E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Florian Seefried / Getty Images
Model and writer Waris Dirie, shown in 2010, is an advocate against female genital mutilation.
In 1970, when Waris Dirie was a 5-year-old in Somalia, her mother held her down on a rock. She gave her a piece of root from an old tree.
"Bite on this," she said. Her mother leaned over and whispered: "Try to be a good girl. Be brave for Mama, and it will go fast." Then, an old woman who was with them in the African bush cut off parts of her genitals with a broken razor blade.
With this graphic description, in her 1997 book "Desert Flower" an international bestseller, Dirie became one of the leading activists in a global campaign against female genital mutilation, or FGM — a practice that millions of girls are subjected to each year.
On Thursday, in a major victory for that campaign, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a global ban on FGM.
The resolution urges the 193 U.N. member states to condemn the practice, and to launch educational campaigns to eliminate it. It urges all countries to enact and enforce legislation to prohibit FGM, to protect women and girls "from this form of violence" and to end impunity for violators. Although not legally binding, UN General Assembly resolutions carry considerable moral and political weight.
Activists hailed the U.N. move.
"This an important moment for everyone engaged in the fight against FGM — and most particularly for all the girls and women who have been affected by this grotesque practice," said José Luis Díaz, U.N. representative for the non-profit rights group Amnesty International, which was among the groups that pushed for the resolution.
"The UN resolution places FGM in a human rights framework and calls for a holistic approach, stressing the importance of empowerment of women, promotion and protection of sexual and reproductive health and breaking the cycle of discrimination and violence.”
The procedure, as detailed in Dirie’s book, is often crude, painful and dangerous — leading to many fatal infections.
After cutting her genitals, the old woman used "thorns from the Acacia tree to puncture holes in my skin, then poked a strong white thread through the holes to sew me up,” she wrote. “My legs were completely numb, but the pain between them was so intense that I wished I would die."
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
"Lying there alone with my legs still tied, I could do nothing but wonder, why? What was it all for? At that age I didn’t understand anything about sex. All I knew was that I had been butchered with my mother’s permission."
Dirie fled her Somali community, and an arranged marriage, at 13, and went on to become a top model, and an actress in one of the James Bond movies. In 2002 she set up Desert Flower Foundation in Vienna to support her work against FGM.
FGM is often undertaken to reinforce traditional beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behavior, according to the World Health Organization. Many communities believe the process, also called female circumcision, reduces a woman's libido and therefore reduces the chances of her engaging in premarital or extramarital sex.
When a vaginal opening is closed off or narrowed through the process, the pain of opening it, and the fear that it would be found out, is considered further deterrent to "illicit" sexual intercourse.
Though no major religious writings prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support. Religious leaders take varying positions with regard to FGM: some promote it, some consider it irrelevant to religion, and others condemn it and contribute to its elimination.
The World Health Organization estimates that about 140 million girls and women worldwide are living with the consequences of FGM. In Africa, an estimated 92 million girls age 10 and older have undergone FGM.
Watch the Top Videos on NBCNews.com
Amnesty International estimates 3 million girls face FGM each year. The group says the practice is commonplace in 28 countries in Africa, as well as in Yemen, Iraq, Malaysia, Indonesia and in certain ethnic groups in South America. It also occurs in among immigrant communities, including those in Europe and the United States, though it is unclear how frequently.
Thursday’s U.N. resolution could have a significant impact on halting FGM, according to Amy Fairbairn, director of communications for Tostan, a non-profit development organization working in Africa. But because FGC is a social norm in some countries and regions, she believes change requires more work on the grassroots level. (The organization prefers to use term "female genital cutting" because it is less judgmental.)
"The ban reaffirms an important message that the international community does not believe female genital cutting should continue," she said. "At the country level, it may help more countries to look at this practice and to look at the most effective ways of approaching it."
She said that Tostan promotes the end to GFC within communities as part of an overall human rights program, which generates more homegrown incentive for change.
"There is tremendous progress under way," she said. "Most notably for us, there is historic progress in the growing movement to end FGC in West Africa, where to date nearly 6,000 communities have publicly abandoned the practice, over 5,000 of those in Senegal alone where the FGC-Free Senegal movement is really gaining momentum."
NBC News' Kari Huus contributed to this report.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Rumors of plot to sterilize Muslims spark killings
- Sending 'sympathy and love': Newtown's agony echoes in Scottish town
- Richard Engel, NBC News team freed from captors in Syria
- Video: It's so cold in Siberia, boiling water freezes
- 'Doomsday' prompts jokes, mass arrests in China
- Video: ‘Magical’ mountain is focus of doomsday cults
Leave a Comment:
When the day comes that human females on this planet are treated for what they are - human beings, rather than for what they are not - human property, practices like this will no longer exist, because there will simply no longer be any justification for it. For those that are yet to suffer from this brutal violation, that day cannot come soon enough.
