World

6° London Hi 11°C / Lo 5°C

Genital mutilation: Women fight Africa's taboo

They broke the silence from tribal elders and politicians – but paid a high personal price for trying to protect millions of young girls from the knife

By Katrina Manson in Sierra Leone

Rugiatu Turay campaigns for the end of female genital mutilation

Rugiatu Turay campaigns for the end of female genital mutilation

The female journalist was snatched by members of a secret society, forcibly stripped and made to parade naked through the streets. It might sound like an atrocity from the time when Sierra Leone was ripped apart by a bloody civil war, but in fact the public humiliation was exacted in the diamond-rich eastern town of Kenema just this month. The woman's alleged crime was reporting on female genital mutilation.

While the attack was condemned by media watchdogs as "disgraceful behaviour worthy of a bygone age", one woman who was not surprised was Rugiatu Turay. When she was 12 Ms Turay was stolen away by family members and underwent what some politely refer to as "circumcision". She calls it "torture". For the past six years, she has been waging a war against the practice, which many in Sierra Leone, including senior politicians, see as an initiation rite.

Her organisation, the Amazonian Initiative Movement, tries to protect young girls from the knife. "I picked the name because I am trying to talk about strong, powerful women," she says Ms Turay, who works with her 20-strong staff in and around the northern town of Lunsar. So far, she has persuaded about 400 practitioners of female genital mutiliation (FGM), who are often called soweis, to lay down their blades and stop their role in the traditional bondo ceremony. "Silence means consent. But if you say the truth people listen ... We go to the schools, mosques, everywhere."

As reward for her tenacious efforts, she has received death threats and been attacked by juju men, sometimes armed with magic, sometimes with machetes. She describes a time when more than a hundred people paraded a symbolic corpse outside her home to suggest her own death: "They came right in front of me sharpening their cutlasses."

But so many times has she failed to die, that locals now think she is immune. "Now they believe I have special powers. They do nothing to me."

Ms Turay was mutilated at her aunt's house where she was staying with her three sisters and her cousin. "We didn't even know that we were going to be initiated," she says. "They called me to get water and then outside they just grabbed me."

She was blindfolded, stripped, and laid on the ground. Heavy women sat on her arms, her chest, her legs. Her mouth was stuffed with a rag. Her clitoris was cut off with a crude knife. Despite profuse bleeding she was forced to walk, was beaten and had hot pepper water poured into her eyes.

"My mother had always told me never to let anyone touch me there. I was scared and I tried to fight them off. Nobody talked to me but there was all this clapping, singing, shouting," recalls Ms Turay. "When I tried to walk on the seventh day I could not walk. All they could say is 'Today you have become a woman'."

Ms Turay is among the estimated 94 per cent of girls who undergo FGM in Sierra Leone. The practice – which forms part of a ceremony of initiation rites overseen by women-only secret societies such as bondo and sande – can cause severe bleeding, infection, cysts and sometimes death, but is largely ignored.

Reasons for the process vary, but many people cite tradition and culture, saying it is essential preparation for marriage and womanhood; binds communities to each other and to their ancestors; and restricts women's sexual behaviour.

Last year, UN agencies came out strongly against the practice, labelling it "painful and traumatic", a violation of human rights and demanding it be abandoned within a generation. "It has no health benefits and harms girls and women in many ways," said the UN's World Health Organisation (WHO). "The practice causes severe pain and has several immediate and long-term health consequences, including difficulties in childbirth."

Yet many international aid organisations are too scared to do anything about it in public for fear of being labelled cultural imperialists. A recent Sierra Leone child rights bill dropped any mention of FGM at the last minute, and politicians – including President Ernest Bai Koroma – baulk at the mention of the subject.

A decade ago, a female politician who later became the minister for social welfare said: "We will sew the mouths up of those preaching against bondo." More recently, politicians are rumoured to have sponsored mass cutting ceremonies, which can be relatively costly affairs in one of the world's poorest countries, in an effort to secure votes in elections.

"Secret societies have become intertwined with modern political life in Sierra Leone and retain considerable power and influence," wrote the anthropologist Dr Richard Fanthorpe in a paper commissioned by the UN.

When I asked President Koroma – whose country receives more aid per person from Britain than any other donor recipient – about his position on the practice, it was the first time I saw the usually affable leader lost for words. Unable to reach for his usually ubiquitous wide toothy smile, he meandered awkwardly through an answer: "Let people in civil society deal with this issue."

That leaves the fight against FGM, which the WHO says has been conducted on 92 million African girls – and rising by up to three million a year – to the odd brave soul such as Ms Turay. The 26-year-old is among a number of anti-FGM campaigners slowly achieving results. In her effort to keep some safe from cutting, Ms Turay has even adopted 14 children from Sierra Leone and Guinea.

Girls under 15 regularly undergo the cutting and for the newly initiated, it remains a frightening process shrouded in secrecy. "You should not tell anybody about circumcision or else your stomach will swell and you'll die," one young girl who didn't know her age told me quietly in her local Temne language.

Ms Turay hopes her struggle will help break such taboos of talking about the cutting in public, although it may also spur more reactionary moves, such as this month's punishment meted out to the journalist in Kenema. And it is no easy task persuading the practitioners to abandon what they see as a rite of passage. Girls as young as five are trained to become circumcisers and it is an income-generator in a poverty-stricken country, still struggling to shrug off the legacy of the 1991-2002 civil war.

