Egyptian Parliament Okays Female Genital Mutilation

[Oleg Bach]

You are really out there aren't you? You are exactly the type to accuse men of being mysogenists meanwhile it is quite obvious from that little outburst of yours that you are the one with an irrational hatred of men.

Nowhere did I equate the pain and long term damage caused by "female genital mutilation", or FGM as you call it, to what men experience as a result of being circumcised, and I certainly am not "whining" about being mutilated because I am not. Not that my personal state of wholeness, has any relevance to the conversation, but since in your emotional outburst you suggest that I am feeling sorry for myself, I feel it necessary to to point out that is absolutely ridiculous.

I am also not saying male circumcision can have no benefits or that some men might not be happy with it. I was simply pointing out the FACT that male circumcision is genital mutilation by definition. It may be socially acceptable genital mutilation in some areas of the world but it is nonetheless genital mutilation. Getting your ears pierced is also ear mutilation. Please don't rant at me for now comparing getting your ears pierced to having your clit mutilated because I never did that either. I'm not even against ear mutilation as long as the person getting pierced has consented to it. In fact I have several piercings myself.

Any surgical procedures that alter the body in any way should only be performed on people who have consented to the procedure, period. That includes genital mutilation of males as well as females. If a person wants to be circumsized when they are old enough to decide for themselves then by all means they should be free to have the procedure, but if it is not medically NECESSARY like heart surgery, etc then it should be elective and paid for by the patient, not the taxpayer.

I really think you were way out of line with this tirade against me, and certainly see why some others on this forum pretty much dismiss everything you say.

Once you have the spiffy term FGM in place all is lost. This spawning of a feminist cause with the ready to go acronim is defeatist...by abrivating the term you are doing a disservice to the woman you seek to protect. ...and how did we jump from butherous surgery to fashionable piercings? Jezzz..also don't accuse someone as having a hatred of men..I have never met a woman who hated a man..only woman who hated themselves because they were not a man..and if they were they could beat up woman.. seriously.....this issue is one about inflicting pain and scaring and the depriving of pleasure...being human we are entitled to the pleasure that nature has attatched to us...male and female...besides...all a penis is is a larger clitoris...have a good look some time...and imagine them taking you or your son an lopping of the head of your penis leaving just enought of the shaft to deliver sperm for breeding....these religious nuts are playing God...I have always said that religion is evil and God is good...damaging the genitals is not good.

[Wilber]

In that we are in 100% agreement.

Now I'm starting to get worried, I'm starting to see Olegh's POV.

Me to. Scary.

[scribblet]

What happens in another coutry may be disgusting to us - however - this is a country that makes their own rules.

Not much one can do about it other than complain.

Be glad you live where you do.

And life goes on.

Borg

Well, in that case I suppose we don't care about human rights (or lack thereof) in any country, who cares what they do. Maybe Canada should resign from the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

[Oleg Bach]

Well, in that case I suppose we don't care about human rights (or lack thereof) in any country, who cares what they do. Maybe Canada should resign from the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

The negative and hopeless attitude of the prvious writer is quiet scarey. Is this a sign of the future that we are slowly and incrimentally being conditioned and engineered to the point that murder for fun will become fashionable? Or that starving children being eaten by pit bulls will become a damned spectator sport..this mind set is brutal and if it grows - we will de-evolve into hell. You must care for others! If you do not...then perhaps you should speed your exit from the plantet and the human family. What good is a non caring human..they are the turely useless eaters because in their mind social canibalism or social auto-cannibalizm is exceptable..It's not so either contribute or jump of a bridge.

[scribblet]

In Canada it's all part of multiculturalism doncha know, all cultures are equal - who are we to question what to us is abuse.

[Oleg Bach]

In Canada it's all part of multiculturalism doncha know, all cultures are equal - who are we to question what to us is abuse.

Discrimination is an important part of high quality human survival. We are told not to judge between what is good for us and what is bad for us. If you do they attatch the word..discrimination..the word, language wise has been altered. I discriminate against white people and I am white. If I see my young adult children in association with jerks who will in my wise estimation bring them harm..they I discriminate and tell them that the person should be excluded..my liberally brainwashed kids then attack me for protecting their naive little asses - they say..dad..you are discrimation..you are a racists -etc...AND don't tell me that a culture where deception and dishonest are more acceptable is EQUAL..to a culture of forth rightness? Don't tell me that telling the turth and having vision is equal to blindly plodding along and suffering all sorts of social problems...I don't want other peoples problems..no matter what race or relgion - or culture...I do not have to embrace and respect a cuture that worships snakes or bows to the east as if they were ants all under the control of some big Mulah insect king.

[AngusThermopyle]

Or that starving children being eaten by pit bulls

Hey now! Don't diss the Pit Bulls.

