do. Just because my son doesn't remember his circ at 12 hours old doesn't mean it was ok to do. I know it was clearly traumatic and clearly wrong. I knew it was wrong the minute they started.

Tell her she just lost the debate if she refuses to actually watch the truth.
I thought about responding, but I'm not going to waste my time. Her eyes are closed, and she is choosing to live in denial. It's sad. I did respond to the email in my OP...it was lengthy and full of facts to refute every one of her claims. I hope she responds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,622 Posts
I don't think it's anywhere near the same thing personally... but circumcision was practiced in the US, I believe largely to deal with female "hysteria." Also to prevent masturbation. I don't think male circumcision is practiced because modern medicine believes that men are hysterical. I also don't believe that male circumcision reduces rates of masturbation in men.

Honestly I believe if you want to make an argument against circumcision, you're better off choosing another tact. Female circumcision in much of the world is done to keep women in their place, and the equivalent is not true of men, especially not in our male dominated society. Newborn pain is a more compelling argument to me.

BTW my husband says he doesn't remember; I've asked him repeatedly as I think it is interesting. Which doesn't mean btw that I think the pain of a child is less relevant just because they don't remember it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,732 Posts
Well, I am in possesion of a 100 year old AMERICAN book for "homemakers" It teaches a woman how to be a lady, get married, etc. It has information on diseases and so on. And it discusses circumcision-for males and FEMALES. It is referred to as the same procedure for boys and girls. It is to be done if they are caught touching themselves in any way.
Yes, it clearly states this. Iwill drag it out later and give the name and direct qute.

The book is extremely interesting and alot of it is informative-albeit some of it scary!

I call FGM America's dirty little secret...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,212 Posts
BTW, for all of you intactivists, Secret Wounds is a book you really need to own. (It also has a chapter on MGM and a chapter on intersex surgery as well as talking about FGM in America.)

Female circ wasn't just to prevent masturbation; in a lot of cases it was to make the girl "look better" if she had a longer-than-average clit, for example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by prettypixels
I don't think it's anywhere near the same thing personally... but circumcision was practiced in the US, I believe largely to deal with female "hysteria." Also to prevent masturbation. I don't think male circumcision is practiced because modern medicine believes that men are hysterical. I also don't believe that male circumcision reduces rates of masturbation in men.

Honestly I believe if you want to make an argument against circumcision, you're better off choosing another tact. Female circumcision in much of the world is done to keep women in their place, and the equivalent is not true of men, especially not in our male dominated society. Newborn pain is a more compelling argument to me.

BTW my husband says he doesn't remember; I've asked him repeatedly as I think it is interesting. Which doesn't mean btw that I think the pain of a child is less relevant just because they don't remember it.
I agree with you on every point. I was equating the two as equally horrendous, as equally painful, as equally uneccessary. The arguement in the thread was that male circ in painless and no big deal...a neccessity. Female circ is evil and wrong...oppressive to women...which I agree with...and I feel the same about male circ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,360 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by bebesho2
Well, I am in possesion of a 100 year old AMERICAN book for "homemakers" It teaches a woman how to be a lady, get married, etc. It has information on diseases and so on. And it discusses circumcision-for males and FEMALES. It is referred to as the same procedure for boys and girls. It is to be done if they are caught touching themselves in any way.
Yes, it clearly states this. Iwill drag it out later and give the name and direct qute.

The book is extremely interesting and alot of it is informative-albeit some of it scary!

I call FGM America's dirty little secret...
Cool! That would be interesting to read.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top