"I didn't like it when it happened to me and I worry about the pain of the girl, but I do it because they pay me, and because we met our ancestors doing it," says practitioner Marion Kanu, 35, whose two children are also practitioners.

Others have seen the error of their ways. "I regret it now," says another sowei who has vowed to stop. But it is not always easy to hang up the knife. One woman practitioner who said she would stop the cutting was kidnapped by members of the bundu society. Both her and her baby were beaten and taken to the bush for three days without food or water; the mother was raped. Her life was saved only by Ms Turay's intervention.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Africa Taboo
[info]brustan wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 08:46 am (UTC)
I believe that this mutilation is usually practised by women's groups on younger women. The men find it very embarrassing and treat it as a taboo subject. I'm surprised that this was not emphasised more in your article. Additionally, the practise of genital mutilation of male babies and male children, in many countries and in huge numbers (and without any form of consent), seems to create little interest.
Re: Africa Taboo
[info]tireesix wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 08:52 am (UTC)
Circumcision of both males and females should be banned (unless of course there is medical indication).

It is so hypocritical of the west to denounce female circumcision and yet allow male circumcision carry on.
Re: Africa Taboo
[info]firefly_cowgirl wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 01:00 pm (UTC)
However distasteful you find male circumcision, it's not comparable. This is extreme mutilation and torture that seriously threatens the victim's life, prevents her from feeling sexual pleasure if she survives, and massively increases the chances of her dying in childbirth later on. It's quite possibly the most horrific form of child abuse in history.
Re: Africa Taboo
[info]advoc_8 wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 04:52 pm (UTC)
If I was to cut my son?s finger off i would quite rightly be arrested and accused of abuse, yet i could mutilate his penis and chop some of that off without his consent and that would be perfectly acceptable. Although male infant circumcision does not involve the extremes of physical and emotional torture of female adolescent circumcision it is just as important to end it. A boys penis is his own business and no parent should have the right to permanently alter their child?s body unless on medical grounds. It would be unacceptable to tattoo a baby in our culture as it is irreversible, surely male circumcision is worse as it affects not only appearance but also sensation and can in some cases lead to complications. It is unnecessary surgery.
Re: PLANET OF THE APES 2000
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 04:55 pm (UTC)

ABSOLUTE MAN


ABSOLUTE MAN IS KNOT HU MAN
ABSOLUTE MAN IS KNOT YU MAN
ABSOLUTE MAN IS KNOT EVEN YE MEN

ABSOLUTE MAN IS SUB HU MAN
ABSOLUTE MAN IS SUB U* TAN
ABSOLUTE MAN IS SUB U* TAN ORANG

ABSOLUTE MAN IS ZOO MAN
KNOT *TZU MAN
ABSOLUTE MAN IS XU MAN XI
ABSOLUTE MAN IS ZOO MAN ZEEE
ABSOLUTE MAN IS KNOT ZU MAN CHI CHi CHy

ABSOLUTE MAN IS IM
IM IN CHi IN CHIN
IN LA TIN

IM CHIM PAN ZEE

SEE

HOMO EXTINQKTUS

IN
ROME
IN ROMA
INIT
IM IS YT
IN GYT
TYGMI


PIGMY
PIGMEAT M8*
Re: Africa Taboo
[info]hanif001 wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 04:27 pm (UTC)

Male and female circumcision are two different things. With male circumcision, there is positive reduction in health issues such as reduction in cervical cancer with in long term monogamous relationship. There is lots of literature on male circumcision, and several medical organizations have published policy statements on the topic.
Re: Africa Taboo
[info]richardmar wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 07:20 pm (UTC)
The difference between male uncircumcised and circumcised with regards to cervical cancer is very minimal.

Besides girls and women are now vaccinated against that type of cervical cancer (at least there are here in the UK) so it is no longer a benefit.

There is a substantial loss of sexual pleasure from being circumcised however and that is a fact that will not change.
Re: Africa Taboo
[info]elzeide wrote:
Sunday, 1 March 2009 at 08:03 pm (UTC)
I cant believe the way that almost all comments here, moved to criticize circunsision when the article is about female mutilation; They are two completely different things. In my opinion there are trying to deviate the subject, by mixing it with a culturally, socially and medically accepted practice. And for me this is like lying. Please remember that the article is about female genital mutilation and how she, the journalist was "... forcibly stripped and made to parade naked through the streets."

This is also very sad (reread on the original article):"Yet many international aid organisations are too scared to do anything about it in public for fear of being labelled cultural imperialists."

Finally circunsicion doesn't put on risk the baby and is false that there is any loose of sexual pleasure, or many other lies I saw in the comments.
Note, that I didn't write "male" after circunsision, because clitoris mutilation IS NOT circunsision.

