Genital Mutilation and Cultural Interference

Gallstones · #1 by **Gallstones** » Jul 24, 2010 12:14 am

!	MODNOTE Split off from this thread.

crank wrote:Well, very late to the party, but I kept seeing talk of a clearly misguided notion. First off, how Eryemil's post could be considered sexist is beyond me. He was expressing a deep-seated horror at what had happened to whoever, with an extreme compassion for him and what he would have to live with. Comparing it to a woman with a mastectomy is barmy, you would have to compare it to a woman whose vagina had been removed somehow.

Somehow? Cranky, you have forgotten about female genital mutilation. Apparently there are some men of certain cultures who do want that. FGM would be the closer and more apropos comparison I think than mastectomy.

Despite the perhaps imprudent choice of terminology, I read compassion and horror in Ery's comments too.

Seth · #2 by **Seth** » Jul 24, 2010 5:10 am

Gallstones wrote:
crank wrote:Well, very late to the party, but I kept seeing talk of a clearly misguided notion. First off, how Eryemil's post could be considered sexist is beyond me. He was expressing a deep-seated horror at what had happened to whoever, with an extreme compassion for him and what he would have to live with. Comparing it to a woman with a mastectomy is barmy, you would have to compare it to a woman whose vagina had been removed somehow.

Somehow? Cranky, you have forgotten about female genital mutilation. Apparently there are some men of certain cultures who do want that. FGM would be the closer and more apropos comparison I think than mastectomy.

Despite the perhaps imprudent choice of terminology, I read compassion and horror in Ery's comments too.

Interestingly, (and without in any way condoning the practice) infibulation and FGM are most often performed by women of the village, who themselves had the "procedure" performed on them. The cultural forces behind infibulation and clitoral excision are very strong. One does have to ask whether within the context of the culture involved, it is appropriate to interfere, given that in some tribes NOT being infibulated or having your clitoris excised will result in your becoming a social outcast and unmarriagable. Within the cultural context therefore, is the temporary pain of infibulation and the diminuition of sexual pleasure of clitoral excision disproportionately worse than never being able to marry, have children, form a family and be an accepted member of the tribe? Not a pleasant choice to be sure, but who is to say which is worse for any particular woman?

Which is not to suggest that attempts to change those cultural practices should not be made, but still, one has to consider the unintended consequences of imposing western mores on primitive African cultures. We learned how badly that can work out with the American Indians I believe.

OHSU · #3 by **OHSU** » Jul 24, 2010 3:58 pm

Seth wrote:One does have to ask whether within the context of the culture involved, it is appropriate to interfere

One of my close acquaintences spent years backpacking through Africa studying FGM. She observed firsthand the horrors of this practice, how it ruined people's lives. A certain number of girls die of infections immediately afterward. Others are crippled when muscles, tendons, or nerves are accidentally severed (obviously during more extreme mutilation such as infibulation). Those who survive and heal "normally", are sometimes left with extreme pain any time they are touched down there, others (obviously) are left with the inability to feel any pleasurable sensation at all in that area.

"Successful" infibulation leaves an opening about the size of a drinking straw through which they must both urinate and menstruate. This obviously alters their ability to either urinate or mensruate normally and predisposes them to monthly infections. Some die as young woman from something like toxic shock syndrome because of the inability eliminate everything during menstruation.

Those who suffer none of these problems are put in a position where their vaginal opening must be torn open during their first intercourse. Of course, the heavey scar tissue may be too tough to be torn by a penis, and the husband must resort to using an object like a broom stick to tear her open. (Obtaining assistance from a doctors to cut the vagina open would be an admission that his penis was insufficient. Many men refuse to make this admission, and resort to cutting or tearing her open himself.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone who wants to understand the horrors of this practice needs to read Secret Wounds by Hanny LIghtfoot-Klein.

I can't believe that anyone who gives a flying fuck about human suffering would suggest that we not "interfere" with this horrific practice.

Gallstones · #4 by **Gallstones** » Jul 24, 2010 4:33 pm

Seth wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
crank wrote:Well, very late to the party, but I kept seeing talk of a clearly misguided notion. First off, how Eryemil's post could be considered sexist is beyond me. He was expressing a deep-seated horror at what had happened to whoever, with an extreme compassion for him and what he would have to live with. Comparing it to a woman with a mastectomy is barmy, you would have to compare it to a woman whose vagina had been removed somehow.

Somehow? Cranky, you have forgotten about female genital mutilation. Apparently there are some men of certain cultures who do want that. FGM would be the closer and more apropos comparison I think than mastectomy.

Despite the perhaps imprudent choice of terminology, I read compassion and horror in Ery's comments too.