But we have not specified a suitable punishment for the offenders. How about CASTRATION for the clerics who advocate this barbarity and castration for the fathers who permit this practice to be inflicted on their daughters? A few judicious 'cuts' on the male side would clean up this nonsense real fast. Oh right, they'll say that it was the Mother's idea. Well, just shoot her along with the old crones who 'assisted' in the ritual.
Should be telling whether the useless UN gets that done before N. Korea nukes...or anything else for that matter...
Yep, "not legally binding" is going to help alot. Just like sending Blue Helmets into a war zone without weapons.
But.....the U.N. certainly carries some weight with the IMF, G-7, C-8, and G-20 financial terrorists when they go to Member Nations DEMANDING more money for World redistribution.
End the U.N. and send them packing from NYC to France.
It's 2012....The U.N. was founded in 1945.....and they are just getting around to this ???....What have they been doing lo these many decades.....besides racking up $$ Millions in parking tickets in NYC and going to all those Fine Dining establishments ....
Just wait till P.0bama becomes U.N. Secretary General ...he'll fix the world just like he fixed Amerika.....
We'll go to war over oil but not for female genital mutilation? It's hard to believe this is 2012 and this is happening.
Next up is male genital mutilation (circumcision). All arguments applied to stopping this from happening to little girls apply to boys as well:) Thank you UN!
Schmeckt,
Take a minute to read about FGM and then go look at male circumcision. There are no benefits for the first and quite a few for the second. Not to mention, it's actually medically necessary in some instances.
Hey Disgruntled; I still wear my "hoodie" and if one showers daily, and washs that little worm well...NO problems. And I'm seventy-five.. And washing it can be fun!
The foreskin evolved for a reason. There is nothing healthy or beneficial by having it removed. Australia went from almost no males being circumcised to the majority being circumcised and back again with no population evidence of ANY benefit to circumcision.
Wow, the UN is really a humanitarian organization. What next? no more drawn and quartering?
Does it matter what the UN says? All you need to know is that Iran is on the Human Rights Committee. If you have to ask what that has to do with anything, then you are truly living in a vacuum.
Do you even know what they are doing to these girls? They are cutting off their clitoris which denies them the ability to achieve orgasm! Would you like to give up that pleasure? I'll bet not!!
Removing a males foreskin actually enhances sexual feeling and hygiene! What woman wants to have sex with a man who's penis is full of smegma? GROSS!!!!!
@ Kevin
What on Earth make you think that natural penises are full of smegma? Did you know that the female genitalia is a high capacity smegma factory that makes the uncut penis seem like an antiseptic heaven?
I don't know about you... but I've never been with a woman with a smegma problem because I only date women who take showers. I think women should do the same and only date men who take showers. I seems that a lot of circumcised men think that circumcision is a substitute for soap and water. EWWW... GROSS!!!
Why is it that women are always the ones persecuted " because of their sexuality". Every backward society demands woman to be the one that carries the burden of "not attracting "a man"s" desire. While their "men" indulge themselves in little boys and goats. These ignorant people are exactly what we can expect HERE when the teabag religious fanatics convince enough OF OUR IGNORANT people that THEIR brand of fear and faith is what everyone should believe in.
@Kevin that is not preciely true. Women have what are known as vaginal orgasms as well. But clitoral orgasms are pretty awesome as well :) But back to the issue...
I cannot believe that some men here are have the audacity to compare circumscision to to FGM. There is no comparison. What they are doing lessens not only the woman's pleasure, but her libido as well by making the act of intercourse painful. I have been with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. Neither had an "issue" with either their libido or their sexual pleasure. Someone here posted a study that sex with an uncut man is more pleasurable to women....please give me the link. I have PERSONALLY noticed no difference between the two. However for me, performing oral sex was more pleasurable with a circumcised man, much fewer odor and taste issues, and while some men might be very fastidious with keeping themselves very clean...many are not. I have noticed that trend with some Europeans I have been with.
But the bottom line is both cirucmcised and umcircumcised men have had no problem with functioning sexually...unlike mutilated women. So let's quit being meldramatic guys...there is no comparison.
I can understand drawing correlations between FGM and circumcision, but this is about FGM. This is about women and young girls being butchered in unsanitary conditions by people with no medical knowledge wielding broken glass and razor blades.
There will be a time for a dialogue on circumcision, but this forum really isn't it. It seems to demean what these girls and women have gone through by going,"Well, see, boys have it rough too."
