It's a cruel practice, in particular for the female, since we're not talking about removing foreskin. We're talking about removing the entire clitoris sometime before puberty, so as to make intercourse painful, and not enjoyable for the women. Cultures that practice this often believe that this will keep women "pure" for their husbands. It's cruel and abusive, and there are no advantages to having this done "electively"
I am not aware of any benefits of FGM, but I do have experience which contradicts many of the commonly held views. I am a white British man, and a few years ago I had a relationship with a married muslim woman who came originally from West Africa but moved to London in her early 20's, and who had had her clitoris and labia minora removed when she was 8 years old (when still living in Africa). I was quite shocked on discovering this the first time we had sex, not to mention disappointed. However she was the most sexually responsive woman I have ever known. She invariably had an intense ****** within five minutes of penetration. So it is not true that FGM necessarily ruins women's chances of enjoying sex as is commonly believed (as shown by some of the other posts here) .
Note that I am not trying to defend FGM in any way (I think it is indefensible): I am simply pointing out that some commonly held views about it are mistaken.
i have read all your answers and am shocked. fgm is very barbaric with or without anasthesia. it happened to me when i was 10 years old, i didnt know why, what does a 10 year old know abt sex anyway? i have hated my mum witha passion when i discovered the truth as i grew up.
i can tell u the psychological effrcts are worse than physical. i have low self esteem, cant make friends, i get anxiety n panic attacks and worse still im on the brink of a breaking marriage coz i just cannot enjoy sex let alone open up my legs bcoz of the sad memories.
so be careful what u write. whichever way u look at it its plain wrong .
i hope my mother burns in hell for whatshe did to me.
actually it doesnt make sex painfull or anything like that. my wife was circumsized and she sure LOVES sex. it actually has benefits of preventing infections like UTI's and HIV, and id say its actually more enjoyable because female bodily fluids do not exit the vagina as quickly and the removal actually makes the G-spot more sensative.
Removing male foreskin actually make sex feel worse for guys because the head becomes less sensative and the foreskin is sensative itself. if you want to call female circumsition genital mutalition, then u must refer to male circumsition of genital mutilation too.
It would be nice if this was not written by an obviously illiterate intactivist. You have no idea about the real sensitivity of a circumcised penis (the skin is actually softer and irritated less than in uncut *****) and of course zero idea what a «cut» vulva may actually look like, and even less feel. Nor do you seem to have a major knowledge of basic spelling. Please spare us this type of post. If you don't know...shut up!
The people that circumcise girls claim the exact benefits as the people that circumcise boys - more hygienic, healthier, prettier etc. Try debating with them. Female circumcision is certainly linked to lower rates of HIV. Most of the western world condemns female circumcision though, despite promoting male circumcision in Africa.
Some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision though. Sometime there's just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with pain relief. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. When circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 52 boys have died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa so far this year.
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."
Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?
Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against female circumcision, and I probably spend a lot more time and money trying to stop it than most people. If people are serious about stopping female circumcision though, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't (and they get furious if you call it "mutilation"). There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the exact same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself (as well as labiaplasty and breast operations), as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western ob
it is funny how on these topics some people with zero experience come out of the woodwork to make outlandish claims. The only people who know what a «cut» woman looks like would be lovers - and given the fact that cutting females makes them less «promiscuous», chances are limited, unless you marry one, of ever testing what she's like in bed. I had the privilege of having sex with a Moroccan girl (she was studying abroad) whose clitoris tip had been removed, and with an Egyptian lady whose labia had been shortened and her clitoris tip removed; in both cases the operations had been done in a clinic, under anesthesia, and given the lack of communication of sexual matters they had virtually no idea about what had been done to them except that they had been «purified» there. Although hour brief relationships were to be totally and absolutely discreet (both of them already knew they would need hymen refection before getting married) and we had to fight for time, both were great lovers, considerate, kind, curious and overall better than a number of «uncut» females. Possibly because «*******» at all costs was not their major preoccupation in bed.
FWIW, I have had sex with an Egyptian woman who'd had some kind of operation that was termed "circumcision". I couldn't tell the difference though, so she'd presumably had a very minor form of surgery.
I still think that everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals cut off. It's *their* body.
Each case is different.
As Muslim, the only permitted type of female circumcision is the ritual nick. In this procedure, there is no excision of any part of the clitoris. What is cut is the clitoral hood, which is the counter part of the male foreskin and much less in size.
and many Phds proved some benefits for this type on avoiding ritual nick cancer, an no proven harms as long as it done with no expressiveness.