I've owned two of them and they are fantastic dogs, they've become my favourite breed actually. They're gentle, affectionate, loving, loyal dogs, not some cartoonishly scary monster.

[Drea]

You are really out there aren't you? You are exactly the type to accuse men of being mysogenists meanwhile it is quite obvious from that little outburst of yours that you are the one with an irrational hatred of men.

Nowhere did I equate the pain and long term damage caused by "female genital mutilation", or FGM as you call it, to what men experience as a result of being circumcised, and I certainly am not "whining" about being mutilated because I am not. Not that my personal state of wholeness, has any relevance to the conversation, but since in your emotional outburst you suggest that I am feeling sorry for myself, I feel it necessary to to point out that is absolutely ridiculous.

I am also not saying male circumcision can have no benefits or that some men might not be happy with it. I was simply pointing out the FACT that male circumcision is genital mutilation by definition. It may be socially acceptable genital mutilation in some areas of the world but it is nonetheless genital mutilation. Getting your ears pierced is also ear mutilation. Please don't rant at me for now comparing getting your ears pierced to having your clit mutilated because I never did that either. I'm not even against ear mutilation as long as the person getting pierced has consented to it. In fact I have several piercings myself.

Any surgical procedures that alter the body in any way should only be performed on people who have consented to the procedure, period. That includes genital mutilation of males as well as females. If a person wants to be circumsized when they are old enough to decide for themselves then by all means they should be free to have the procedure, but if it is not medically NECESSARY like heart surgery, etc then it should be elective and paid for by the patient, not the taxpayer.

I really think you were way out of line with this tirade against me, and certainly see why some others on this forum pretty much dismiss everything you say.

You are absolutely right.

Rather than attacking you perhaps I should have realized that you were simply uneducated on the subject and had no idea what FGM involved.

I apologize. And now that you are now educated on the subject surely you can understand the huge difference between fgm and male circumcision.

My son was "done" at age 4... medical reasons... and let-me-tell-you it was a whole helluva lot worse for him than for a newborn infant.

Even at age 4, boys know how important their penises are and are afraid to lose them. Imagine the poor little girl, losing her womanhood -- girls have clitoral orgasms starting very very young, so chances are a little girl knows she is losing something important -- how horrid, how absolutely horrid.

At least my son got to go to the hospital, go under and have the surgery done painlessly, AND he gets to keep his sexual enjoyment -- unlike those poor girls...

[DrGreenthumb]

You are absolutely right.

Rather than attacking you perhaps I should have realized that you were simply uneducated on the subject and had no idea what FGM involved.

I apologize. And now that you are now educated on the subject surely you can understand the huge difference between fgm and male circumcision.

My son was "done" at age 4... medical reasons... and let-me-tell-you it was a whole helluva lot worse for him than for a newborn infant.

Even at age 4, boys know how important their penises are and are afraid to lose them. Imagine the poor little girl, losing her womanhood -- girls have clitoral orgasms starting very very young, so chances are a little girl knows she is losing something important -- how horrid, how absolutely horrid.

At least my son got to go to the hospital, go under and have the surgery done painlessly, AND he gets to keep his sexual enjoyment -- unlike those poor girls...

I was already educated on the subject and I never equated the practices. You just accused me of doing that. I actually agree with Oleg that you should not use the acronym FGM to describe it because it kind of lessons the horror of what occurs. Everyone should read the words female genital mutilation so they are forced to deal with the mental image the words create.

How do you know how bad it is for a newborn baby to have part of his penis surgically removed? They certainly can't put the baby "under" so he doesn't have to deal with the pain and fear.

Your son only got to go to the hospital because the surgery was legal, Drea otherwise it would have to have been done by a "religious leader", or other amateur instead of a doctor. Not being qualified anaesthesiologists they would have had to either try their best to drug him into submission, or maybe just have several grown men pin him down, while they removed his foreskin. He terror would certainly be pretty extreme as would his screams of pain. It wouldn't be like having a clitoris removed in terms of longterm denial of pleasure, more like having the hood of the clitoris removed. Still pretty terrifying to a little boy though.

Edited May 18, 2008 by DrGreenthumb

[Argus]

You are really out there aren't you? You are exactly the type to accuse men of being mysogenists meanwhile it is quite obvious from that little outburst of yours that you are the one with an irrational hatred of men.

Nowhere did I equate the pain and long term damage caused by "female genital mutilation", or FGM as you call it, to what men experience as a result of being circumcised

Yeah you did. You basically suggested it was the same thing, and that no one complained about "male genital manipulation" cause that takes place in (eek!) white societies. So yes, you were downplaying the damages and pain of female genital mutilation" and suggesting it was just racist to complain about it.