Re: Africa Taboo
[info]slopboy wrote:
Friday, 20 March 2009 at 11:42 am (UTC)
It doesn't matter weather male circumcision is as bad as female circumcision.
The argument should be, with no immediate medical benefit, does anyone have the right to amputate any other person's appendages.
All needless circumcision is a crime.
Stop both forms of circumcision NOW.
FGM
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 04:28 pm (UTC)
Shouldnt it be "Female Genital Modification"?All you are doing is placing a (loaded) western term in an African context.Cultural bias.
Re: FGM
[info]leonore35 wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 06:04 pm (UTC)
because cutting off a vital part of the body is mutilation, especailly if it is done by force against the will of the victim there is no linguistic loading the term is precisely used by medical science so get off your anti colonial soap box
how would you like it if someone cut off part of the head of your penis
Re: FGM
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 08:48 am (UTC)
This is a separate question.Anti-colonialism (beastly white men forcing their base phallocentric view on poor oppressed wimmin) or somebody chopping off the head of my old lad.Like to see them try!
Why the difference?
[info]wormery wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 04:34 pm (UTC)
Male Gential Mutilation is supposedly acceptable then. Why? I agree that both male and female circumcision should be banned - and I do not accept that most female circumcision is worse (80% is only partial and minor removal of tissue - there are various types of female circumcision). Boys die too and get hooribly scarred, mentally and physically. That is just a victim culture feminist construct. Ironic really - because all female genital mutilation is done by women, not men. Ban both or neither. End of.
Re: Why the difference?
[info]hanif001 wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 04:57 pm (UTC)

For males: There are religious reasons for Jews, Christians & Muslims.

Male non-believers can undertake it on the basis of hygene and reduction in related health issues.
Re: GNU MAN
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 05:18 pm (UTC)


HI GUISE


GNU MAN IS U MAN
KNOT YU MAN

U MAN IS IT
UI IS IT IN INRI IN INTI INIT IN IRON IN ROMA IN ROME
AND IN DGJHEHWRUSALEM IN SALEM


BRUTAN MAN

TO THIS PURPOSE THE NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS SAY THAT
NATURE DOES NOTHING IN VAIN,
AND MORE IS IN VAIN
WHERE LESS WILL SERVE,
FOR NATURE IS PLEASED WITH SIMPLICITY,
AND AFFEKTS KNOT THE POMP OF SUPERFLUOS KAUSES
Re: Why the difference?
[info]wormery wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 08:14 pm (UTC)
The reason religions practised male circumcision in past centuries is because back then there was a lack of hygiene and in dusty environments infections could set in. Not now though. Same as the religious laws for not eating pork etc. It was because people in the past did not understand food poisoning or tapeworm life cycles. The ancient world pokes its silly nose into the modren world via religion. I think it should be kept out with a great big punch.

I understand you are probably a muslim, so believe allah wants you mutilate your sons, but please stop spouting your UTTER LIES about male curcumcision being more hygienic. NO. The revierse is true - and a few boys die of infection and lose their penises or have them terribly mutilated by circumcision. There is NO significant reduction in disease thru male circumcision - all a lie promoted by the religious and the puritanical who thought it stopped masturbation (why 80% american males are mutilated, and australians and the royal family - look how nuts they are are).

It is A TERRIBLE THING to cut a natural piece of flesh from one's son, thereby exposing an internal organ so its skin thickens and scars. The vast majority of little foreskin infections in uncircumcised males sort themselves out easily - just as women's genital infections do. Or would you cut out their vaginas if a woman gets thrush? A foreskin is there for a reason. Or if you like, GOD put it there for a reason, just like your lips, eyelids, earlobes etc. Do you want to remove them too? Your God's not much of a God is he if he misdesigns a penis then so much that you have to cut it to pieces eh...

I know several men who are depressed, suicidal and really suffering because their parents chose to mutilate their genitals. But of course, teh circumcised don't know what they are missing. I thank goodness I am not circumcised. And I hate the way circumcised penises look - raw, mutilated - like an eye without an eyelid. YUCK!


There are NO HEALTH BENEFITS TO MALE CIRCUMCISION - SO DO NOT LIE! And do not forget the poor boys who die, get their penises cut or burnt off or otherwise mutilated because of this unnecessary barbaric practise in the first place. It has NO place in the modern world - or do you want to start keeping slaves again and having several 12 year old wives?
Re: Why the difference?
[info]hanif001 wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 08:53 pm (UTC)

Easy tiger! @wormery.

So by your arguments on Gods laws vs modernity, now that you have condoms, you will be sleeping with your sister as you dont have to worry about genetic contimation?

With all the shouting about "no health benefits", can we assume that you are a world renouned scientist who has just completed long term research on the subject of male circumcision?

The Muslims (Arabic phase of Islam) have inherited this law from Hebrew (Jewish) and Aramaic (Christian) phases of Islam. This law goes back a long way. You need to understand the religion of Abraham before you start making irrational comments about Islam. There is much more to Islam than what you'll get in the media.

God has created many aspects of mankind which cannot be explained by scientists, eg, why create a brain which is (to our crude understanding) only used 20% on average (evolution doesnt explain this either)? etc etc. Obviously, you have made it clear that you are a disbeliever - thats your understanding of this life.

Did you watch a discovery channel documentary called "Eve". It was three part series about the orgins of humans. Scientists have found that each of us (all races in the world) come from one original physical mother. They found this by examining the DNA from people around the world. So what was once a religious belief regarding Adam and Eve, has now become a fact. So you and me are linked by blood to a single mother, like it or not :-)

So, dont go all "we are too modern for religion" on me, my cousin (by DNA)!
Re: Why the difference?
[info]richardmar wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 09:16 pm (UTC)
That 20% of the brain thing actually isn't true. It is completely false.

