If even a ritual nick reveals a deep-seated fear and disgust for women's sexuality, can male circumcision be seen as other than fear and disgust for men's sexuality?

John, perhaps you, Ainsley and Professor Allan are pragmatically correct in suggesting that "if custom and religion demand genital cutting" (see author's comment below) less damage is better than more. What fills me with despair and dread is the way so many humans will blindly follow rituals that have no rational benefits purely because they are tradition, without putting it through any test of reason themselves, to the extent where parents are harming their own children.
This article debunks all the ostensible purposes of FGC except that of decreasing female sexual pleasure. For that purpose, it is likely to be quite effective. Therefore, and from all my reading over the years, I would have to conclude that it is a tradition that indeed transcends religion and culture and is, rather, grounded in the ubiquitous sexual subjugation of women to men. Many cultures have irrational obsessions with female virginity and have required women to submit sexually and remain faithful to a spouse not of their choosing. Control of female promiscuity is the most plausible reason for the tradition ever starting.
And yes, Abraham's cruel terrorising of his teenage son Isaac on the altar before God's angel called an 11th-hour halt to that hideous "test of faith" was over-the-top, I agree, but why even sacrifice a goat? What does it say of a religion that its vengeful and wrathful God requires blood sacrifices at all, and even "sacrificed" his own son Jesus to atone for humankind's wretched inherited sinfulness? So the crucifix is now just a harmless icon, a token version of a fundamentally flawed rationale, but no, we mustn't criticise the Easter tradition, or indeed the religion, because it will offend!
The article I posted has a point - if you accept the token versions of FGC, you either validate the tradition by showing respect for it, or you are acting hypocritically. Perhaps we are all hypocritical to some degree - I still buy the odd Easter egg after all, and put up a Christmas tree. But all forms of non-essential FGM are currently illegal in Australian law, so would the pragmatic 'ritual nick' being suggested here require some amendment to the legislation? I feel that would be definitely a step backwards.

So Keith you are in favour of genitally mutilating little girls. Your only problem is with how much is acceptable?

I'm a bit late to this article, somehow didn't see it earlier. I thought I'd just chime in on your comment "grounded in the ubiquitous sexual subjugation of women to men"

The dynamic actually seems to be much more complicated than simply 'men controlling women'. Take this study, for example: Dynamics of change in the practice of female genital cutting in Senegambia: testing predictions of social convention theory. Shell-Duncan B, Wander K, Hernlund Y, Moreau A. Soc Sci Med. 2011 Oct;73(8):1275-83.
.. which found that elder circumcised women were a driving force for continuing circumcision in young girls. No doubt there are elements of sexual control but this has variably been an aspect at different points in history in both male and female circumcision. Is there some element of 'men controlling women' going on? I'd say no doubt there is, but it certainly isn't all that's happening - so if we want to stop this practice we really need to accept that the cultural factors are more complicated.

A number of studies have found that the acceptability of female circumcision in cultures that practice it is much less among educated women than uneducated (see refs below for a few examples), and also that women who are uncircumcised themselves are less likely to be supportive of continuing the practice (which also seems the same for male circumcision). To me this is somewhat heartening - although I believe any circumcision is wrong - at least with falling rates of circumcision these data suggest the practice should increasingly 'taper off', and that any efforts to improve access to education will help change the mindset. Disturbingly though, some people report wishing to continue the practice even when aware that it has adverse health effects.

Looking over the comments here it seems that at least amongst the people who comment on this site there's an increasing consensus that any form of genital alteration of children is wrong. I certainly don't remember this kind of issue get such attention even a decade ago, so maybe our cultural acceptance is changing too. I hope both practices of male and female circumcision die out, the sooner the better.

refs:
Female genital cutting: current practices and beliefs in western Africa.
Sipsma HL, Chen PG, Ofori-Atta A, Ilozumba UO, Karfo K, Bradley EH.
Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Feb 1;90(2):120-127F

Female genital mutilation: prevalence, perceptions and effect on women's health in Kersa district of Ethiopia.
Yirga WS, Kassa NA, Gebremichael MW, Aro AR.
Int J Womens Health. 2012;4:45-54

Intergenerational attitude changes regarding female genital cutting in Nigeria.
Alo OA, Gbadebo B.
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011 Nov;20(11):1655-61

http://www.african-women.org/FGM/myths.php
gives a very clear explanation of the reasons for FGM. Quoting the summary:

"Factors that maintain FGM

1. FGM is a primary condition for marriage. No man in FGM practicing areas marries an uncircumcised woman in fear of breaking and/or respecting the local social norms.
2. The payment of the bride price to a girl’s parents depends on a woman fulfilling the traditional norms of the community – FGM being the important one.
3. Invokation of tradition to insist on the continuity of the practice.
4. Misperception of FGM as a religious requirement.
5. Ignorance of sexual and reproductive health."