Could someone please just clarify one thing for me? How come nobody calls male circumcision "genital mutilation"? Seems to me that mutilation is mutilation regardless of the gender of the one being mutilated. Is it because male circumcision is largely done in white societies, or does it have more to do with the religion of the ones carrying out the mutilation?

You could have actually googled it first to see the difference, or you could admit now that you were wrong, but instead you're blustering ineffectively - which is about all you seem to know how to do.

[Drea]

I was already educated on the subject and I never equated the practices. You just accused me of doing that. I actually agree with Oleg that you should not use the acronym FGM to describe it because it kind of lessons the horror of what occurs. Everyone should read the words female genital mutilation so they are forced to deal with the mental image the words create.

True, using an acronym doesn't accurately describe how horrific it is.

When this topic comes up... it is not so we can discuss piercing a little girl's ears at 6 months old, nor is the topic about a procedure that (usually) causes no discernable longterm effects for an infant boy... it is to discuss the horror and longterm effects of female genital mutilation.

How do you know how bad it is for a newborn baby to have part of his penis surgically removed? They certainly can't put the baby "under" so he doesn't have to deal with the pain and fear.

I don't agree with male circumcision for the reasons you state... the infant boy does indeed feel the pain. I did not have my son done as a newborn.

He needed the surgery at age 4 because the foreskin would not open and he could not urinate without pain. His foreskin would "balloon" and the urine would trickle out very slowly.

Your son only got to go to the hospital because the surgery was legal, Drea otherwise it would have to have been done by a "religious leader", or other amateur instead of a doctor. Not being qualified anaesthesiologists they would have had to either try their best to drug him into submission, or maybe just have several grown men pin him down, while they removed his foreskin. He terror would certainly be pretty extreme as would his screams of pain.

As my son's was a medical (not aesthetic) issue, even if circumcision itself were illegal, the surgery would have been performed. The barbarians with hospitals still mutilate young girls for life. Even if the female genital mutilation is performed in hospital, it is no less horrific (the pain of the removal is only part of the horror these young girls go through).

It wouldn't be like having a clitoris removed in terms of longterm denial of pleasure, more like having the hood of the clitoris removed. Still pretty terrifying to a little boy though.

Having the hood of the clitoris removed would be horrific! Imagine every time you walk and your penis rubs against your underwear that your entire nerve endings were out in the open. That is what hood removal does. It exposes all the nerve endings. Have you never been touching a woman's clitoris and had her pull away because it was too much sensation? Imagine that every day all day forever. That it what hood removal does. It is not fun. A while back some doctor (here or in the states I can't remember) was "helping" women with their sex lives by removing their clitoral hoods. I think he was sued after he mangled a number of women.

[Oleg Bach]

True, using an acronym doesn't accurately describe how horrific it is.

When this topic comes up... it is not so we can discuss piercing a little girl's ears at 6 months old, nor is the topic about a procedure that (usually) causes no discernable longterm effects for an infant boy... it is to discuss the horror and longterm effects of female genital mutilation.

I don't agree with male circumcision for the reasons you state... the infant boy does indeed feel the pain. I did not have my son done as a newborn.

He needed the surgery at age 4 because the foreskin would not open and he could not urinate without pain. His foreskin would "balloon" and the urine would trickle out very slowly.

As my son's was a medical (not aesthetic) issue, even if circumcision itself were illegal, the surgery would have been performed. The barbarians with hospitals still mutilate young girls for life. Even if the female genital mutilation is performed in hospital, it is no less horrific (the pain of the removal is only part of the horror these young girls go through).

Having the hood of the clitoris removed would be horrific! Imagine every time you walk and your penis rubs against your underwear that your entire nerve endings were out in the open. That is what hood removal does. It exposes all the nerve endings. Have you never been touching a woman's clitoris and had her pull away because it was too much sensation? Imagine that every day all day forever. That it what hood removal does. It is not fun. A while back some doctor (here or in the states I can't remember) was "helping" women with their sex lives by removing their clitoral hoods. I think he was sued after he mangled a number of women.

Cultures that believe that God's design of the human body is evil or inferour...are and I love using this word - INFIDELS...They have no fidelity to reality...it's really hypocritial that so-called Muslim groups treat God with such disrespect and contempt...but of course they will say that it's the devil's design..and they forget that God made the devil also - good and evil and it is our game to sort it out---gives us something to do...Muslim men should learn to control themselves and not blame women for their own twisted and cowardly perception of woman.

[DrGreenthumb]

True, using an acronym doesn't accurately describe how horrific it is.

When this topic comes up... it is not so we can discuss piercing a little girl's ears at 6 months old, nor is the topic about a procedure that (usually) causes no discernable longterm effects for an infant boy... it is to discuss the horror and longterm effects of female genital mutilation.