@ Magical
Nobody has said that circumcised men cannot experience sexual pleasure, the same way that you have admitted that sexual pleasure is possible for a woman without a clitoris in your first sentence. I think we both would agree that the range and intensity of pleasure experienced by a woman with a clitoris is greater and I would argue the same is true for a man with a foreskin. I think that rationally we can also agree that a woman without a clitoris does not know what she is missing, the same way that a circumcised men doesn't either. They both believe that their sexual experience is the maximum possible... but we know it's not.
In YouTube there are many videos of women who underwent FMG who loudly proclaim it cleaner, healthier and does not affect sexual pleasure. As a man I could argue that oral sex with a circumcised woman is better because there is less odor and some women are less fastidious about keeping themselves clean than other. How does that make you feel? Does that justify FMG?
As far as the study, here is the link:
ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.abstract
You'll have to add the standard beginning because I don't know how to post a link here.
West how can you perform oral sex on a clitoris that isn't there? The clitoris resembles the penis in makeup with a gland at the head and a shaft made fof erectile tissue that enlarges when stimulated. All the issues I have heard of men having problems with a woman's taste or smell is usually due to odor coming from her vagina not her clitoris. However, pubic hair is also a culprit to odor. So your comparison is neither rational or relevant. Cut off a man's penis and you will have a more apt "comparison". And for your information....FGM also cuts and sews the vagina as well......tyvm.
@ Magical
A major source of odor in women are the folds of the labia and the hood of the clitoris which produce smegma much more liberally than a foreskin. My oral sex example was just to show how selfish your concern about ending up with the odd unclean man is.
Let me just say that a man who knows what he's doing, knows that oral sex is more than just attacking the clitoris. It about making love to her genitalia with your lips, including the labia and the vaginal opening. Some women actually find direct stimulation of the clitoris uncomfortable until the moment is right.
You can right click on the link I provided to see the abstract of the study you requested. On the right hand side of that page there's a link to the full study.
They are demented and Very Evil Criminals who try to destroy a Woman's Feminine Center by FGM. Can WE, The Normal Concerned Loving World Tolerate such Evil beings running loose and committing FGM at will? NO. Hunt them down, Collar them and like the common criminals they are, Imprison them for Life, NO Parole, so they cannot harm anymore Innocent Girls or Women.
Male circumcision is NOT the same as clitorectomy. Putting it bluntly, if male circumcision destroyed sexual feelings, there would be NOOOO problems in the Middle East. That's because there would be no people there.
@ Cassandra
No one is arguing they are the same; the argument is that they are morally and ethically the same. They both remove the most sensitive part of the sexual organs of men and women. The foreskin is the most enervated and therefore most sensitive part of the penis, the same way as the clitoris is the most enervated and sensitive part of the female genitalia.
The same way that no one has the right to hack away at the genitals of a girl without her consent, neither does anyone have a right to hack away at the genitals of a boy. In the interest of equality and justice any ban on circumcision should apply to both sexes.
Witchrunner - You are half-right; the U.N. is basically ineffectual in promoting anything positive, or preventing anything negative. But it is a mystery why you drag Iran into the discussion. If you had read the article, you'd note that Iran is not one of the nations mentioned where this practice is common:
You cannot hang every problem in this world on Iran.
I don't think that is what is being said. My thing is how can one be a "barbaric" practice, but not the other? I don't think either are such horrible things, but of course this is just another instance of cultural imperialism where the cultural practices of, in this particular case, Africans are put up for showcase as a means to make their culture seem backwards and deficient. I don't think these organizations give a damn about these women. If they did, you would see representatives from these groups affected prominent in their organizations (but you don't).
Because one is the actual removal of most or all of the external genitalia on woman, which even if it were done in a sterile environment, by a trained surgeon would be both barbaric and unnecessary. The other, male circumcision, is the removal a non-essential piece of skin from the tip of the penis. This missing piece of skin does not factor in the male orgasm, and its removal may help prevent the spread of infection.
To be equivalent to the female circumcision, a male circumcision would have to entail removal of all or most of the penis. Perhaps in theory, you could still father a child, but you certainly wouldn't enjoy sex.
"Removing a males foreskin actually enhances sexual feeling"
No it doesnt. It was specifically invented to do the opposite of that,
Tahiri - Given that neither you, nor anybody else was around when this practice was "invented", I'd say that was a pretty silly statement. Obviously nobody can know what level of sexual pleasure anybody else derives from their sexual activities. But I've heard of no studies which support your statement, and you've provided none.
The male circumcision may or may not be necessary. But it does little harm to the individuals who undergo it.
The female circumcision, however...?
If that had been done to me, especially as a helpless child, as an adult I would probably seek out vengeance on whomever I held responsible. It is an unthinkable barbarity.