Please play again sometime.
Re: Why the difference?
[info]wormery wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 07:55 am (UTC)
Sorry mate, but your post just looks like more lies from the muslim (there's a novelty).

Firstly, you analogy re. condoms is absurb

Second, you must be very careful about 'research by renowned scientists' - much research shows confirmation bias, especially, in this case, is carried out by people from culture where circumcision is standard and by circumcised scientists (ie USA). Also, so many people in the medical profession are circumscised (Asians and muslims). The research shows a negligible difference showing slight reduction in cancer BUT you MUST remember too all the boys who die when circumcised, those who lose their genitals, those who are horribly scarred and them kill themselves. Also, the hippocratic oath states a doctor should DO NO HARM - cutting off a naturally present PROTECTIVE piece of skin, which has a function in keeping an internal organ moist, protecting it, and increasing lubrication during sex, and thus pleasure, is IMMORAL and against that oath - why many doctors won't do it. Some even think repressed anger from circumcised men leads to anger and violence and aggression - look at the USA, muslim countries etc.

Third, I do not watch the dumbed down Disocovery Channel because I am not 15 years old and do not like dumbed down crap made for dumb american teenagers. The idea we only use 20% of our brain IS A MYTH LONG DISPROVEN. Also, if one goes back far enough we are all interelated, yes - but that DOES NOT PROVE THE STORY OF ADAM AND EVE. There is a theory of the 7 daughters of Eve I have heard of to show we all come from 7 women 2 million years ago, not one. We are also all realated to fish and every animal and lifeform because of the FACT OF EVOLUTION which has disproved most of the bible and the koran.

Your DNA is 98% the same as an ape and 58% the same as a cabbage and a banana - thus proving the fact of evolution.

The fact is my friend, you are attempting to justify circumcision because it is part of your religion - like a vegetarian attempting to prove it is the best diet after becoming veggie for sentimental reasons. FACT: Circumcision is unnecessary and NO operation should be performed unnecessarily.

And by the way, I probably know more about Islam and its history than you matey, so do not trot out the muslim excuse 'oh you do not understand islam because of the zionist media'. Actually, I understand it and its many versions extremely well.
Re: Why the difference?
[info]darmacc wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 09:43 am (UTC)
I'm cut and I have an incredible sex life. I don't know what it would be like otherwise but then either do you worm. If it was once needed and is no longer due to medical advances than it will eventually correct itself. Evolution will also overcome all other beliefs eventually because it's fact. You say your not cut so relax, bitter rants aren't going to get you anywhere, especially in a thread intended for women.
FGM
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 05:04 pm (UTC)
FGM is already banned in the West and most African nations, but the ban is ignored.

Mutilating their children should not be an option parents have.
Re: BRITNEY SPEARS
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 05:42 pm (UTC)


LOVE IN HEARTS,
WITH CINNAMON STYQKS KLOVES AND KUSTARD TARTS,
PLAYS ON THE DEVILS* TENDER PARTS,
UPSETS APLL KARTS,
FIRES OFF QKUPYDS* DARTS,
WAR WITH THE DEVIL STARTS
FGM
[info]sapperk9 wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 11:45 pm (UTC)
I thought this was about female mutilation? Cut the crap on bloke cutting and address the the issue. For the moderator, remove the bloke stuff please.
Re: FGM
[info]tryandcatchmesa wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 07:24 pm (UTC)
It's very relevant though, as the issue is forcibly editing someones body without consent. Thats the crux of the issue, and no matter what form it comes in, mutilating someone's body without their consent is arrogant and fascist! The one freedom every person should be entitled to is control over ones own body, what one does to it or puts into it...
Medieval culture is not above human rights anymore!
[info]nooraza wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 11:16 am (UTC)
Such barbarity, justified under culture, especially medievally horrifically sexist and sadist like this, has no more place in progressive modernity and is not superior to universal human rights. Western governments must ensure that aid is not empowering the ruling political power who is complicit in this since the practise is legitimized under 'culture', but to strenghten universal human rights obligation and understanding, and empower oppressed groups like those women and these brave human rights activists such as Ms. Turay and the unfortunate femal journalist. Sieera leone needs help in this, as I have two female friends from there, who had experienced such violence and are indeed traumatized.
circumcism and HIV
[info]imogenlucy wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 11:48 am (UTC)
I am not in favour of circumcism per se; however, I have read that recent research shows that male circumcism dramatically lowers HIV transmission.