I don't agree with male circumcision for the reasons you state... the infant boy does indeed feel the pain. I did not have my son done as a newborn.

He needed the surgery at age 4 because the foreskin would not open and he could not urinate without pain. His foreskin would "balloon" and the urine would trickle out very slowly.

As my son's was a medical (not aesthetic) issue, even if circumcision itself were illegal, the surgery would have been performed. The barbarians with hospitals still mutilate young girls for life. Even if the female genital mutilation is performed in hospital, it is no less horrific (the pain of the removal is only part of the horror these young girls go through).

Having the hood of the clitoris removed would be horrific! Imagine every time you walk and your penis rubs against your underwear that your entire nerve endings were out in the open. That is what hood removal does. It exposes all the nerve endings. Have you never been touching a woman's clitoris and had her pull away because it was too much sensation? Imagine that every day all day forever. That it what hood removal does. It is not fun. A while back some doctor (here or in the states I can't remember) was "helping" women with their sex lives by removing their clitoral hoods. I think he was sued after he mangled a number of women.

I think you at least understand that I take this issue completeley seriously, and I am not in any way trying to downplay the violent sexual assault that is female genital mutilation. I think it is one of the most terrible things imagineable. I happen to think that God created us in his image and that people who think that they know better than God what our bodies should look like and what pleasures we should be able to feel with them are wrong.

I love the clitoris exactly the way it is. Removing the hood would cause the clitoris to eventually lose sensitivity after the initial pain from the surgery subsided. The nerve endings would eventually start to deaden and in the long run the woman would experience LESS sexual pleasure than she would with a protected clitoris and a husband who knew what to do with it., (or her own self exploration)

I am not trying to suggest that male circumcision is anywhere near as horrifying as female genital mutilation. That would be like cutting the head off instead of just the foreskin.

I still believe that just because it is a lesser degree of mutilation doesn't mean why we as a society allow any degree of genital mutilation occur without consent. At the very least circumcision is a violent sexual assault when done without consent.

[WIP]

It seems as if it may be more of a cultural custom than a religion one.

FGM has been a social custom in Northern Africa for millennia. Many people link FGM with the religion of Islam. Actually, it is a social custom that is practiced by Animists, Christians, and Muslims in those countries where FGM is common. There are many Muslim countries in which the mutilation is essentially unknown, including Algeria, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

link

There is no dancing around the fact that although female genital mutilation predates both Islam and Christianity, it has followed along with the spread of Islam around the world. The practise is prevalent to varying degrees in every Muslim-majority nation today, and finds its way to every country with a sizeable Muslim population: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/fema...in_page_id=1879

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/gonews.php?subac...amp;ucat=1&

So, saying that this is just a cultural practise that has nothing to do with religion is a lie promulgated by apologists afraid to confront Islamic leaders who sanction mutilating girls. The practise never took hold in Christendom! I'd like to know if you have anything to back up your earlier statement that it is practised by both Christians and Muslims. Even male circumcision was not widely practised in Christian nations until the last century! That was one of the things the Nazis would check for if they were unable to determine whether a man was Jewish, or German or Polish.

[DogOnPorch]

This Memri clip sums up two different views on FGM in Islam.

---------------------------------------------------

We have a spinster problem in the Arab world and the last thing we want is for them to be sexually aroused.

---Shiek Muhammad Wahdan, Al Azhar University

[Oleg Bach]

This Memri clip sums up two different views on FGM in Islam.

---------------------------------------------------

We have a spinster problem in the Arab world and the last thing we want is for them to be sexually aroused.

---Shiek Muhammad Wahdan, Al Azhar University

You can be politically correct and pander to the mutilators of genitals..BUT - I am not personally that multiculturally minded that I am going with the flow and say..that's nice to my Muslim neighbour and request..."Can you gag your young daughter..the sreaming from the last one you cut up woke me up" - Then in my Canadian conditioned tolerance I will just wait for the next "culture" to arrive that believe in cuttin off their son's noses so as not to have to smell western evil..

[Guest American Woman]

There is no dancing around the fact that although female genital mutilation predates both Islam and Christianity, it has followed along with the spread of Islam around the world. The practise is prevalent to varying degrees in every Muslim-majority nation today, and finds its way to every country with a sizeable Muslim population: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/fema...in_page_id=1879

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/gonews.php?subac...amp;ucat=1&

So, saying that this is just a cultural practise that has nothing to do with religion is a lie promulgated by apologists afraid to confront Islamic leaders who sanction mutilating girls. The practise never took hold in Christendom! I'd like to know if you have anything to back up your earlier statement that it is practised by both Christians and Muslims. Even male circumcision was not widely practised in Christian nations until the last century! That was one of the things the Nazis would check for if they were unable to determine whether a man was Jewish, or German or Polish.

