|
|
Post by nsync on May 12, 2010 13:12:56 GMT -5
Rites of passage that should be protected culturally and/or legally
or
violation forced on young girls?
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 12, 2010 13:15:44 GMT -5
I was shocked to find out how prevalent this still is especially within the immigration population in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on May 12, 2010 13:27:02 GMT -5
Violation and should be prosecuted. The "it was done to me so I should do it to you" resonates with such barbaric practices as incest. Not down for it. Mutilation is the only word i can think of for it.
It's not just cosmetic like male circumcision. It alters how a woman functions and feels forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on May 12, 2010 13:31:07 GMT -5
The US Gov is granting folks asylum on the basis that they suspect that they (or their child) may eventually be forced to undergo FGM. I'm not certain I agree with this. The slope is slippery and I'm happy to explain why if anyone cares.
I try to be very careful about how I discuss the practice, because I have no personal experience with it whatsoever. The practice prevails and remains a relevant part of multiple cultures (read: not just African) for reasons that are obviously beyond my Western/Christian sphere of thinking. I find it abhorrent, but I'm sure somebody in some part of the world can't fathom why American men are only allowed one wife or why I as a woman fail to lower my eyes when I have contact with a man outside my family. I don't assume that all women who experience FGM feel negatively about the practice, which is why they go on to perpetuate it to their daughters.
However, not all prevalent cultural phenomena (see: hazing) are good, even if there is circumstantial discernible benefit. And the law occasionally has to step in to balance the scales whereever possible. My major question is: is American law at all qualified to address this issue? My suspicion is probably not, given that our respective legislatures are so reactionary to public opinion about a topic that the most vocal of proponents/opponents know nothing about (see:hazing). If it doesn't involve life, liberty or property (as with honor killings in Pakistan or fetish shrines in Ghana), I'm not sure the US government has anything to say about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hummy Jones on May 12, 2010 13:33:38 GMT -5
<---- feels that it should be protected!
Why take someone's culture away? That is apart of who they are and what they believe. I don't believe in strippin people of their rights. As long as they are not out doing something of THE MOST crazy, then why bother? It's not like they are grabbing girls and doing it to them. It's their tradition.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on May 12, 2010 13:40:29 GMT -5
I was trying to figure out some way to say it differently but couldn't. Clearly you don't love your clit like I love mine HS. That's all i got.
<---Still refuses to call this child Hummy
<---Cannot crawl up out of that gutter where she apparently has paid several months' rent in advance...lol
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on May 12, 2010 13:41:48 GMT -5
*whispers* what's wrong with "hummy"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hummy Jones on May 12, 2010 13:47:23 GMT -5
LOL @ 91 and Leja. Nothing is wrong with me Leja and if you were referring to why 91 doesn't call me Hummy, she doesn't like it at all so she calls me HS. 91, I do love my clit. Very much, but they are not doing it to us. That is not part of our culture. Now if y'all are talking about posing this as a law for ALL females in america, then yea. I would definitely have a problem with it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hummy Jones on May 12, 2010 13:48:20 GMT -5
I was trying to figure out some way to say it differently but couldn't. Clearly you don't love your clit like I love mine HS. That's all i got. <---Still refuses to call this child Hummy <---Cannot crawl up out of that gutter where she apparently has paid several months' rent in advance...lol LOL, I died at this posting 91!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Noble Work on May 12, 2010 13:48:29 GMT -5
Wait, did she just say "clit"?
OMG I can not move nor blink....lol
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on May 12, 2010 13:50:44 GMT -5
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I said I tried! I just couldn't come up with a suitable synonym  <----Waits for every dude on the board to swoop in and post up on the sidelines |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on May 12, 2010 13:59:59 GMT -5
...and if you were referring to why 91 doesn't call me Hummy yeah, that's what I wanted to know. But I'm good now. She's just a weirdo |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on May 12, 2010 14:01:53 GMT -5
Love me as I am Leja. Don't act like this was your first indication that something was amiss....lol
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 12, 2010 14:35:54 GMT -5
I so never expected to laugh in this thread. That darn Dsturbia is crazy!!!! I laughed so hard that asupervisor stopped by my desk to see if I was okay due to all the "choking".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH
Anyhow, back to the serious part.
Yeah, I think Leja said it eloquently. It's hard for me to make a firm decision so I'll just stick to my bias until further notice.
All reports I have seen on it have been from a western perspective especially dealing with health outcomes. All = no bueno. Once this procedure is done000minimal if any pleasure comes to the woman during intercourse or sexual play.
It is said to have become custom so that women would not be promiscuous. All these things point to a no go for me. However, cultural identity is so important. Many young woman are raised to see it as a form of honor and maturity.
More attention should be given to this topic, because it does affect American womenof various backgrounds especially those with parents who are recent immigrants from nations that culturally support such procedures.
