AAP changes stance on FGM

CrunchyMama, ASN, RN · May 7, 2010

First, what is generally referred to as "female circumcision" is not remotely even close to what is considered to be "male circumcision".
I have seen and taken care of these women and the damage is horrific in comparison. Very little "female circumcision" involves a "small nick". It generally involves cutting off the privy parts. This in effect in males of cutting the entire end of the whole member off - it does not merely desensitize...it eliminates a substantial amount of nerve endings.
It is designed to destroy sexual feeling in women. As far as I can tell, the male circumcision does not destroy sexual feeling/function in males. Thus the difference.
Secondly, that above procedure is on the most minimal level of what "female circumcisons" involves. More prominently, it may and often does involve any combo of the following: The labia majora removed, the labia minora removed involved, the inner walls scraped, and often the woman is literally sewed so that there is only one tiny hole left for urine and menses to pass out. Not uncommonly, the woman may have to cut open on her wedding night with a knife.
There are numerous studies as to the high mortality rate, infection rate and morbidity rate that these procedures causes. There are muliple urinary tract infection, deathes in childbirth, women that have babies die within them poisoning them, urine backing up into the lady parts, fistula formation, and gross urinary and fecal incontinence. These women are also MORE LIKELY to get AIDS and other STDs. Since virtually any sex is going to cause bleeding and that some of the protective layers have been irreparably damaged and scarred, the women is literally laid up to infection from her partner. And then often the spouse will abandon her as he is no longer attracted to her, and he moves on to another virgin.
Virtually all practicing International NGOs cite FGM as one of the major contributers to the AIDs epidemic among women and mothers. That along with rape as part of genocide.
In my time in an African hospital, in an educated area, probably 70 to 80% of the female pts suffered from complications related to this.
Please do not compare male and female circumcision, there is no comparison. They are far and away very different things.

You don't see a comparison because you're talking about extreme forms of female circumcision. Not ALL female circs are that damaging. My OB clinical instructor is a midwife and has taken care of numerous women that have had this done and sometimes she says she couldn't even tell they were circ'ed. So not all are that extreme. Besides it doesn't matter......strapping or holding any human, male or female, down to mutilate their member is WRONG, no matter the severity. ALL humans should be allowed to have a whole body.

CrunchyMama, ASN, RN · May 7, 2010

CeilingCat - - In most places, when the word 'circumcision' is mentioned, the assumption is the removal of the male foreskin. When the qualifier 'female' is added, an entirely different set of circumstances arises. If it truly only meant the hood of the privy parts was removed, it might be similar.
Are they both 'mutilation'? I suppose they are. But the rationale - if there is one - is entirely different. For certain cultures, male circs are done as a covenant with G-d, in others, as a rite of passage to manhood. But the female circs are done simply for the pleasure of men, and to ascertain virginity in young, unmarried women.
Removing the hood, the privy parts, the inner labia, and then sewing together the outer labia down to the size of a match stick is quite different.
Plus, no one can deny that men can achieve sexual pleasure regardless of their status. FMG usually means the woman will never have true sexual pleasure, and may in fact suffer endlessly and needlessly after their procedure.

How can a baby make such a decision to be closer to God? My point....they can't. So why not let the child grow up and make the decision for himself what religion he wants to belong to and what he wants his member to look like? Knowing what you know now about your body....would you want a piece of your downstairs missing? Knowing how they do a circ, aren't you glad that you're a female and wasn't strapped down at a couple days old? I'm sorry, I just put myself in the babies position....I know I wouldn't want it done. All humans should be able to make their own decisions in regards to their genitals....or anything for that matter. A couple recently got in trouble for having their young child tattooed....ok how is that for hypocrites. It's illegal to tattoo a child, but to mutilate their genitals is perfectly acceptable...hmm. You say female circs are done for the pleasure of men. I don't fully believe this statement but isn't some circs done here done for the pleasure of the parents? How is that any different?

CrunchyMama, ASN, RN · May 7, 2010

Hey, CrunchyMama! I believe that most ED problems are related to the Western lifestyle - poor diet, obesity, hypertension, diabetes. And then to the meds that are used to treat these conditions.. It would be interesting to see if the circ is related.
In my personal experience (TMI, I know!!!!) healthy men, even some with mild med problems, do not have ED at such a young age. Even some well into their 60's do not have performance issues. And others may need a more thorough assessment to see if they are still producing enough testosterone!
If I woke up tomorrow without my privy parts, my life would be unbearably sad - and boring!!!!

Yes I do know there are other reasons that cause ED. I just think there may be a correlation in some cases...I mean it makes sense to me. And yes I feel the same way about missing a piece of my genitals. Good thing we were born the right sex and in the right country!!