First of all, could you try to discuss this honestly? I'm no "apologist" and I did not say "this is just a cultural practice" nor did I say it has "nothing to do with religion." What I did say based on what I've read is: It seems as if it may be more of a cultural custom than a religion one.

But as you said, FGM does predate both Islam and Christianity. It was already a tradition in countries that later became predominantly Muslim, and there are many Muslim countries that don't practice it and the majority of Muslims don't condone it.

As for your request: I'd like to know if you have anything to back up your earlier statement that it is practised by both Christians and Muslims.

According to UNICEF: Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, A Statistical Exploration, regarding "Religion:"

While religion can help explain FGM/C distribution in many countries, the relationship is not consistent. In six of the countries where data on religion are available - Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya and Senegal - Muslim population groups are more likely to practise FGM/C than Christian groups. In five countries there seems to be no significant differences, while in Niger, Nigeria and the United Republic of Tanzania the prevalence is greater among Christian groups.

Looking at religion independently, it is not possible to establish a general association with

FGM/C status. The most marked differences can be observed in Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and

Senegal. In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, 79 per cent of Muslim women have undergone FGM/C, compared with 16 per cent of Christian women. This trend is reinforced in the analysis of FGM/C

status of daughters. In four countries, Muslim women are more likely to have circumcised daughters than women of other religious affiliations.

In Ethiopia, Kenya, Niger and the United Republic of Tanzania, prevalence of FGM/C is higher among daughters of Christian women than among daughters of Muslim women. This could be attributed, however, to other factors such as ethnicity and overall distribution of various religious groups within these countries.

So as I said, it seems as if it may be more of a cultural custom than a religious custom.

[WIP]

First of all, could you try to discuss this honestly? I'm no "apologist" and I did not say "this is just a cultural practice" nor did I say it has "nothing to do with religion." What I did say based on what I've read is: It seems as if it may be more of a cultural custom than a religion one.

I didn't say you were an apologist! But you are re-broadcasting the soft approach of "religion of peace" apologists, who refuse to connect the dots with terrorism, oppression of women and religious minorities, and this disgusting, barbaric practise, with the original source! Everything in life is too complicated to identify with single causes, but ignoring the Islamic authorities who demand that their people continue to mutilate their girls, is nothing more than pulling the wool over your eyes!

But as you said, FGM does predate both Islam and Christianity. It was already a tradition in countries that later became predominantly Muslim, and there are many Muslim countries that don't practice it and the majority of Muslims don't condone it.

And it would have remained an isolated practise in Egypt and the Nile River Valley if the practise wasn't adopted by Islam, along with male circumcision and spread throughout the Muslim World. I haven't found any historical records of it being practised in Arabia and the rest of Africa prior to the Islamic Era:

Religion

FGM predates Islam and is not practised by the majority of Muslims, but has acquired a religious dimension. Where it is practised by Muslims, religion is frequently cited as a reason. Many of those who oppose mutilation deny that there is any link between the practise and religion, but Islamic leaders are not unanimous on the subject. The Qur'an does not contain any call for FGM, but a few hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) refer to it. In one case, in answer to a question put to him by 'Um 'Attiyah (a practitioner of FGM), the Prophet is quoted as saying ''reduce but do not destroy''.

Mutilation has persisted among some converts to Christianity. Christian missionaries have tried to discourage the practice, but found it to be too deep rooted. In some cases, in order to keep converts, they have ignored and even condoned the practice.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AC...70061997en.html

The Amnesty article notes that female genital mutilation is not practised by the majority of Muslims; but if you check on the map for the location of the nations where it is customary, you'll find that the most conservative, orthodox Muslim countries are where it predominates. The same could be said for Islamic dress codes foisted on women! Over the last 30 years, as Saudi Arabia as sent Salafist or Wahabbi teachers throughout the Muslim World, the restrictive dress codes have followed! You can expect the same dynamic with genital mutilation, since it is the hardline orthodox Muslims who are advocating for this practise!

As for your request: I'd like to know if you have anything to back up your earlier statement that it is practised by both Christians and Muslims.

According to UNICEF: Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, A Statistical Exploration, regarding "Religion:"

While religion can help explain FGM/C distribution in many countries, the relationship is not consistent. In six of the countries where data on religion are available - Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya and Senegal - Muslim population groups are more likely to practise FGM/C than Christian groups. In five countries there seems to be no significant differences, while in Niger, Nigeria and the United Republic of Tanzania the prevalence is greater among Christian groups.

Looking at religion independently, it is not possible to establish a general association with

FGM/C status. The most marked differences can be observed in Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and

Senegal. In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, 79 per cent of Muslim women have undergone FGM/C, compared with 16 per cent of Christian women. This trend is reinforced in the analysis of FGM/C

status of daughters. In four countries, Muslim women are more likely to have circumcised daughters than women of other religious affiliations.