WTH! Were not talking about someone removing the skin off of the clitoris. Were talking about them removing the WHOLE clitoris and usually the surrounding tissue also! That is equivilent to cutting off the head of your penis not the foreskin!!!!!!! How can you compare the two? It also does NOT matter that you THINK a woman could still have vaginal orgasm! Why would this EVER be done? Some jealous possive ignorant MEN got together and decided that they thought they would try and control these women so they wouldn't try to do what THEY might do and stray! This will not stop them anyway! I'm sure these are the sane men that decided to make some women cover themselves to the point that they can barely see to funtion! This is ALL about the men and their insecurities! Disgusting!!! I'm glad my husband is secure enough in himself that he doesn't feel like he would have to put me in a box to keep me. You can't keep someone that doesn't want to be kept no matter what you do!
Move to iran and say that loud three times.
Lets not forget about male genital mutilation also known as circumcision.
For the equivalent mutilation, the whole penis would be cut off.
Circumcision is nothing like grotesque practice for God sake's.
Most women like to look at dickheads without pulling down...or are you a virgin?
I tend to agree with Dion in both cases the child often awake and with out pain killers has part of their genitalia cut off. If you can't see the comparison then I am at a loss for you both.
I don't see any problem with male circumcision. My little pecker works great and I certainly don't mind having less skin than some people. My wife prefers the manicured type but each to his own. FGM is harmful without a doubt and makes a significant difference for years and possibly a lifetime. Male to female circumcision is not an apples to apples comparison.
And let's not forget knuckleheads who can't stay on topic. And I have yet to find a woman who prefers a uncircumcised member. Cue every single woman below to say how much they hate circumcised men.
justoneguy, An erect penis, whether circumcised or not, looks pretty much the same. The foreskin retracts on erection. The only way a woman would have to pull it down is if the guy cannot get it up. I think it would be interesting to do a study of older men to see who needs Viagra, the circumcised or the normal. I have always thought of the circumcised as those poor kids who were so ugly at birth that they had to have cosmetic surgery.
@Dale and @ Jenny
Actually a study published by the Oxford Journal of Epidemiology has already shown that circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to suffer from ED, so it's not surprising that the US by far consumes the most Viagra in the world, and that Israel is the #1 importer of Viagra. Another study found that women experience more satisfaction and orgasms with uncut men, so keeping your foreskin is a win-win situation.
Yes, there are varying degrees of mutilation. But most of them involve removing the clitoris and sometimes the labia completely and suturing up the resulting mess. So, FGM is a form of castration that usually removes or severely limits female pleasure. This is nothing like male circumcision which merely removes a flap of skin without affecting the organ in any significant way.
@ world_observer
Calling the foreskin a "flap" just shows you don't know much about it. It has 20,000 nerve endings sensitive to stretching and pressure (more nerves than the clitoris, actually). It also has a mechanical function during intercourse which in only rare cases, does away with any need for artificial lubricants for vaginal sex. Having sex without a foreskin has been compared to seeing the world in black and white as opposed to seeing it in color.
Before someone says they're already sensitive enough without a foreskin and that they think that having a foreskin affects "endurance" negatively, let me just say that even accounting for individual differences, and even though it sounds counter-intuitive; having more sensation gives you more control.
I'm just curious how all of you circumcised men can be so sure you're not 'missing anything' when you haven't had the opportunity to experience sex with it? why can't you recognize that you have been socially conditioned to view your body in it's natural condition as being disgusting, and only acceptable once it's been mutilated? and Jenny Wernerr, yes there are women who don't have a problem with a clean intact male. the sex is actually better for both parties. maybe you should have your labia trimmed off without your permission, then listen to men tell you how much more attractive your mutilated organs are and that you would be disgusting and un&^%#able in your natural state. don't presume to speak for educated adult women. and this is absolutely on topic in my and many other's opinion.
Allie, there are men who've chosen to be circumcized as adults and after they had become sexually active. Ask them.
As far as self body image and surgery, ask an applicable woman why she needed to change her natural state to larger breasts. These women are not hard to spot in the L.A. area, and there are quite a few of them there. Ask any one of them. My first visit to CA south of the SF Bay area was to Simi Valley, and it was then that I realized that they named the wrong place "silicon valley."
Yes it's only a "little" mutilation and it is for men it is ok. Why the double standard world?
And men getting circumsized because they want to be "normal" like everyone else. Going through this now with my son, he is awkward because he isn't circumsized
This is a violent and hideous practice probably conceived originally by primal Neandrethal alpha males. What's more perplexing to me in this story is why one woman would do it to another. Especially a child of 5. This is unimaginable to me on so many levels.
Annie, I think your term "neanderthal" is a good choice.