THE LION OF TZSIMBABWE
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 12:09 pm (UTC)

SIERRA IS SPANISH FOR SERGIO = SURGERY

LEONE IS SPANISH DOGSKRYPT FOR LYON

SIMBA IS AFFRIKANO FOR LION = THE KING OF THE BEASTS

BUT THE LION OF ZIMBABWE IS A PUSSY KAT

THAT IS WHY MUGABE HAS GNUFFING TO SAY ABOUT THE PRIDE AND THE SHAMEFUL DISGRACE OF AFFREAKA MAN

HOMO AFREAKANUS

KOLON

IF YU KNOW WOT YT MEANZ


RESPEKT
AS THEY SAY IN THE LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH
[info]tegan121 wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 01:05 pm (UTC)
I wanted to add to the male vs. female thing. FGM is usually done to girls in the age range of 5-9 with no anasthetic, and they are often left by themselves to heal. Someone mentioned that 80% of FGM is usually 'minor tissue' or something like that, and so it's not worse than male circumcision in the west. First off, male circumcision for the large majority (except for people who need it for medical reasons later on), happens to infants who will never remember the event in a sterile environment who are treated if they were to develop infection. These little girls are not. Second off, in the most extreme FGM's performed where it's not just the labia majora, these girls have the labia majora and minora, and sometimes even the clitoris cut off, and then the entire gaping wound sewn back together with only a small hole left to urinate. Not only does this cause extreme pain during the procedure, but during everytime they have intercourse, and during childbirth. It is not unheard of that children born from these mothers naturally will become mentally behind their peers because of the unnatural and damaging way their brain has to squeeze out of an unstretching vagina.
It is also true that most people don't begin forming memories until between the ages of 5-8 and very rarely do people have memories before the age of 2. Males in the western world don't have to live with the trauma of circumcision (which in the large majority is the choice of parents and doctors who think of it as a health benefit) and if you talk to any circumcised man he will most likely tell you he still feels a lot of pleasure from intercourse -- there's whole debates about it online; these little girls have to remember AND feel the pain of the procedure the rest of their lives, if they don't die of infection first.
I'm not saying male circumcision should or shouldn't be stopped, I'm just saying that I don't think anyone can say it's on the same level as FGM.
Wow
[info]rttech82 wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 01:54 pm (UTC)
Sounds like some pretty strange beliefs to me!

www.privacy-center.pro.tc
LOL, Are you serious?!?
[info]maddogg420 wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 02:25 pm (UTC)
Even comparing male circumcision and removing a young woman's clit? Are you serious? The foreskin of the male penis serves no functional purpose if you wear underwear. In fact it can lead to disease and makes cleansing more difficult and time consuming.

The purpose of the clitoris is to give pleasure and sexually stimulate a woman before and during sex. It has to be nearly impossible for most of these women to achieve orgasm post mutilation. It's another example of how many African societies treat promiscuity and adultery as problems created by women, as if men have no control over (or responsibility for) themselves.

How dare you say that this is merely us imposing "western" values on another culture. Either you accept the consensus of the UN and WHO definition of acceptable practices, or stop taking their aid money. Mutilating pre-teens and a harmless procedure performed on infants for purpose of cleanliness have no business being mentioned in the same argument.
Re: LOL, Are you serious?!?
[info]frownyboy wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 07:34 pm (UTC)
Yes, but are YOU serious?..

I can't believe people are still pushing for circumcision under the falsehood of "cleanliness". The relentless quotes about how circumcision is done to ?circumvent? medical complications are ridiculous in that uncircumcised men have a higher chance of developing BREAST CANCER than penile cancer that which the circumcision is supposed to "prevent" or "drastically lower" the chance of.

Also, so many people can be heard parroting on about how the foreskin serves no purpose. Well, hm.. other than the fact that it contains one of THE highest concentrations of sensitive nerves to be found on the male body (up to 3-5 times more so than on the part that's left after it's cut off), it's not recommended by any major medical association; and if it is, please feel free to quote me one (a decisive study, and one that's not funded by a religious group please). But, hey; it's been the cultural norm for centuries. Why ask questions when we can just cut the thing off, right?

Oh wait... for the sake of taking preventative measures, how about we cut out the appendix and tonsils too? I mean, better to get it done early right? (And don't forget the mammary tissue.) Also, the greatest benefit to be rendered, in terms of preventing UTI's for the male, is still only that which is on par with the average female..

If not even a moderate minority of medical associations recommend what is, otherwise, known to be a heavily endorsed procedure by religious sects, then perhaps it's time to think about how the underlying reason for circumcision in the western world was really one fueled by religion and superstitions which were camouflaged by skewed, and extremely biased, 'medical' findings. At one point, not but a hundred years ago, circumcision was said to even cure schizophrenia, "the shakes", depression (ha!), and even headaches (!?).

I'm sorry, but it's 2009 people: KNOCK OFF THE FORCED GENITAL MANIPULATION!..

Also, as for the argument that it "looks better", studies show that this opinion is heavily weighted in the preconceived cultural standards of the men and women asked. In the U.S. around 9 out of 10 of women who've only been with a circumcised male say they prefer a man circumcised. However, this number drastically changes with women who'd had experiences with both a circumcised and uncircumcised male. Funny how in European and Scandinavian regions the ratio is almost exactly opposite -- that is, the numbers are in favor of men still intact.


p.s. The 2-3% rate of complications resulting from circumcisions performed in the United States automatically quashes such talk about preventative safety measures.. It's entirely ridiculous how the people of developed economies are still mindlessly submitting to the whole "it's cleaner" philosophy. If the foreskin is really such a hassle to maintain, then why aren't there droves of uncircumcised men aren't lining up to get their genitals mutilated on their own volition and for non-religious purposes? Hmm. Why not? Because it's THE MOST SENSITIVE PART OF THE PENIS! That is, for one that's still intact.. And no, it can't be "stretched out" to reacquire the 10,000-15,000 erotogenic nerve endings that are lost in the procedure.
Re: LOL, Are you serious?!?
[info]frownyboy wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 08:23 pm (UTC)
Also; before skewing a quote by WHO or UNAIDS (in which case, please don?t bother to state ?U.N.? as a third source) keep in mind that this advice is pertaining specific areas in Africa, where, (guess what?), the church is condemning the use of condoms. That?s right, how very well it is to make safe-sex a taboo in areas with extremely high rates of HIV. Mutilation, of course, is just dandy.