Chris, saying that it is the women who drive this practice disguises factor no.1 - that it is the men who create the demand, and factor no.2 - that women are in a position of economic dependency. The full article also discusses at length the issue of controlling sexual desire, preserving virginity, preventing infidelity and the fact that to be unmarried and childless is simply not an option.

The men, as much as the women, have a role to play in ending FGM through their own education and change of cultural attitude. I would even say their responsibility in this is greater, because their power is greater. The preference of men may not be the only factor but, let's face it, they only have to say "I will not marry a circumcised woman" and FGM would stop overnight! Otherwise, empower women with education, financial independence, freedom from cultural oppression, and real options. In these situations, the choice of mothers to circumcise their daughters has already proved to be decreasing, as you have confirmed.

I see your point, maybe by only focusing on data about female education I have seemed to put all the weight on their shoulders, which wasn't at all what I intended. Clearly education of men plays a role too, but I was trying to emphasize that prevention methods can't be all about men, as men aren't somehow completely separate from the culture they live in.

For example, I've got friends (males) from Middle Eastern backgrounds who have entered into arranged marriages. One in particular I was talking to about it when he was about to go home to meet this girl for the first time. He wasn't keen initially, but his parents had said (summarizing all the points he raised) 'come on, we've got an arranged marriage, and so were our parents before that. We've been doing this for generations and now you want to do things differently, that's so selfish'. Eventually he said, ''actually, okay, I'm alright with this, I'll have an arranged marriage".

You state men "only have to say "I will not marry a circumcised woman" and FGM would stop overnight!" That is completely correct. But men aren't independent from the culture they live in and are subject to pressures of other generations and peers as well. It takes a brave person of either gender to stand up against their culture.

Just to be clear: I don't agree with this practice at all and want to see it stopped just as much as the next person.

Chris most women are all too aware of other women who act in reprehensible ways towards their sisters. In fact, without the complicity of these women, men would have had less control over women generally in the past and in the more primitive societies today.

Women, like men, are not a single homogeneous group.

Yeah definitely. I completely agree on the lack of homogeneity - it seems an unfortunate aspect of language that we have these labels, be it men, women, black, white, etc. and that in turn becomes defined as a 'group'. I should have been more careful with my language there.

Dianna Art I suggest that you contact African women that are much more courageous than you and are successfully agitating against FGM.

"Some who read here, even women"

You lost me at "even women".

Hi Dianna. I'm only a sporadic Conversationalist, but have enjoyed reading your posts in this and past forums (or is it fora?). I don't know why Philip Dowling feels the need to attack people personally or make defamatory remarks when it's not seriously warranted. Both these disrespectful behaviours are expressly contrary to the etiquette of this site (and any etiquette, really). Some people just do, and smugly revel in the hurt and offence they create, self-righteousnessly believing they are justified.

Philip accused you of lacking courage and failing to report criminal activities. They were clearly unwarranted aggressive comments of a personal and defamatory nature. I don't know what the editor thinks?

It is a shame, because as you have noted here, his approach is a turn-off for other contributors who might otherwise have engaged with him in positive and creative discourse. As it turned out, I did click on Philip's link even though his "even women" snipe rankled, and I have, in this particular Conversation, basically concurred with his general point of view. However, I've also previously been a target of his unpleasantness, which I now have to exert great mental effort at looking past if I am to objectively consider his opinions at all on merit.

I commend you on your work in public housing, having been involved in community housing for immigrants in western Sydney in a previous line of work. There is nothing like being at the coalface to understand the real difficulties faced by immigrants, as opposed to opinions that may be forged from ivory towers. I was so inspired by the work of Waris Dirie amongst African immigrants in Europe. She IS one of them, understands completely, but has never weakened in her stance that the law must be firm and take a lead on GFM, against "culture", against HER culture. But, she knows the real catalyst for change lies in community support and educational programs appropriate to cultural sensitivities. She is there on the ground, and treats all people with respect and dignity without compromising her principles.

So John as an outsider you condone any cultural practice that small groups practice even if it against the law.
Domestic violence .. not a problem I take it for you.
Child abuse ... not a problem I take it for you. Three year olds with STDs? Regrettable but what can one do.
Others think that if social workers, health workers, and teachers reported suspicions and police actually charged parents then they could join the "Butcher of Bega" in jail.