Actually there is an interesting event/story in the Old Testament. The short (no pun) version is the Israelites convinced an enemy king to have all males circumcised, young and old (in response to atrocious and violent sexual assaults by this enemy IIRC, the king's son had led the mob to do so.) The passage says that a day or so later, when the men were "sore" the Israelites attacked and "smote them with the edge of the sword" and conquered that enemy. I don't recall ever hearing that story as a child in Sunday school, (for obvious reasons, I guess)and when I came across it and read it I choked laughing. Would make a great movie script, LOL.
Typical Greek-worry about yourself. You must be cut.
Hooray the UN has declared no more mutilation of women.. Since when does dictators and tribal leaders give a crap what the UN says or does. they have no power to enforce anything. I'm sure all those warlords and dictators are shaking in there boots...
The only thing the UN does is bleed country's with monies dry. The only thing about the UN is ALL leaders can visit together on neutral ground to discuss things.. just think if the UN was not in NY but anywhere else NOBODY would be safe.
Remember we have JACK BAUER CTU
I am always amazed at what barbaric measures we humans can do to other humans.I just don't get the thought process that comes with mutilating someone in the name religion or any other fictitious reason
Might as well call for a ban on the wind to stop blowing.
Well let's see, we won't sign treaties on climate change (because the UN wants to crush our economy), we won't sign treaties on the voluntary tracking of international military arms sales (because the UN wants to disarm us), we won't even read UN pamphlets describing sustainable practices for cities (because bike lanes and green spaces are clearly communist plots to control our nation and instill the new world order), we won't sign treaties modeled after our own Americans with Disabilities Act that urges nations to follow our lead on civil rights for disabled people (because having people do things the way we do them is a violation of our sovereignty), so what the hell makes anybody think that we will sign onto a treaty that urges people not to mutilate young girls genitals (because clearly that would be totalitarianism)?
It is a sad commentary on the small mindedness and provincial focus of American leaders. I have no doubt that they will come up with some hyperbolic excuse to not ratify this treaty.
radagast.....
Don't bet on it....just remember who is sitting in the Oval office and who is our U.N. Ambassador. However, when our Ambassador votes YEA on those treaties.....it still has to be ratified by Congress.....uh oh....guess who is the head honcho in the Senate....yep, Mr. Pocket Veto Reid who will agree to probably anything the U.N. dishes out but will "closet" any House legislation.
I would have assumed they did this a long time ago.
Well that was a sexist article about a sexist resolution.
Is this really any different then circumcising a man's organ.
Very much so. FGM can cause problems for a lifetime where my little pecker is still going strong with absolutely no problem.
Well Disgruntled, I had a J.A.P wife (as in Jewish American Princess) She used to play peek-a-boo with my willy!. Now, seriously, circumcision is beneficial, probably necessary for a third world country. How frequently did Ossama, or does an Ayatollah ever shower? Showers, bathtubs are quite rare in some countries. But the decision was made for you, probably by your mom or a physician in order to encrease his income. You will never be able to compare the sensation of with....or without!
Circumcision? How about MGM
Yours truly was raised in USSR, where circumcision was illegal.
When I came to USA and became free to practice Judaism, I got circumcised.
The process itself was not pleasant, but once I recovered, my life became better beyond belief.
I was, however, aware of the fact that for a baby, the recovery process would be much faster, not to mention, I would not even remember the experience.
Made me really wish my parents were a bit more daring and had me circumcised when I was a baby.
Circumcision is a very beneficial medical procedure, and only someone completely ignorant could call it "mutilation".
Actually men who have been circumcised are more likely to suffer from ulceration of the head of the penis and erectile dysfunction later in life.
I think the issue in both cases are that this is carried out on children who do not have a choice. The poster above was an adult and could give clear permission.
This is a similar situation no matter how people like to paint it in both cases children are forced to have regions of their genitalia removed.
Many people don't believe in vaccination, but you wont ask vaccinations to be put off until kids grow up, will you?
Sometimes decision has to be made by parents.
Even if some don't believe in benefits of a procedure, that's not the ground to compare it to downright crippling.
Bill, what's the difference in giving a rambunctious child a swat on the butt while s/he is still fully clothed and hauling him/her across your lap, pulling down the pant/ies and smacking said bare butt with vigor for a long, long time ??????????
speaking of female genital mutilation, where is hillary clinton and why wont she testify?
Circumcision, castration and female genital mutilation are primitive forms of cultural depravity, practiced the world over. Most of this insanity is based on religious delusions. There seems to be little hope for meaningful social evolution as long as people are bound by their superstitions.