In Ethiopia, Kenya, Niger and the United Republic of Tanzania, prevalence of FGM/C is higher among daughters of Christian women than among daughters of Muslim women. This could be attributed, however, to other factors such as ethnicity and overall distribution of various religious groups within these countries.

So as I said, it seems as if it may be more of a cultural custom than a religious custom.

YOu can expect U.N. reports to be looking over their shoulder every time they write about practises or issues going on in the Muslim World! Take a look at how much they watered down their human rights proclamation to make it acceptable to Muslim leaders!

So, the report states that 16% of Christian women in the Ivory Coast have had to undergo this procedure; but as the Amnesty article I linked points out, the practise of female genital mutilation among Christians in Africa is primarily a carry over among those who have converted to Christianity! The Christian Africans only have cultural tradition to support this practise; they do not have the weight of religious authorities ordering them to maintain it!

Long story short, this issue will never be adequately dealt with as long as critics are afraid to call out the Muslim leaders who are trying to maintain the practise. It is just part of a toolbox of restrictions that include restrictive dress codes and discriminatory Sharia laws that prevent women from challenging male authority in the home, in their communities, and on the national stage!

[Guest American Woman]

I didn't say you were an apologist! But you are re-broadcasting the soft approach of "religion of peace" apologists, who refuse to connect the dots with terrorism, oppression of women and religious minorities, and this disgusting, barbaric practise, with the original source! Everything in life is too complicated to identify with single causes, but ignoring the Islamic authorities who demand that their people continue to mutilate their girls, is nothing more than pulling the wool over your eyes!

I'm not the one pulling the wool over my eyes; and this issue is about FGM, not terrorism. It's also not about Islam, as most Muslims don't practice it and some members of other religions do. I cited three countries where it's more predominant among Christians than Muslims and several others where it's just as predominant among Christians as Muslims.

And it would have remained an isolated practise in Egypt and the Nile River Valley if the practise wasn't adopted by Islam, along with male circumcision and spread throughout the Muslim World. I haven't found any historical records of it being practised in Arabia and the rest of Africa prior to the Islamic Era:

Some more information for you: The origins of female circumcision and female genital mutilation are unknown. It is believed that female genital mutilation originated in Africa as far back as the fifth century B.C. and has taken place in ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, Arabia, and Tsarist Russia. .

Furthermore: It was used in England during the Victorian period to treat psychological disorders and to prevent masturbation in women (Hopkins, 1999).

And there's more: In Europe and in the United States as late as the 1930's, "removal of the clitoris or prepuce was performed to treat clitoral enlargement, redundancy, hysteria, lesbianism, and erotomania".

J. Marion Sims, the "Father of Gynecology" (in the U.S.) endorsed the practice of clitorectomies well into the twentieth century.

Link

Long story short, this issue will never be adequately dealt with as long as critics are afraid to call out the Muslim leaders who are trying to maintain the practise. It is just part of a toolbox of restrictions that include restrictive dress codes and discriminatory Sharia laws that prevent women from challenging male authority in the home, in their communities, and on the national stage!

Most of the literature describes female circumcision and FGM as violent sexual mutilation of females and contends that the ritual has been sustained in the male-dominated countries in order to suppress women's sexuality. In contrast to that belief, the practice is almost always controlled, performed, and strongly upheld by women (Abusharaf, 2001; Shweder, 2000). Men have very little to do with these rituals and frequently know very little about it. In fact, it is usually African women, not men, who insist on circumcising their daughters. The ritual "becomes an important affirmation of one generation of women's authority over another" (Abusharaf, para. 26). It is widely believed by women "that these genital alterations improve their bodies and make them more beautiful, more feminine, more civilized, and more honorable"

I must say, that's contrary to what I've believed.

Edited May 20, 2008 by American Woman

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm not the one pulling the wool over my eyes; and this issue is about FGM, not terrorism. It's also not about Islam, as most Muslims don't practice it and some members of other religions do. I cited three countries where it's more predominant among Christians than Muslims and several others where it's just as predominant among Christians as Muslims.

Some more information for you: The origins of female circumcision and female genital mutilation are unknown. It is believed that female genital mutilation originated in Africa as far back as the fifth century B.C. and has taken place in ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, Arabia, and Tsarist Russia. .

Furthermore: It was used in England during the Victorian period to treat psychological disorders and to prevent masturbation in women (Hopkins, 1999).

And there's more: In Europe and in the United States as late as the 1930's, "removal of the clitoris or prepuce was performed to treat clitoral enlargement, redundancy, hysteria, lesbianism, and erotomania".