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 12, 2010 14:37:24 GMT -5
I thought this article was interesting especially the comments section. www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erbe/2010/05/11/us-doctors-wrong-on-female-genital-mutilation-among-immigrants.htmlU.S. Doctors Wrong on Female Genital Mutilation Among Immigrants May 11, 2010 09:10 AM ET | Bonnie Erbe | Permanent Link | Print By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog Believe it or not, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) thinks it's OK for immigrant parents to subject their daughters to a mild form of female genital mutilation (FGM). This is more evidence our nation has gone mad over immigration and is allowing immigrants to commit all manner of crimes that would be illegal if performed by a native-born citizen. The AAP issued a report saying, in essence, it's better to allow parents who are going to maim their daughters' private parts to inflict a "ritual nick" than to send the girls overseas (back to their home country) for the traditional form of mutilation--a "surgery" performed by midwives and other non-medical personnel which maims girl's private parts for life. According to the anti-mutilation activist group Intact America: The AAP report--which urged changes [to current law] to allow a “ritual nick” of girls’ genitals so families don’t send their daughters overseas for a full genital cutting--came out the same day that two congressmembers--Democrat Joseph Crowley of New York and Republican Mary Bono of California--introduced legislation (The Girls Protection Act, H.R. 5137) that would make it illegal to transport a minor girl living in the United States out of the country for the purpose of female genital mutilation. Genital mutilation is illegal in the United States, and for good reason. But we're so overly sympathetic to Asian and African cultures that still practice mutilation that we don't want to "offend" them by making their followers adhere to the same laws the rest of us here must abide by. This attitude is nothing short of insane. Before allowing people to immigrate to the United States, we should question them about their child rearing and cultural beliefs. If they admit they would perform such an act on a daughter, they should be denied entry into this country. Further, their citizenship should be revoked if they participate in such acts of child cruelty. Immigrants enjoy a privilege to become U.S. citizens. No foreigner has a "right" to U.S. citizenship. We should be much more selective about who we allow to emigrate here, and allow in persons who are going to contribute to our economy and enhance our culture, not degrade it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on May 12, 2010 14:44:50 GMT -5
The rites of passage for girls is done just as it is done for boys. Africans knew before "science" proved the foreskin is made of the same as the labia. They also knew the clitoris was made up as the same as the penis. They see these as manifestations of feminine/masculine residue and deal with them accordingly. The media has made it about feminism and sexuality but yet they say nothing about the millions of boys who undergo ritual circumcision through rites of passage with no anesthesia.
Personally with me having a daughter I couldn't call it. If I were in that society I would leave that up to her mother to decide. But my son would DEFIANTLY go through the rites of passage if we were in a society as such.
I mean THIS is where our pledge process comes from believe it or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on May 12, 2010 14:45:20 GMT -5
Until we can place ourselves in the shoes of others, we cannot truly be citizens of the world. We may not understand the culture but we understand the physical effect of the practice.
Being raised in a culture where this is prevalent is bad enough but I cannot imagine being raised in America and then being victimized by immigrant parents.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on May 12, 2010 14:51:55 GMT -5
The rites of passage for girls is done just as it is done for boys. Africans knew before "science" proved the foreskin is made of the same as the labia. They also knew the clitoris was made up as the same as the penis. They see these as manifestations of feminine/masculine residue and deal with them accordingly. The media has made it about feminism and sexuality but yet they say nothing about the millions of boys who undergo ritual circumcision through rites of passage with no anesthesia. Personally with me having a daughter I couldn't call it. If I were in that society I would leave that up to her mother to decide. But my son would DEFIANTLY go through the rites of passage if we were in a society as such. I mean THIS is where our pledge process comes from believe it or not. word. Now, the FGM that appears to be problematic for critics is the kind that amputates the clitoris, which cannot really be likened to removing foreskin because of the long-term psycho-sexual effects. African science knows that labia = foreskin and clitoris = penis, so that doesn't explain (at least to me, who is admittedly not very informed) why the clitoris is sometimes removed and the penis never is. There is some FGM that modifies the labia, sews it shut, etc. This is more analogous to male circumcision and does not offend my sensibilities as much. We rarely hear about that (or it's all lumped together as "genital cutting"). |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on May 12, 2010 15:12:51 GMT -5
What you stated doesn't make sense. Why would the penis be removed? The penis is supposed to be on the man. The foreskin is seen as the labia(lips) of a vagina and thus it is removed. The clitoris is a small penis. It is made of the same nerve endings and it is on the woman thus it is removed. As far as the psyche I disagree with that is well. A boy see's his mutilation everyday when he uses the bathroom.
But lets call it for what it is..... Most women feel without her clitoris she couldn't achieve an orgasm. That is what this is really about. Make it plain.
They still getting it in over in the motherland. THIS is where your probates and pledge process comes from. They still keeping with tradition. 3 Months in the cut... Notice the two guys who leads them in. Dean and ADP anyone? lol
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 12, 2010 15:28:42 GMT -5
The clitoris is supposed to be on the woman. That's why it's there!