The U.N. is, in fact, a proponent of condom use, first and foremost -- stating circumcision as a ?possible? alternative for cases where condoms are unavailable. Another ?possible? scenario would be to cut the penis off all-together now wouldn?t it? The U.N. would, mostly likely, not deny figures pertaining to a lower rate of HIV transmission sustained through intercourse as a result -- but then again, I?m sure they wouldn?t go around recommending it without a preferred alternative, either.

Also, you might want to look up the definition of ?harm? before spouting off about how genital detachment is something of a ?harmless? procedure. And then, if you?re still dubious, go ahead and take a knife to a piece of your own, (today), and then please, by all means, please let us know if your definition still holds.
re:
[info]geeboy wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 07:42 pm (UTC)
I am not an expert on female mutilation - i do not care about how they dress it up. it is every bit as despicable as some of the other abuses that go unpunished in some African countries - what is the reason for this shameful practice? i would guess that this is not being done for medical reasons. this is outrageous and no decent culture should accept this in this day and age
African Taboo
[info]lisainva wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 09:35 pm (UTC)
I see comments about believing that male circumcision being wrong and unnatural. However, my daughter's ex-husband believed that their son should not be circumcised and did not have it done at birth. When the boy was 5 years old, he had no choice but to undergo the procedure because he would not allow his parents to bathe his penis properly by pulling the skin back and as a result an infection set in and all choice about the procedure was then removed.

As for a girl, it is absolute mutilation and has no value whatsoever except to keep her from ever having sexual desires and cause her to rebuff her wedded partner's advances. Her parents would have to be heartless [regardless of belief] to allow anyone to victimize their female child.
Re: African Taboo
[info]frownyboy wrote:
Sunday, 1 March 2009 at 09:40 am (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. There is always going to be a risk; foreskin or no. In all honesty, two of my relatives are currently suffering from infections -- one being a UTI. But their bed-mates, though potential culprits for these cases, are circumcised.

Now I'm not discounting the unfortunate event regarding your grandchild, but what I'm saying is that, either way, these things happen..


To be candid, let me ask -- and I don't mean to be overly insulting -- but:.. How is it, if no one could get close enough to properly bathe a child,.. could then someone find themselves close enough to carry out and perform a procedure of circumcision? I mean, I find myself puzzled, seeing how such a procedure would involve the exact part which the child, seemingly, would had fought for with tooth and nail to preserve from a bath? (Dart gun?) =|


I am, also, not speaking solely for the blokes here. My position of defense is meant to encompass the protection of women as well. ..Even more so in the context of extreme violations which are apparently still taking place in particular cultures in Africa.


I just found it ironic (and was immediately set off) by statements defending a cultural position that it's OK to preemptively remove a part of the male genitalia whilst attacking another culture's position that it's OK to do so on a female.

As I said, it ALL needs to stop and any removal of any parts of these areas should not be done as a preemptive measure of preventing an already uncommon form of infection or cancer. (And need I remind everyone, again, that females have a higher chance of such instances occurring in comparison to both circumcised and uncircumcised males?)

But yes, as a non cultural-relativist I have to say that certain parts of Africa need guidance for the reformation of, or complete elimination of, certain acts and practices. This obviously would include putting a halt to the atrocities inflicted upon the innocent female population.
Specificity when reporting
[info]jonsummys wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 09:41 pm (UTC)
As despicable as the practice is, this well researched article leans towards sensationalism and diminished objectivity when it proclaims that the article is about Africa's taboo. Africa is a continent of 53 sovereign countries, over 900 million people. Africa is not a country. Ms. Manson in this article only talks about one country out of 53, Sierra Leone. If one was to replace Sierra Leone with Great Britain, its very likely the article would talk about "Britain's Taboo" not "Europe's Taboo" and were it about Canada, it would mention "Canada's taboo" not "North America's taboo" even though there are only 3 countries in North America. This type of sensational reporting helps promote negative and unfounded stereotypes about the continent and willingly or unwillingly promotes a seeming sense of hopelessness about the continent. Had Ms. Manson been to 10 or 15 scattered countries and cited them in this article, it might have truly been "Africa's taboo" but there is no indication that she wrote about any other country but Sierra Leone. Perhaps if other countries had been visited she might have found out that FGM is not widely carried out in many Africa cultures and it has been banned under law in a number of countries on the continent which obviously contradicts the taboo tag as used in this context.
Re: BRITNEY DISSASPEARS
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Saturday, 28 February 2009 at 11:37 pm (UTC)
VLAD THE IMPALER,
WAS A BIT OF A FAILURE,
WHEN IT CAME TO HUMAN RIGHTS

KALI KALI
KALI MAMA
KALI BHABI
ET SET E RA ET AL ET EL AD INFINITUM

THROWING THE WYFFE ONTO THE HUSBANDS' PYRE
SAVES FIREWOOD DON'T IT






Re: Specificity when reporting
[info]bibishiisan wrote:
Sunday, 1 March 2009 at 02:07 am (UTC)
Nicely said!