J. Marion Sims, the "Father of Gynecology" (in the U.S.) endorsed the practice of clitorectomies well into the twentieth century.

Link

Most of the literature describes female circumcision and FGM as violent sexual mutilation of females and contends that the ritual has been sustained in the male-dominated countries in order to suppress women's sexuality. In contrast to that belief, the practice is almost always controlled, performed, and strongly upheld by women (Abusharaf, 2001; Shweder, 2000). Men have very little to do with these rituals and frequently know very little about it. In fact, it is usually African women, not men, who insist on circumcising their daughters. The ritual "becomes an important affirmation of one generation of women's authority over another" (Abusharaf, para. 26). It is widely believed by women "that these genital alterations improve their bodies and make them more beautiful, more feminine, more civilized, and more honorable"

I must say, that's contrary to what I've believed.

Preventing masturbation and by extension "masturbatory insanity", is also how male circumcision was "sold" to western doctors. Also like male circumcision, some women obviously seem to think these genital alterations are a positive thing. I don't. Male circumcision exposes the penile head and causes it to become far less sensitive than a "hooded" head. Some men prefer the look of a circumcised penis and believe that it makes their penis look bigger, and that the desensitized head allows them to last longer and be better lovers. Personally i think both practices are ridiculous and shameful when done without consent. I also believe that any type of "cosmetic" surgery should not be allowed without the consent of the one being operated on. In the end if someone CHOOSES this for themselves the gov't should really have no say in the matter, but when either is performed without consent assault charges should be laid. The taxpayer should never pay for either surgery unless it has been deemed medically "necessary" by a doctor.

[WIP]

First of all, could you try to discuss this honestly? I'm no "apologist" and I did not say "this is just a cultural practice" nor did I say it has "nothing to do with religion." What I did say based on what I've read is: It seems as if it may be more of a cultural custom than a religion one.

Fine with me, but an honest discussion of female genital mutilation should include a willingness to evaluate all of the factors that contribute to this problem, and not to deliberately ignore the elephant in the room, like so many politically correct organizations such as these U.N. commissions do! How reliable is the word of any U.N. body as a defender of human rights when their human rights commission has bowed to demands by the Organization of Islamic Countries to include a provision that does not protect free speech criticising religion, under the guise of a "protection of religion against blasphemy?" http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040052.htm

But as you said, FGM does predate both Islam and Christianity. It was already a tradition in countries that later became predominantly Muslim, and there are many Muslim countries that don't practice it and the majority of Muslims don't condone it.

And doesn't the fact that it is a "controversial practise" in the Muslim World tell you something? I spent about 15 minutes searching the web for Christian leaders or churches who advocate the FGM practise and came up with nothing. YOu tell me if you can find any Christian organization advocating FGM, because I got nothing! If you've read many of my previous posts, you'll realize that I don't play favourites when it comes to religion! It's all superstition that will have to fall before humanity can advance to the next level. But, I'm not going to pretend there's a story here that doesn't exist! The fact is FGM is widely criticized by Christian leaders and would disappear if Islamic authorities - or at least SOME Islamic authorities to be technically correct - are insisting that their people keep it alive.

On the other hand, a googel search of Islamic advocates comes up with hundreds of links! Most of them are duplicates, but there are dozens of links to Islamic advocates and groups condemning them for giving clerical authority to this practise!

According to Mariam Qawane, campaign coordinator, Novib Somalia, while FGM is not practised by majority of Muslims, it has however of recent taken a religious dimension.

Where Muslims practice it, religion is frequently cited as a reason, but those who oppose mutilation deny that there is any link between the practice and religion, but Islamic leaders are not unanimous on the subject .

The Qur'an does not contain any call for FGM, but a few hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) refer to it.

Adan Ahmed, an opponent of FGM cites a case faced by the Prophet. In answer to a question put to him by 'Um 'Attiyah (a practitioner of FGM), the Prophet is quoted as saying "reduce but do not destroy". Mutilation has persisted among some converts to Christianity.

Christian missionaries among the Somali populace have tried to discourage the practice, but found it to be too deep-rooted. In some cases, in order to keep converts, they have ignored and even condoned the practice.

http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafri...s/art_3744.html

Religious figures disagree over whether or not the practice is condoned by Islam. This issue “is still being debated,” said Al-Murisi.

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=25685

But also, somehow, the BBC have found house room for Dr Munir Fawzi. Dr Fawzi claims, contrary to the findings of every UN or otherwise humane investigation or report, that FGM is sometimes beneficial for the woman, to the point of being “necessary” in preventing dangerous infections. In the full report, Dr Fawzi also claimed that FGM was required on religious grounds, at least to a limited extent - which is totally false.

Dr Fawzi is on the record as saying:

“Female circumcision is entrenched in Islamic life and teaching.”

