Female Genital Cutting
A clitoridectomy is the surgical removal of a woman’s clitoris, and sometimes her labia as well. Many modern women would be surprised to learn that this was a common method of managing women’s “mental disorders” from the year 1860 to 1937 in America.* At that time, medical professionals believed that mood disorders in women were caused by excessively sexual feelings. The quickest solution to this problem was to remove the clitoris and thus prevent masturbation and sexual enjoyment.
We can look back at this time period in a distant state of awe and horror, but we must also realize that clitoridectomies are still a common rite of passage in at least 28 African countries. They also take place in a small number of indigenous ethnic groups in Asia, and were common in Egypt until outlawed several years ago. These procedures are inflicted on young women between the age of four and 12, and are intended to ensure chastity, cleanliness, fertility, and beauty.
Westerners often prefer the more relatable term “female circumcision” to describe this procedure, but in fact, the two have very little in common. Removal of penile foreskin does not present nearly as many health problems as removal of the clitoris, and circumcision also does not interfere with sexual function or enjoyment later in life. Clitoridectomies often have severe immediate complications, including tetanus, infection, extreme pain, hemorrhaging, shock, and death. For this reason, the term “female genital cutting” has been adopted as a medically and culturally accurate way of describing the practice.
The most drastic form of female genital cutting is infibulation, which is common in Sudan, Ethiopia, Mali, Somalia, and northern Nigeria. In this procedure, the clitoris and labia minora are removed, and the labia majora are sewn together. A small hole is created for the elimination of urine and menstrual blood, and also for sexual intercourse when the time comes. A pregnant woman will need to have this area cut open and then sewed back together after giving birth.
We value and respect the experiences of all of our HERWriters, but everyone is different. Many of our writers are speaking from personal experience, and what's worked for them may not work for you. Their articles are not a substitute for medical advice although we hope you can gain knowledge from their insight.
Add a Comment13 Comments
It's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals in the USA, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?
Some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. Sometime there's just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with pain relief. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. When circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 56 boys have died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa so far this year.
Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against female circumcision, and I probably spend a lot more time and money trying to stop it than most people. If people are serious about stopping female circumcision though, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't (and they get furious if you call it "mutilation"). There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the exact same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself (as well as labiaplasty and breast operations), as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western objections as something more than cultural imperialism.
November 3, 2009 - 7:35pmThis Comment
Where did you get the impression that removing the clitoral hood is equivalent to removing penile foreskin in terms of the risk of pain, disfigurement, and health problems? Can you illustrate the ways in which American males experience negative long-term side effects of circumcision? Are males able to achieve orgasm after circumcision? How often are circumcisions performed past the age of four?
I agree with you that circumcision should not be considered trivial in terms of global sexual freedom/oppression, but I find it interesting that mere hours after its publication, this article has immediately been perceived as a threat to the forum of male sexual health. This is a website geared toward female health and empowerment, which means that its writers and staff should not feel obligated to integrate the male viewpoint into each and every article, in each and every sentence. But of course, I'm forgetting that we wouldn't live in America unless we could expect our readers to immediately respond with a "dear God, what about the men?!" mentality. (Please see http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/de... for more information.)
November 3, 2009 - 8:12pm^^ Where did you get the impression that removing the clitoral hood is equivalent to removing penile foreskin in terms of the risk of pain, disfigurement, and health problems? ^^
It's a simple fact. The clitoral hood and the male foreskin are homologous and completely indistinguishable in the womb until three months gestation. They are similarly innervated, they both protect the mucosa, and they both afford a frictionless gliding mode of stimulation.
^^ can you illustrate the ways in which American males experience negative long-term side effects of circumcision? ^^
Just Google "circumcision damage" to see images of all-too-common horrid cosmetic and functional outcomes which don't manifest until puberty and so are never counted among the supposedly infrequent complications of infant circumcision. Aside from that, hundreds die and thousands require corrective surgery every year.
>> Are males able to achieve orgasm after circumcision? <<
Usually, and so usually are women whose hood is the only thing excised. Don't compare only the worst FGC to the average MGM.
^^ How often are circumcisions performed past the age of four? ^^
Too often, especially among Muslims, who comprise about 3/4 of the circumcised males on earth.
^^ this article has immediately been perceived as a threat to the forum of male sexual health ^^
Are you condoning the non-consensual mutilation of my male genitals? That's a threat indeed.
^^ This is a website geared toward female health and empowerment ^^
Male circumcision harms a straight female's sex life. It eliminates the slinky rolling sleeve of slack skin which otherwise makes lube for sex utterly obsolete. The foreskin includes about about half of his sensual pleasure-receptive nerve endings and lack of foreskin allows the numbing of the male's mucosa which forces him to engage in more forceful (uncomfortable for her) sexual interaction in order to feel anything. And empowerment is an important issue for women who will be mothers. They need to be armed with the info to effectively fight off medical profiteers who would offer destructive cosmetic surgey for their newborns.