It is suspected that every year as many as 25,000 - 30,000 UK girls (who are supposed to enjoy the protection of our laws which make FGM entierly illegal) are quietly shipped out to 'FGM friendlier' cultures for their own personal experience of genital 're-engineering'.

This is not Africa's Taboo. It's everyone's.

While there are people in the world who want F/MGM done to their own, and places they can go to avoid the legal consequences - they will.

So before we start attacking one particular culture's faliures to protect all it's citizens from such acts, we should take a long hard look at how we, as a country, are failing to protect all of our children.
Re: WE
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Sunday, 1 March 2009 at 04:10 am (UTC)

WE
WHU IZ WE

25,000 - 30,000 UK girls IS UNKL SAM DOGSKRYPT GRINGO DINGO LINGO

IT IS A LIE

STAND OUTSIDE THE FRIDGE AND SAY THAT

INSPEKTED AND FOUND FALSE

WE WEE WEE

WEE PEE
WEE P
WEEP

WEEPA

YU SPEEQK 4 U KNOT WE
YU R KNOT WE
YU R KNOT US

USPEEKA
we should take a long hard look at how we, as a country, are failing to protect all of our children
DA HAV *TCHILL
Re: WE
[info]bibishiisan wrote:
Sunday, 1 March 2009 at 10:27 pm (UTC)
In a recent study of Somalis, Ethiopians, Sudanese and Eritreans living in two west London boroughs, more than 80 per cent of women interviewed had undergone FGM. These groups are not exclusive.

http://www.researchasylum.org.uk/?lid=1784

Experts believe 74,000 first-generation African immigrant women in the UK have undergone female circumcision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3528095.stm


DIS IS*NE UNKL SAM DOGSKRYPT GRINGO DINGO LINGO
DIS HAS*NE BIN INSPEKED N FOUND 2 B FALSE.

UNKL SAM DID*NE CONDUCKT DIS RESEARCH.


FGM in the UK is found most commonly among immigrants from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Yemen. The most severe forms of FGM -- Types 2 and 3 -- are the most commonly performed. It is frequently practiced in the cities of Cardiff, London, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield.

No precise data is available on FGM. Estimates of the number of UK girls and women involved vary considerably from upto 30'000 considered *at risk* of FGM from mainly charity & media sources to the much more conservative government estimates (and documented cases):

All Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health (2000-NOV): 10,000 at risk; 3,000 to 4,000 new cases each year.

Labor force survey (1999): 5,444 girls under the age of 16 are at risk; 69,875 women have been mutilated either in the UK or in their countries of origin.

"YU SPEEQK 4 U KNOT WE
YU R KNOT WE
YU R KNOT US

WE
WHU IZ WE?"

Good question :)

I SPEEQK FOR ME
I SPEEQK WITH 'WE'
THE 'WE' WHU SERVE TO PROTECT U N ME
OUR HUMAN RIGHTS
OUR RIGHT 'TO BE'

THE 'WE' WHO CREATED:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1959)
The African Charter on Rights and Welfare of the Child (1990)
The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1992)
The United Nations Declaration on Violence Against Women (1993)
The World Conference on Human Rights, Declaration and Programme of Action, Vienna (1993)
The United Nations High Commission on Refugees, Statement Against Gender-Based Violence (1996).

FGM violates these (and other) human rights conventions that protect women and children from cruelty and violence and ensure them "bodily integrity" and access to health care, education, and self-realization.

For while the 'I', the individual ...any individual, can have great influence. It takes a 'WE', a group, a community, a collective: to create national & international rights & laws. It also takes a 'WE' to enforce them.


p.s. I LIKA URE POETREE
I like your human right to freedom of speech even more.
apples and oranges
[info]droitdelhomme wrote:
Sunday, 1 March 2009 at 11:00 am (UTC)
I find it so distasteful that these comments equate male circumcision with female circumcision instead of showing support for the article insofar as it demonstrates progress in the region for banning female genital mutilation (FGM). I suggest that those ignorant enough to compare the two types of circumcision, should perform some serious research in the area of FGM, or read the book by Waris Darie, ?Desert Flower?, a personal account of her life in Africa and move to London, from desert to catwalk. She recounts the time when she was circumcised. She was sliced with broken glass and sewn without anesthetic. She urinates in drops, and feels no sexual pleasure. Children die of this operation from infection or bleeding. They remove the clitoris and sew shut the rest. When a girl losses her virginity, the male tears her open. Now, when turning to male circumcision, the foreskin is removed and there is no further pain or physical incapacities in his future. In fact, doctors recommend male circumcision because it reduces the transmission of sexual diseases and HIV up to 60 percent. Furthermore, many men have to perform this necessary operation later in life because of problems with their foreskin. The two cannot be compared, apples and oranges cannot be compared, male genitals are different than those of women and therefore any operation will require different procedures which lead to completely different results. When an article like this is published in a newspaper, I would prefer to see commendation rather than uninformed criticism.
yeah know about this
[info]violetwrites wrote:
Monday, 2 March 2009 at 12:12 pm (UTC)
for a long time now. In 1994 when I had a cable access show, I interviewed a woman from this region about this. She said it destroyed her entire life as sex was a burden and so uncomfortable she chose to be celibate. It also affected her emotionally and I observed her being sexually provocative many times. She was also a poet and she'd go to readings and run to men sit on their laps teasing them constant constantly - and of course that was all it was because she had no intention of actually performing. It was very sad. She was a young woman in her early 30's who married a white guy and he took her here to the states. He loved her but agreed no sex and they probably are still together.
Re: MUCH TALK LEADS INEVITABLY TO SILENCE
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Monday, 2 March 2009 at 06:44 pm (UTC)