“Our mothers, aunts and sisters have been doing this for years and no one was complaining.”

“I’m a university professor and I can decide whether a patient needs to be reduced* or not. I will do it for medical reasons,” [said with a smile, apparently] [* "reduced"??!! pokes eyes out with stick]

Fawzi is also responsible in part for the 1996 Egyptian ban on FGM being overturned by Egypt’s administrative courts, on the basis that it inappropriately restricted his practice. This is from PubMed:

“According to news reports, the court cited research purporting to show that failure to perform FGM harmed children, as well as quotes from Mohammed, which FGM advocates said endorsed the procedure under Islamic law… The suit against the ban had been filed by Sheik Youssef al-Badry, a conservative Islamic cleric, and Munir Fawzi, a Cairo gynecologist… Egypt’s highest Sunni Moslem authority contests the endorsement of FGM under Islamic law.”

http://touchinglynaive.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/amarezza/

THIS ARTICLE IS ESPECIALLY RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD, SINCE NONE OF THE NEWS ARTICLES ABOUT THE REPEAL OF THE FGM BAN IN EGYPT DARE TO MENTION WHY!

The Supreme Islamic Council, which is the government advisory body on religious matters affecting

Islam has never taken a clear stand about FGM and the Islamic position. This indecisive position

has created a situation where some women have doubt on the issues raised by activists and they

engage in the practice. The reason for this is, men are associated with the knowledge of Islam and

there voices carry more weight even if they are wrong or ignorant of the issues at stake.

http://www.gamcotrap.gm/documents/Press_releases_2007/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20THE%20DABATE%20ON%20FEMALE%20GENITAL%20MUTILATION-%20FINAL.pdf

As for your request: I'd like to know if you have anything to back up your earlier statement that it is practised by both Christians and Muslims.

According to UNICEF: Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, A Statistical Exploration, regarding "Religion:"

While religion can help explain FGM/C distribution in many countries, the relationship is not consistent. In six of the countries where data on religion are available - Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya and Senegal - Muslim population groups are more likely to practise FGM/C than Christian groups. In five countries there seems to be no significant differences, while in Niger, Nigeria and the United Republic of Tanzania the prevalence is greater among Christian groups.

Looking at religion independently, it is not possible to establish a general association with

FGM/C status. The most marked differences can be observed in Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and

Senegal. In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, 79 per cent of Muslim women have undergone FGM/C, compared with 16 per cent of Christian women. This trend is reinforced in the analysis of FGM/C

status of daughters. In four countries, Muslim women are more likely to have circumcised daughters than women of other religious affiliations.

In Ethiopia, Kenya, Niger and the United Republic of Tanzania, prevalence of FGM/C is higher among daughters of Christian women than among daughters of Muslim women. This could be attributed, however, to other factors such as ethnicity and overall distribution of various religious groups within these countries.

So as I said, it seems as if it may be more of a cultural custom than a religious custom.

Once you wade through all of the online reports about the clerics giving their sanction to genital mutilation, the argument that this is more of a cultural custom than a religious issue, is revealed as an attempt to mask the real sources that propagate this practise and keep it alive. I looked for some numbers to back up the claim in this last U.N. article that Ethiopia, Kenya, Niger and the United Republic of Tanzania, prevalence of FGM/C is higher among daughters of Christian women than among daughters of Muslim women, and could find nothing! It's even debatable how reliable the stats are from African nations. Are there any polling firms going around from village to village to find out the cultural breakdown of who does and who does not practise FGM? I doubt it. Even the numbers listed in reports like this one from Amnesty International are likely very rough estimates, and they only give numbers on a national basis. FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION IN AFRICA:

Information

[M.Dancer]

Preventing masturbation and by extension "masturbatory insanity", is also how male circumcision was "sold" to western doctors.

That is of course, nonsense.

[guyser]

That is of course, nonsense.

...phew...I was getting worried.

I have been off my rocker for a week or so and thought maybe that was my issue. Glad to hear it isnt.

Off to another website now. Back in 5

[M.Dancer]

...phew...I was getting worried.

I have been off my rocker for a week or so and thought maybe that was my issue. Glad to hear it isnt.

Off to another website now. Back in 5

But you need glasses....

[Peter F]

I cannot imagine any sane people legalizing this, they also reduced the age limit for marriage. Where's the media outcry on this one!

Egyptian Parliament Okays Female Genital Mutilation

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/146681

I can't imagine any sane people legalizing this either. And Whattya know? After extensive searching for something with further details about the Egyptian parliaments decision I cant find a god darn thing unless it links to the INN story linked and then its some blog or other.

Which is to say, the story is a crock, female genital mutilation is still banned in Egypt and Egyptians are indeed sane people.