Interesting question. In the medical literature there's increasing coverage of voluntary female genital surgery for cosmetic reasons. One of the reasons for the increasing medical attention is that it seems to be on the increase and is done by plastic surgeons who obviously not only profit from the procedure, but given it's done in a private system there is very little data on exactly how many women are doing this, and also little data on longer term safety, etc.

This abstract sums up some of the issues well: Female cosmetic genital surgery. Goodman MP.Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jan;113(1):154-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19104372

The reasons seem to be cosmetic appearance and the expectation of improved sexual function. This paper in particular is interesting in that they assessed women at a public hospital in London seeking labia reduction surgery, and found that they all had labia which would be regarded as normal:
Clinical characteristics of well women seeking labial reduction surgery: a prospective study.
Crouch NS, Deans R, Michala L, Liao LM, Creighton SM.
BJOG. 2011 Nov;118(12):1507-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03088.x

Just like the wider cosmetic surgery issue, it's obviously a complicated topic where on the one hand, adults have a right to make decisions about their own bodies, but on the other may be putting themselves at risk unnecessarily, especially if they aren't really doing so with 'informed consent' and really aware of the risks (which you couldn't be if there were no good data on safety and long term outcomes), and whole issue of whether people are seeking this based on cultural influence or not leads to a fairly hairy topic.

I am aware of cosmetic surgery - reducing the size of the labia and such, in order to look like air-brushed centrefolds - can't have any labia minora poking out. Why this is so escapes my understanding. Perhaps men who are more familiar with porn magazines could explain this apparent 'modesty'.

I was referring to the equivalent of male circumcision - the removal of the clitoral hood which protects the clitoris.

Being in possession of fully functional genitals, I am aware that the clitoral hood itself is very sensitive to stimulation and for myself removal would not only impact negatively on such reliable function, but expose the even more sensitive clitoris. I guess eventually the skin would toughen, however before that happens I imagine just moving around would be agony - rather than sexually arousing - irritating to the point of pain.

I agree with the following statement from Wiki:

"Normally, the glans clitoris itself is too sensitive to be stimulated directly, such as in cases where the hood is retracted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_hood

Of course, there would be variations in sensitivity among women - just as there is among men.

My first point is the majority of women would not normally have such a vital part of their sexual organs removed (see medical reasons below).

My second point is that, despite claims to contrary, removal of the clitoral hood is not quite the same as removal of the male foreskin.

Men, quite rightly, expect to be treated with dignity regarding the issue of removal of the foreskin, so too women be accorded the same respect.

The clitoris has (according to Wiki) twice the number of nerve endings than the penis in an organ a fraction of the size of the average penis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris#Clitoral_and_penile_similarities_and_differences

In conclusion, while I do not endorse circumcision in either sex (unless for medical reasons. In the case of women: such as to enhance sexual arousal; some women do not have very sensitive clitoral hoods* or due to infection - some women's clitoral hoods do not retract fully), to understate the impact of removal of a woman's clitoral hood is disturbing as it is ignorant.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_hood_reduction

hang on, I think you might have taken the wrong end of the stick there, Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said "expectation of improved sexual function" - it seems to be exactly that "expectation" - whether it actually would improve sexual function or not. I don't understand why women are opting for these surgeries and I certainly don't endorse it.

Why do some women want to have reductions of the labia minora? or where does that idea come from? One that gets brought up a lot is some idea of 'looking more like women in porn', which seems to imply not only do women in porn have on average smaller labia minora than women not in porn (I have no idea whether that would be true, or whether there's any data on it) but then that women who watch it would want to emulate the genitalia of these porn actresses to the point of going for surgery. Would that actually happen?

There's probably a lot of things going on for someone opting for these surgeries, but if one were an idea that 'men would like their genitalia better if their labia minora were smaller' I'd be really concerned about where they got that idea or who they'd been talking to. Personally if I were with woman with large labia I'd just think 'great, all the more to play with'!

So just to be clear: I love female genitalia just they way they are! and I certainly don't want any young girls being subject to FGM. I also don't want women in western countries signing up to surgeries of uncertain safety. But on that issue things are a bit more murky - if they're adults and they want it, I don't have any right to tell them not to... but I would wonder about the reasons why.

I was just curious as to why men's magazines show such modest shots. I didn't mean specifically, you Chris. Just anyone who is into the female bod - why the neat and tidy little fannies?

For the pictures in magazines we can put blame squarely on censorship laws. My understanding is that any protruding labia minora leads to censorship.

To what degree this underlies the whole issue of genital surgery we can only guess.

" why men's magazines show such modest shots"
"My understanding is that any protruding labia minora leads to censorship."