JAZZME KONNy
Genital mutilation is like being raped!
[info]camarywka wrote:
Wednesday, 4 March 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
I read that many were comparing the genital mutilation to male circumision. First, be careful of the words cause it's not the same. Circumsision is not mutilation. To mutilate a part of the female's body, like someone said, it's to cut off a part of her, like cutting a finger off... Secondly, the way it's done in , psychologically is worse than being raped. A girl is not a child when is mutilated, and they are usually fully conscious about what goes on, about the cutting off of their genital, (which is not mere skin) (Read Possessing the Secret of Joy, by Alice Walker, which about genital mutilation...) Then, what the difference between male circumsion and FGM? It's just... Being kidnapped, raped by a knife, and then sewed up! Wow, not a big difference!

Something else, let God work alone! I live with Muslims, and I have Muslim friends too, and I know about their religion, but female genital mutilation is something social, and has nothing to do with religion... Besides, religion is nothing but social traditions!
Female Genital Mutilation
[info]sarah_81_mid wrote:
Wednesday, 4 March 2009 at 09:32 pm (UTC)
Having seen first hand women giving birth having suffered from Female Genital Mutilation I feel very strongly about this. There are four main types of female genital mutilation- the cut of the clitoris being a horrendous abuse- defined as physical abuse- however surely is a sexual assault on a child who remembers the attack for the rest of her life. Most women I have delivered have also been sewn together, leaving a small hole. The three pains of a woman's life are the 'circumcision-a rediculous name only named to disguise the true horror and perhaps incite rediculous men to make comparisons to their male anatomy- then marriage- where women are usually forcibly opened by the husband's penis (if he also had pain perhaps that would not be a bad thing?!) and then childbirth. Women are more likely to DIE during childbirth, face obstruction, resulting in caesarian section if they are lucky enough to have access to civilised health care. Or they will die in labour. These women also often need an anterior and posterior episiotomy as the head is crowning. All women should be offered deinfibullation (where they are opened up again under general anaesthetic) prior to childbirth. Unfortunately these women can never have their clitoris, restored to them. The most horrific part of this abuse is that women also have terrible, frightening flashbacks and panic attacks during childbirth. It makes me feel sick. I have been supporting a charity in kenya that teaches an alternative rite of passage to women and communities. This is not about religion- as it is in no religious scripture. It is about male dominance and control. So please respect this very separate issue and for once do not turn it into a male centred one. This practice carries a 15 yr prison sentance if anyone is convicted of practicing this in this country, or taking a british resident abroad and performing FGM. My role as a midwife is to educate parents, families and refer concerns to the police and social services. Unfortunately there has so far not been one conviction in the UK. I can guarantee that if this was a white and/or male issue that more would have been done by now!
stop female mutilation
[info]cess1 wrote:
Monday, 9 March 2009 at 03:34 pm (UTC)
The practice is evil and barbaric. I don't why in God's name they do such evil in the name of tradition. the practice is so painful and brutal, it is witchcraft nothing else. I have gone through that evil and I hate all of them. I forgive my mother who took me there, at that time she thought it was the right thing to do 'cos she went through that and so did her mother and so on. I almost bled to death. While I was in camp (bondo bush) a small girl at that time was circumcised and after a few days they notived she was not properly circumcised & they had to cut the poor girl again can you imagine such barbaric thing to do and the mother carried her hands on her head crying. My grandmother was a very popular sowei in Freetown. That thing is demonic I can tell you that 'cos I was a witness to what I saw in our home and how my grandmother was given the power that made her who she was and how she died. Bondo is not just about cutting clitoris there is a supernatural power behing it, trust me so the fight against it is not just natural but spiritual. We have to be strong in every aspect to fight this evil that eaten into our society for generations and has become a must for most people in such a way that in some families or communities you are looked down upon or you become a cast away. It's time this evil stops.
From a victim (cess)



Love it
[info]africalover wrote:
Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 04:06 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the article, it was really interesting, i love reading about black girls
Interesting post
[info]msmithe wrote:
Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 08:59 am (UTC)
Interesting post. I have been wondering about this issue, so thanks for posting. I’ll likely be coming back to your blog. Thanks ever so much, very great article! If you do not mind, please visit my article related to pandeglang district in Banten, Indonesia at Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang or you can visit the second Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang is very pleasure to meet you there. Thank you so much.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date