The goal is to prevent the external clitoris to grow till it looks like a penis, and to suppress the impure lips that are wetted with pee every time the woman urinates. Contrary to what is asserted in Western judgments, the aim is not to make intercourse painful or suppress enjoyment by the female. Some declitorized women are very sensuous and some females with a clitoris are frigid. Of course the contradiction is that, since all clitorises are cut before puberty, there has never been any indication in cultures cutting it that it would grow to unacceptable proportions! If a woman has to be excluded all her life because she's not cut, she should at least be anesthesized while it's done. It's barbaric to cut prepubescent girls' bits live with no anesthesia...and often in terrible hygienic conditions. The debate is that, if the cut is allowed provided it is done in good conditions and under anesthesia, by a doctor, it will never disappear....well, it's up to women in that culture to decide, isn't it? My guess is that, little by little, the practice will be eradicated. It does not have any of the benefits associated with male circ, i.,e. removal of the foreskin. On the other hand, cutting girls has become more common in some parts of the Muslim world, like Indonesia. An uncut female is viewed as unclean, and will probably never find a husband. Therefore adequate clinics for the operation should be provided, and it should be done in a simple way, painlessly, like removing a wart...
I don't think anything man does as a result of religion or culture benefits anyone when it comes to mutilating the human body. A woman won't enjoy sex as much after this is done to her.
I am a circumcised woman and there are definite benefits.
I had my internal labias excised completely many years ago when I was sterilised, because they were too long and very ugly causing embarrassment both on the beach and in the changing room. The result is much more aesthetically pleasing and more sexy to look at than my previous natural state.
My self-esteem has improved significantly and my husband just loves the difference.
Anyone else wishing to be circumcised should also consider carefully the amount of prepuce to be removed from the clitoris as I wish I had had more removed to improve the clitoral definition and sensitivity.
why there is male circumcision??? because God the almighty commanded the male to be circumcised.........and mandatory circumcision of women is an act of jealousy....... a deep jealousy, as from democratic country.... it is totally unacceptable, it violates women's rights as it is not even become a law from God to be circumcised....................It was God who commanded the male to be circumcised, and it is not a violation from male's rights.... but women's circumcision is a total women's violation an abuse of HUMAN rights .........
There's someone on here named shadowfax who is basically advocating for FGM because he slept with two women who were mutilated. In actuality he's exhibiting two things, one of which is an offhand response to the poster's question.
1)that he's a shallow and vapid with misogynistic tendencies because he belittles the uncut women whose he's slept with for "caring too much about their own ******" to be a caring lover to him(in essence mirroring his own actions)...after all how dare these women desire the enjoyment of sex also?! They should instead be purely focused upon the needs of him as the man---sounds like the typical misogynistic male response to women's sexuality worldwide. The poor man is so wrapped up in his own self involved fantasy that it would pain him too much to consider that the cut women he slept with had no option other than to "focus" on him entirely. There are a host of ramifications and issues right there.
2) the very fact that these unmarried women still had sexual relationships (with him) outside of marriage knowing that they would have to practice deceptive practices such as hymen surgery(VERY common in cultures that practice FGM which says a great deal of sex outside of marriage is still occurring) in order to maintain their culture's view of them and secure their marriage prospects says that NO...FGM poses no value to any woman. After all, the primary reason for it's practice (keeping women modest, family and marriage oriented) goes right on out the door with the number of men claiming to have bed a woman outside of marriage who was circumcised. Therefore let's call this procedure what it is: the cultural creation of joyless sexless fembots (the genitalia of infibulated women actually resembles the smooth expanse of a Barbie and let's remember that Barbie was originally created as a man's sex toy before being marketed to children) who are only physically capable of caring about the pleasure of their male benefactors(married or premarital). Isn't that lovely!
A very strange thing is that most of the woman are cisumcised by women themselves in villages. So a community which goes through the pain itself gives pain to others. Vicious cycle
female genital mutilation is a cruel practice condemned by every single religion in this world. including islam. and i would know more because i am a muslim female who has read the Quran. lol. :)
None its a barbaric and cruel practice. Facts from the World health Orginisation: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
The benefits are not for all, but in some cases (like my own) the cut needs to be done for a better sex drive's control.
Before the removal of external clitoris and labias, I used a detrimental excess in ************ with severe health's consuequences (recidivant bladder infection and vaginal scars)
The only way to stop compulsive ************ or other excessive sexual drive is the dratsically lowering of sex feelings, i.e. by removal of the most excitable nerve endings, located in the clitoris' glans !
channel 4 screened it, i'd never heard of it before. I'm english female, but why on earth would women do that to their daughters when they know what torture they have been through.
STOP STOP people!!!! Dont do FGM!!!!!
If an adult decides to alter their own body its their choice, but please dont do it to someone who has not been involved in their own decision of altering their own body.
dont matter about culture!!!!! dont cut a young girl EVER!!!!!