*gasp* ...just the thought of it...
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on May 12, 2010 15:31:18 GMT -5
Like I said and I will reiterate I have a daughter and if I lived in that society the decision concerning that would be left up to her and the elder women of the family. I wouldn't put myself in those affairs. I do understand the method behind it though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on May 12, 2010 15:32:14 GMT -5
The clitoris is supposed to be on the woman. That's why it's there! *gasp* ...just the thought of it... So is the foreskin supposed to be on the man as well? Should men not get circumcised? |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 12, 2010 15:41:14 GMT -5
I think it is. LOL I mean I know there are religious reasons folks remove it but the medical reasons are not founded. Also I have read that there is over a 50% decrease in transmitting HIV in uncircumcised males than those who have been cut.
I didnt get the full research paper, just the finding so I don't know all the conditions. Also not all males get circumsize at birth even today. It's probably like 60% or something like that.
People do it out of tradition or false reports of infection...yaddi yadda.
Which is funny, because the tip of the penis is very germy. Many women get infections for lack of a better word every year that they misinterpret as yeast infections---from germs passed directly from the penis to the vagina.
This would not be as much of the case if the forskin was left untouched. That's just a conclusion I came up with based on deducation.
If infection is the case, females do not experience this. Therefore there would be no reason to cut the labia nor the clitoris yet reason to cut the foreskin.
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 12, 2010 15:44:12 GMT -5
I KNOW...especially for those who don't want it to be done. It happens fairly young too...that must be a terror. Until we can place ourselves in the shoes of others, we cannot truly be citizens of the world. We may not understand the culture but we understand the physical effect of the practice. Being raised in a culture where this is prevalent is bad enough but I cannot imagine being raised in America and then being victimized by immigrant parents |
|
|
|
Post by Chal™ on May 12, 2010 16:10:34 GMT -5
Chal is NOT one of those women (thank goodness). Although THOSE types of 'gasms are the greatest.
I understand where you are coming from, VP. But medical science shows that an uncircumcised male can carry diseases in that extra bit of skin. Our bit of skin covers a deliciously sensitive part of our bodies.
Plus, uncut penises are ugly as hayle and I personally do not know one woman who want to go anywhere near one with her mouth. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on May 12, 2010 16:14:49 GMT -5
I think it is. LOL I mean I know there are religious reasons folks remove it but the medical reasons are not founded. Also I have read that there is over a 50% decrease in transmitting HIV in uncircumcised males than those who have been cut. I didnt get the full research paper, just the finding so I don't know all the conditions. Also not all males get circumsize at birth even today. It's probably like 60% or something like that. People do it out of tradition or false reports of infection...yaddi yadda. Which is funny, because the tip of the penis is very germy. Many women get infections for lack of a better word every year that they misinterpret as yeast infections---from germs passed directly from the penis to the vagina. This would not be as much of the case if the forskin was left untouched. That's just a conclusion I came up with based on deducation. If infection is the case, females do not experience this. Therefore there would be no reason to cut the labia nor the clitoris yet reason to cut the foreskin. Alot of women get infections from simply not washing their asses too. Lets not go down the road of infections because the climate for bacteria to grow is MUCH more hospitable inside of the vagina than it is on the tip of the penis. Like light years. lol Most infections on both sides comes from lack of cleanliness. The HIV circumcision argument is just that an argument. It's not that the lack fo foreskin protects but moreso its alluding to the lack of proper cleanliness of those who are uncircumcised. |
|
|
|
Post by Chal™ on May 12, 2010 16:24:39 GMT -5
the inside of a vagina is not the same as the clitoris. so where is the point in shankin' it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on May 12, 2010 17:08:27 GMT -5
I was trying to figure out some way to say it differently but couldn't. Clearly you don't love your clit like I love mine HS. That's all i got. <---Still refuses to call this child Hummy <---Cannot crawl up out of that gutter where she apparently has paid several months' rent in advance...lol LOL, I died at this posting 91!!!!!!!! Me too, LOL |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on May 12, 2010 17:50:45 GMT -5
The penis is supposed to be on the man... The clitoris is a small penis. It is made of the same nerve endings and it is on the woman thus it is removed. Didn't think of that. |
|
|
|
Post by missb08 on May 12, 2010 18:21:42 GMT -5
I would let the daughter decide for herself. Regardless of if it is for pleasure or not, I don't think that can be compared to that of a man being circumcised just because.... JUST CAUSE! LOL. Sexually a man can still function if he is circumcised, as we can too, but it will probably be much less enjoyable. One could argue that sex is primarily used for, well SHOULD be used primarily for reproduction, but that is not always the case. It shouldn't be sugar coated and treated like it is.
Maybe I am just speaking from an American POV, but especially since many of these girls probably don't want this procedure, I do not think it should be forced upon them. We were given the option to lead our lives whichever way we'd like by God, so why not allow the girls the choice to do what they feel?
|
|