Those of you who question the depravity of this act need to educate yourselves. You must be complete idiots. It is NOT like circumcision
It is EXACTLY like circumcision! It is the same corresponding tissues which are removed. Link
I don't think anyone is questioning the depravity of female circumcision. Just pointing out that male circumcision, while probably less depraved, should also be banned for the same basic reasons.
No, Dale. The coresponding tissue would be the "head" of your penis. Not the forskin.
More like all of it.
The ritual described here completely takes away woman's ability to enjoy sex. Apparently, that's the way to make sure that wife never cheats. Although, it's completely beyond me why someone would want a wife who does not react in bed.
Circumcision, on the other hand, not only leaves a man not only perfectly capable of enjoyment, but actually increases performance. (Ladies, be sure to take a note of that.)
Ladies take note of what? Here's the best part, you have part of your dick cut off. I don't. I will always enjoy sex more than you, and you can't even imagine it because you lost it before you could even feel it. Here's the deal, you're mutilated, you can't accept it. Not my problem. Now I do have a problem with you promoting it though, because just because you are the product of a dumb choice, doesn't mean morons need to follow in your/parents mistake.
I absolutely hate religion, and all you dumb pricks.
Come on its is the same in both cases children have pieces of their genitalia removed with out permission and often with out any form of pain mitigation.
Also interesting people seem to think of the female genitalia as just the clitoris. So some how its the same as men. If we want to take nerve ending the foreskin has many times more nerve endings as the clitoris and circumcised men are twice as likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and 7 times more likely to suffer from ulceration of the head of the penis and infection by HPV.
FGM not only involves often removing the clitoris, but parts of the labias, and can also include sewing the vagina closed or mostly closed so that not only is intercourse painful, but childbirth is excrutiating as well (more so than normal). FGM is NOT like circumcision, as far as parts are concerned. The only thing that makes them similar is the often lack of decision-making input from the children involved.
@Mnabi
Bingo! Your last statement is the crux of the entire discussion. Circumcision is performed WITHOUT the consenst of the person being mutilated, both male and female! If an adult wants to be circumcised, it's their choice. NOT so for the infant.
My question for all of you Pro-infant circumcisors is......What is so lacking in your lives that you so desparetely need to have power and control over someone else's genitalia? Why do you feel that you have the right to permanetly alter someone else's sexual experience, without recourse for restoration to nature's original design and intent, once they become an adult?
Sexual mutilation of others, without consent, is a mental sickness and a crime. I Challenge all of you, go out and try to sexually mutilate an adult, against their will, and see if you are not charged with commiting a heinous sexual crime! And yet you do it to children both male and female......SICK, SICK, SICK!
I can answer only on behalf of the Jewish community.
The decision weather a boy should be circumcised is made by his parent and no one else. It is not about power over his sexual lives, parents make the decision either because they believe that it's best for his health or because they believe that's necessary to raise him in their own faith, the same way good Christians perform christening ritual on their children at birth without asking their permission.
Since when is it a crime to do what you consider best for your child?
In turn, I have to ask you and the rest of anti-circumcision crowd what is so lacking in your life that you feel the need to infringe on someone else's right to decide what's best for their children.
Here in USA we have made a decision to legalize abortion. Parents actually get to decide weather or not their children should exist. Shouldn't circumcision feel like no-big deal compared to that?
My last 3 boyfriends (over the past 10 years) were all uncut. When not "up" those things are some kind-of ugly to look at, but they are more naturally lubricated. No difference than "cut" for sexual pleasure.
I am sure that in these countries that the men are behind this practice. Very typical. A man can run around and have sex with multiple partners but if a woman has more than one partner she is a whore and a slut. ETC. It is a double standard, I don't think it will change over nite. Men think with their penis' all the time. It is sicken.
Boys arent forced to lie down on a rock in the middle of the jungle to have theirs done. That is the point that everyone is missing. Also, I've heard ladies talk at work, etc. They think, on the average, that un-cut looks ugly and nasty. I didn't take part in the conversation, because I don't like to put my "business" out like that. Just keep that in mind guys, pull that skin down before showing it to a new sexual conquest. They might freak out and run. lol
Circumcising either a Girl OR a Boy is WRONG,Yes Mutilating a little girl is VERY wrong but Children are human beings,let them descide when there of age what they want done to there bodies!
The laws state putting a tattoo on a underage child is wrong and you go to jail if you do it but aggreeing with circumcision is just Wrong in so many ways!!!
Female circumcision WHO: "Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."
Male circumcision: Is a procedure that intentionally alters the male genital organ for non-medical reasons.
There really isn't much difference except that a couple of accepted widespread religions push/require male circumcision.
reposting:
This is more like castration.
Still got all the bits I was born with and so have my children. We are not wanderers in a desert climate where there may have been some justification for such a barbaric practice due to lack of water for washing. Wife of 45 years has no complaints at least not verbalised.