Ahh..*light goes on*.. okay now I'm getting it.

You are not being at all helpful now.

Please accept my apologies Chris - did not see John Harland's post.

Yes censorship would explain PART of the problem. Must censor those nasty female parts or we will turn off our readers and turn on the censors.

For my next question:

How does that explain the massively surgically altered porn star female actors?

No worries, I guess what I was trying to say was that if a woman saw a pose of a model and thought 'if I were doing that same pose my labia would be sticking out' (and therefore think that theirs was too big) then somehow there's a logical connection, where before I could only think 'Huh? how does that make sense?'

I still don't endorse it at all, and personally I'm not into surgically altered female bodies. I may not be representative but I know a lot of other males I've talked to feel the same.

Chris I appreciate your thoughtful replies.

It is the young women and men who are the most receptive audience to media presentation of sexuality - young men/boys who, through their internet experiences, expect women to look a certain way - impossible breasts, no hair anywhere and bleached anuses! When they finally get to see a real live girl are not so much pleasantly surprised as disappointed. And the girl who feels she is less than desirable for simply looking like a real woman.

Really sad.

Neither men's nor women's magazines depict reasonable images of either sex - however, people continue to buy the mags, the porn.

It is getting a little chicken and egg here. Who is to blame? The purveyors or the buyers? I think it is both and further evidence that market place demand does not always result in anything that could be described as "a common good".

Well said. It's interesting that this whole sexualization or even 'pornification' of society issue seems to be a recurring theme that comes up on The Conversation - in posts about removal of pubic hair, whether young girls dress as 'tramps', women opting for cosmetic surgery, the content of pop videos, etc. This time in history is probably going to make an interesting sociological/anthropology subject for future generations. Where will it lead us? I don't know, but some of these trends really can't be healthy.

I probably should have just said this earlier and saved some confusion, but thought twice (since I post under my own name and all) but in all honesty I've never noticed any overall difference in labia size between women I've been intimate with in real life and women I've seen in porn/centrefolds, etc. Hence my confusion. I thought the penny dropped with John Harland's comment and it was something to do with modest poses leading to the illusion of smaller labia or something, but I realize looking over the comments that I just don't get it and that doesn't really make sense anyway. Maybe the women I've been with haven't been representative of women in general, or those I've seen in porn haven't been typical of 'women in porn' (whatever the reason, I don't really intend to try and find out!). Do women in porn have smaller labia? I never knew, but I guess they must if women cite it as a reason to seek out genital cosmetic surgery. Regardless, women's (or men's) bodies in porn are obviously no yardstick to go using as a standard for expectations about the body.

Getting back to the original topic of this article, it's relieving to see that in general there's a broad condemnation of FGM and the only disagreement seems to be about whether a 'harm reduction' approach would be worthwhile by allowing a 'small nick'. I'm undecided, I can see the logic, but it would be all too easy for 'a small nick' to turn back into a larger cut in the future. And besides the UN call to end FGM doesn't have any tolerance for it either.

I guess to sum up my thoughts on all these issues they would be this (essentially an application of the concepts of universal human rights):

- No child should have their genitalia modified for cultural reasons, be they male or female.

- For any adult, male or female, who signs up to cosmetic surgery, I just hope they know what they're doing, and that, for their sake, there's legal systems in place to ensure that those who profit from such surgeries act professionally and are honest about the risks involved.

The latter issue gets a bit more complicated; while adults have the right to make their own decisions obviously they too are subject to cultural pressures, and particularly for things like female cosmetic genital modification or male penis enlargement surgeries, it would be absurd to say that the sexualization of society plays no role in that. Maybe this whole ubiquity of porn/sexualization topic is something for a Conversation author to address (if they dare, I bet the comments section on that would get lengthy).

You are right, anthropologists should be taking notes... human sexuality has more twists and turns than the Amazon in full flood and is just as dark and murky.

"and the only disagreement seems to be about whether a 'harm reduction' approach would be worthwhile by allowing a 'small nick'. I'm undecided, I can see the logic, but it would be all too easy for 'a small nick' to turn back into a larger cut in the future. And besides the UN call to end FGM doesn't have any tolerance for it either. "

Yeah, the "ritual nick" - just has a bad ring to it doesn't it? Those in favour of it should nick their own genitals and leave other people's alone. I just don't see that it is a sincere and practical alternative as it simply endorses the psychology behind the need for messing around with the sexual bits.

However, if a nick saves a girl from a life of bullying.... difficult for me to accept as this and other human traditions such as the burqa effect a knee jerk visceral response in me.

Hey, we are in a place in time where we CAN discuss these conundrums - never before was this possible.

:)