 |
| Mutilation or Circumcision? |
| The main argument in support of female circumcision is that it is an essential rite of passage for girls that marks their transition from girlhood to womanhood. A girl that bravely bears the pain of circumcision demonstrates the much desirable traits of submission and ability to endure pain, both of which are important in motherhood. After circumcision, a girl is recognized within the community as pure and ready for marriage. It is believed by societies that practice circumcision that the procedure takes away sexual desires, which if left intact, could get out of control and result in the births of illegitimate children. The point is argued that the experience is a positive one for the girl, as she is the center of attention and recieves gifts and honor from the community and from her elders. Even if one or a multitude of women were to object to the practice, they would be ending their potential for marriage and having a family of their own. What's more, they would most likely be ostricized from their own family. To the vast majority of women in cultures where FGM is practiced, the thought of having their womenhood mutilated is a more easily accepted notion than that of wandering through life unmarried, undesirable, and unaccepted by the culture in which they live. Another concern deals with the livlihood of the circumcisors and how they will earn a living when their skills are no longer being utilized. It is a common argument from the proponents of female circumcision that it is the equivalent to circumcision of males. The errancy in this argument is readily acknowledged. In its most harmless state, (sunna traditon) the visible part of the clitoris and prepuce are removed. This erradicates any possibility of clitoral orgasm, as the clitoris is the only body part who's sole function is pleasure. The male, after circumcision, has all his pleasure-feeling faculties in order. Though some opponents of male circumcision argue they are reduced, he is still very capable of achieving orgasm. The same cannot be said for the female. If the two surgeries were to be seen as analogous, than they would need to entail the same skin removal, as well as produce the same long term affects. This would mean that male circumcision could only be seen as a twin surgery to female circumcision if the clitoral hood were removed. Since the women loses all her pleasure feeling faculties, the same response must exist in the male; the equivalent then, would be the removal of the males entire penis. This is the diachotomy between the sexes, and the utter falacy of any argument that would say the operations share any similier characteristics or outcomes. |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| The main argument against this practice is that it mentally and physically damaging and the effects of the procedure are irreversible. Short term complications: -possibility of contracting infections or disease -hemorrhaging -death Long term complications: -sexual frigidity -sexual malformation -delayed menarche -chronic pelvic complications -high risk for recurrent urinary pain and infection -painful intercourse -pain during menstruation -difficulties during childbirth- related to the scar tissue that severely limits the elasticity of the vagina. -reinfibulation- in which the procedure of cutting and stitching after giving birth results in the formation of tough scar tissue in the genitals, which further complicates intercourse, pregnancy, and delivery. |