The principles of human rights and personal autonomy that make a ban on female circumcision morally and legally compelling apply equally to the circumcision of male babies. Let all children grow up intact. If for some reason they want to get circumcised once they are old enough to consent, they can have at it by all means.
People need to keep their traps shut and quit trying to draw comparisons to male circumcision, for no other reason but to drum up conflict. When something really bad occurs just say "sorry, that shouldn't happen anymore" and move on. No need to bring your pet peeve into the discussion; it just looks and feels heartless and mean. Put another way, STFU and get real when there's a no brainer tragedy occurring.
To say nothing of the fact that male circumcision is nothing at all like female circumcision.
Anyone who would draw that comparison knows absolutely nothing about female sexual organs. Either they're young and inexperienced (or old and inexperienced), or they went to one of those schools that put stickers in the textbooks to hide the naughty parts.
Or they still think the stork brings babies.
@-god
Anyone who doesn't see the moral equivalency of FMG and male circumcision are deluding themselves because they cannot accept the fact that their genitals are mutilated. Both procedures are totally unnecessary and done without the consent of the person affected. Both have a detrimental effect on the person's sexuality. Both are intended to curb "masturbation" and sexual feelings (circumcision was hailed as a "cure" to masturbation when introduced in the US) and both remove the most sensitive parts of the sexual organs of both the male and female.
Closing your eyes and burying your head in the sand wont change the facts.
Westwest; Wish I could vote your comment up by ten! Well stated!
You guys really need to learn some basic anatomy. Seriously.
Do you guys even know anyone who is circumcised?
Circumcision does not have a detrimental effect on sexuality, quite the opposite.
Circumcision has nothing to do with masturbation (certainly does not prevent it), it is done to reduce the chance of various diseases.
What's described here could be called "female castration" not "circumcision".
@ Eli100
Since you are Jewish, let me cite the Torah scholar and Jewish sage Moises Maimonides:
In the "Guide to the Perplexed" Part III Chapter 49 Maimonides said: "The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable."
Later on that same chapter, he emphasizes the importance of not letting Jewish women experience sex with natural men because they would find it difficult to give up their uncut lovers.
The sage Maimonides knew centuries ago what we know for a fact today. Here is a scientific study published by an Oxford journal that finds that circumcision not only affects men, but also the pleasure that women experience during sex. Highlight and right click on the link.
ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.full
Of course circumcision doesn't "cure" masturbation, but that doesn't change the fact that it was promoted as a "cure" in the XIX century until it was proven bogus. Circumcision has been a cure looking for a disease for centuries. All the supposed benefits of circumcision are for rare and unlikely problems that can be easily treated non-surgically.
The thing about Torah scholars is that they never agree on anything.
They are the reason for the expression "two Jews - three opinions".
Just because I am Jewish doesn't mean that I base my life on the judgment of Sages.
My opinion on circumcision is based on personal experience which includes both being circumcised and being uncircumcised.
I seriously doubt that you can say the same.
Very interesting that no mention of the fact that is only MUSLIMS who perform this barbaric act on women in this article. I haven't seen one comment acknowledge this fact either - all i see is a bunch of idiots totally missing the point and getting sidetracked with circumcision which is NOT the same thing. No we are not supposed to say such things because we must be politically correct and not acknowledge the fact that the "religion" of Islam treats women and girls worse than dirt. They are routinely stoned to death, have acid thrown in their faces resulting in permanent disfiguration, they are routinely gang raped, honor killed, have their genitals mutilated,they are brutally beaten and tortured, forced to become child brides etc. Nope. No mention of this by the hypocritical NOW. Just crickets is all we hear. No wer are supposed to go around saying that the "religion" of Islam is equal to that of any other religion and to say otherwise is to be an Islamophobe and a bigot. Islam is a barbaric religion that does not belong in a civilized society. Muslims continue to act as though they are living in the 7th century and should be treated as such. Go ahead and attack me and call me a racist and a bigot and whatever. I have heard it all before and quite frankly at this point it bores me. The truth is the truth and no amount of name calling will change what these people really are which is savages.
The practice is primarily but not exclusively associated with Muslims, but it is not part of the Muslim faith. It is not mentioned in the Quran at all. It is the practice that is despicable and deserves to be condemned, your apparent hatred for Muslims notwithstanding.
My limited knowledge tags it as a Judaism rite. The only person at a "Bris" who isn't having fun...is the victim.
Yes Woodysr,
You clearly do have very limited knowledge.