Over 200,000 men are enduring a tedious multi-year process of non-surgical foreskin restoration to regain a measure of their stolen pleasure. I wish there were similar techniques to help cut women.
Google Soraye Mire or Ayan Hirsi-Ali, FGC victims and authors who agree we must protect boys too.
Search at YouTube for "functions of the foreskin" to learn more about the penis in 20 minutes than US doctors are required to know before graduating med school.
-Ron Low
November 3, 2009 - 10:41pmReaders who are interested in learning more about the effects of male circumcision can see http://www.circumcisionforum.com/. There are a lot of interesting conversations and information there. Those who would like to discuss female genital cutting can continue to leave their thoughts in this comment thread.
November 4, 2009 - 8:15amMost African Female Circumcision (FGM) is the removal of the clitoral hood and labia and NOT the clitoris. All FGM is heinous and bad, but the normal version (labia and clitoral hood) is pushed for the same hygiene and disease reasons that male circumcision is pushed here in the US. A Tanzania study says labia and clitoral hood removal lowers HIV risk by over 50% for women (IMO BS) and women with labia and clitoral hood removal say the sex is fine and they get orgasms and want to do the procedure to their daughters - just as US male MGM victims want to have their sons cut. The arguments and sexual mutilation are in parallel, but many people in the US are only against the US version. That is an unacceptable sexist and and culturally biased position.
Also, the sexual damage done to men in the US is actually much worse than the labia/clitoral hood removal. The foreskin is not just skin and does not just protect the glans(head). Circumcision is ablates the most sensitive parts of the male genitals. This surgery takes away the main male pleasure zones with over 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated. The foreskin has several parts including the ridged band that is great for ones pleasure (that is why nutters like Kellogg wanted to chop em off, to curtail masturbation), Masturbation is important for men's physical and mental health. The ridged band directly contacts the vagina for very great pleasure all around. The dynamics of sex and the actual mechanism of the penis are drastically changed by circumcision. The foreskin can normally be slipped all the way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated
The only touch organ possessing as rich erogenous innervation as the foreskin is the clitoris. Circumcision deprives man of 2/3ds of the main erogenous zone constituted of the foreskin and the glans.
All GM is heinous, particularly if done to humans without their consent or understanding. It is not reasonable to justify one practice by saying male circ somehow is not as bad or not comparable. All removal of erogenous tissue without consent is bad and should be stopped. Speaking up against what is done in Africa, while MGM contiunes here is not at all reasonable.
November 4, 2009 - 10:54amIf you compare all MGC favourably with all FGC, then don't be surprised if men with bad experiences of MGC come along to challenge your comparison, and are annoyed if you try to silence a discussion of MGC that you started. FGC is evil enough in its own right without making an odious comparison. (And so is MGC.)
The site you mention is interesting, but it's not exactly busy, and it is focused on circumcision, when the starting point should be intactness. A list of sites is at http://www.circumstitions.com/links.html#general
Blue Cross Blue Shield covered FGC in the US until 1977. One victim of it, Patricia Robinett, has written a book about her experience, "The Rape of Innocence", which is shortly to come out in a revised form.
November 4, 2009 - 3:53pmReaders who are interested in learning more about the effects of male circumcision can see http://www.circumcisionforum.com/. There are a lot of interesting conversations and information there. Those who would like to discuss female genital cutting can continue to leave their thoughts in this comment thread.
November 4, 2009 - 4:20pmAll Genital Mutilation must end, before we can start changing the world let's stop the abuse in our own country first. It's done to millions of baby boys for reasons such as "we want him to look like his father" to cultural reasons to "women prefer it" to falsified medical benefits (very similar to why african women wish genital mutilation of their daughters)
The fact of the matter is it's the infant's body. Not yours, Not anyone elses. All genital mutilation must end, and what hope do we have of ending female genital mutilation in Africa if we overlook male genital mutilation in our own countries?
November 5, 2009 - 12:01amYour attempt to minimize genital cutting on the opposite gender is most offensive. I thought feminists desired equality not dominance?
When will Anti-FGM realize we're all on the same side and fight for both genders? Everyone has the right to an intact body, not just women.
Women are often enough the ones deciding to mutilate their own baby boys in America. Then campaigning to end FGM in a completely different country. What logic is there in this? None...
Think about it Shaina <3
November 5, 2009 - 12:14amHey Anonymous,
"I thought feminists desired equality not dominance?"
You thought wrong. Feminists desire neither equality nor dominance. Feminists struggle for women's liberation from oppression.
For example, it is an act of oppression to tell women what they may and may not write about on the Internet. My comment here, pointing this out to you, is part of the feminist struggle. Your remarks, of course, demonstrate that the struggle is far from over.
Furthermore, acts of violence perpetrated against women have an entirely different cultural and political resonance than acts of violence perpetrated against men, because of the inherent power differential between the two sexes. Anyone who is interested in the liberation of oppressed classes should welcome discourse relating to the unique issues raised by violence against women.
Jill Psmith
November 5, 2009 - 6:54am