The practice in Africa and the Middle east is prevalent in Christian, Muslim and pagan religions of the region. It predates Christianity. It leads to painful sex, bleeding and infection throughout the women's life. Please leave religious hatred out.
rhcrest <<<~~~~~>>> Time to switch thumbs !!! Among those who have spoken out against female mutilation>>>>> The Prophet Mohammad. The practice was wide spread in certain parts of Africa and Asia for thousands of years before the birth of Mohammad and the subsequent birth of Islam. Unfortunately, although The Prophet did, indeed, condemn the practice, he did not emphasize his condemnation enough. Perhaps (This is a sheer guess on my part; does anyone out there have any information?), because it was not common in his particular neck of the woods. But, I digress! Sadly, the little tin godlets, many (not all) of the imams of Islam, many of whom, like Cafeteria Catholics and like certain other Christians ---Westboro, anybody, Branch Dravians, Jim Jones etc, ad infintum---have created their own religion and not let little inconvenient facts as spoken in the Quran or the Bible get in their way.
This is good news. Change in such a deeply-seated custom has to come from within. Keep in mind, the women who do this to their daughters believe that they are only doing what is right, proper and expected.
Change is happening. And it’s good that the world, through the U.N., speaks up now as if to say, “We’re
telling you that in our collective experience as human beings on this earth, this custom isn’t necessary and it’s actually very bad.” It should help some to change expectations. The custom is bad. Causes lifelong health problems. Increases risk of mothers dying in childbirth, in places where women are already at high risk due to lack of modern health care to resolve breach births etc. Leaving husband without wives and children without mothers. The book Half the Sky has eye-opening information on the subject through voices of women directly involved.
This is good news. But male circumcision must also be banned.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Anyone who would draw that comparison knows absolutely nothing about female sexual organs. Either you're young and inexperienced (or old and inexperienced), or you went to one of those schools that put stickers in the textbooks to hide the naughty parts.
Don't worry about it. Go watch TV.
Both are Human right issues.
Oops! Don't make anything of my use of "husband" singular and wives plural in my previous post! That was typo. Intended "husbands and wives." Cultures where FGM is practiced aren't necessarily places where men typically have many wives. Reading some of the comments... You all who think this is a Muslim custom are wrong. It pre-dates the founding of Islam.
WOW!!! Another UN Resolution! Sure that means a lot. It is a cultural ritual performed for generations. It will not stop just because a bunch of worthless idiots want to pat themselves on the back. It will only stop when cultural norms are changed, through education and understanding.
Is it legitimate female genital mutilation? If so, the woman's body has ways to stop it from happening.
Just being sarcastic. Why would anyone have their women's genitals, ( clitoris ) cut off? 99% of the fun in sex is giving your partner pleasure, ( at least in my opinion ). Is this some sort of stupid male control thing? Trying to keep her from stepping out on you? Do the deed right, put her satisfaction first and you won't have to worry about it.
RLTW etc, I think removing an inflamed or infected gall bladder or appendix is great. removing a healthy piece of my body is a crime! My father was too cheap to pay an additional twenty-five cents in the 1930s....I am so lucky!
RLTW: I was wondering about that very thing. You'd think the men would take pride in having sexually-satisfied wives. But as long as women are chattel...
I used to work for an Egyptian man who said, "Behind every crime committed, there is a woman involved somehow."
How many porn stars do you see that are un-cut. Okay, thats what I thought. It just looks plain nasty! Cutting a girls privates all to hell at 5 years old in the middle of the jungle is primative and discusting.
But circumcision is ok because it's done by white men instead of African women.
It's OK, because it does not cripple you.
Male circumcision has been proven to have positive medical results. Not only is it much easier to keep clean, but it has also been shown that circumcised men are less likely to contract STDs, including HIV. Besides that is the fact that a dick with foreskin just looks nasty! Female circumcision on the other hand has show to have ZERO positive benefits to women and drastically curbs their sexual arousal. Why would any man what to have sex with a woman who couldn't enjoy it and would just lay there like a dead fish?
Comparing circumcision with a clean surgical knife to mutilation with a rusty dirty blade is like comparing walking into a pole to the pole falling on you.
I do not know where your head was when you typed this because it certainly wasn't here.
The author of this article made an ignorant statement and nobody has called him/her on it (Is Baluch M or F?)
The author stated, "Though no major religious writings prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support." This is patently false, unless one wants to discount one of the four primary legal jurists of Islam as insignificant and an author whose writings constitute "no major religious writing."
Imam Shafi'i wrote in his legal manual a direct prescription for this practice. The legal manual in Arabic is Umdat al-Salik; one can obtain a copy today in English under the title "Reliance of the Traveller."
Section e4.3 of this authoritative Islamic legal manual states:
English translation: Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men is consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert).
Arabic: Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called khufaad).
"The author of this article made an ignorant statement"
There's no need to be a jerk, just politely correct him