Interestingly, (and without in any way condoning the practice) infibulation and FGM are most often performed by women of the village, who themselves had the "procedure" performed on them. The cultural forces behind infibulation and clitoral excision are very strong. One does have to ask whether within the context of the culture involved, it is appropriate to interfere, given that in some tribes NOT being infibulated or having your clitoris excised will result in your becoming a social outcast and unmarriagable. Within the cultural context therefore, is the temporary pain of infibulation and the diminuition of sexual pleasure of clitoral excision disproportionately worse than never being able to marry, have children, form a family and be an accepted member of the tribe? Not a pleasant choice to be sure, but who is to say which is worse for any particular woman?

Which is not to suggest that attempts to change those cultural practices should not be made, but still, one has to consider the unintended consequences of imposing western mores on primitive African cultures. We learned how badly that can work out with the American Indians I believe.

It should be a choice of an adult or marriage age woman and not something forced on a child.
This however, is a topic for another time and place.

OHSU · #5 by **OHSU** » Jul 24, 2010 4:41 pm

Gallstones wrote:It should be a choice of an adult or marriage age woman and not something forced on a child.

Agreed. Any adult should be able to do whatever he/she likes with his/her own body. Adults should not have the right to force this (and it's horrible consequences) on children.

Seth · #6 by **Seth** » Jul 24, 2010 4:57 pm

OHSU wrote:
Seth wrote:One does have to ask whether within the context of the culture involved, it is appropriate to interfere

One of my close acquaintences spent years backpacking through Africa studying FGM. She observed firsthand the horrors of this practice, how it ruined people's lives. A certain number of girls die of infections immediately afterward. Others are crippled when muscles, tendons, or nerves are accidentally severed (obviously during more extreme mutilation such as infibulation). Those who survive and heal "normally", are sometimes left with extreme pain any time they are touched down there, others (obviously) are left with the inability to feel any pleasurable sensation at all in that area.

"Successful" infibulation leaves an opening about the size of a drinking straw through which they must both urinate and menstruate. This obviously alters their ability to either urinate or mensruate normally and predisposes them to monthly infections. Some die as young woman from something like toxic shock syndrome because of the inability eliminate everything during menstruation.

Those who suffer none of these problems are put in a position where their vaginal opening must be torn open during their first intercourse. Of course, the heavey scar tissue may be too tough to be torn by a penis, and the husband must resort to using an object like a broom stick to tear her open. (Obtaining assistance from a doctors to cut the vagina open would be an admission that his penis was insufficient. Many men refuse to make this admission, and resort to cutting or tearing her open himself.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone who wants to understand the horrors of this practice needs to read Secret Wounds by Hanny LIghtfoot-Klein.

I can't believe that anyone who gives a flying fuck about human suffering would suggest that we not "interfere" with this horrific practice.

Don't get me wrong, I agree completely that it's a horrific practice, but this does not explain why it is culturally acceptable and often performed by women who suffered the same assault themselves. That it is a cultural thing in some places suggests that the consequences of not submitting to the practice are worse than doing so. If that is the case, from the moral standpoint, by interfering with the culture would one not be consigning women to something worse? There are many other body-mutilating practices that go on, particularly in Africa, including putting rings around the neck that permanently deform the shoulders and appear to lengthen the neck, putting plates in lips and ears, tattooing and scarring and other cultural practices that sometimes have deleterious health effects practiced on both men and women. Then there is circumcision, and in some tribes this is not done until the boy is 15 years or so old, rather than as an infant, where the event is not remembered. Such ritual mutilation may have strong cultural ties and effects, and the question is what is the moral and ethical basis for interfering in tribal rituals that are part of the accepted culture of the society, particularly if doing so results in consequences for the individuals being protected that are worse than simply minding one's own business?

Take the aborigines of Australia, or the American Indians whose children were forcibly taken away from the tribe to be sent to schools run by religious zealots in order to "civilize" them. Did the ends justify the means?

I want to make it clear that I am NOT in any way condoning the practice, which I think is ignorant and barbaric beyond belief, I am taking a position to stimulate debate on the subject.

Seth · #7 by **Seth** » Jul 24, 2010 5:09 pm

Gallstones wrote:
Seth wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
crank wrote:Well, very late to the party, but I kept seeing talk of a clearly misguided notion. First off, how Eryemil's post could be considered sexist is beyond me. He was expressing a deep-seated horror at what had happened to whoever, with an extreme compassion for him and what he would have to live with. Comparing it to a woman with a mastectomy is barmy, you would have to compare it to a woman whose vagina had been removed somehow.

Somehow? Cranky, you have forgotten about female genital mutilation. Apparently there are some men of certain cultures who do want that. FGM would be the closer and more apropos comparison I think than mastectomy.

Despite the perhaps imprudent choice of terminology, I read compassion and horror in Ery's comments too.

Interestingly, (and without in any way condoning the practice) infibulation and FGM are most often performed by women of the village, who themselves had the "procedure" performed on them. The cultural forces behind infibulation and clitoral excision are very strong. One does have to ask whether within the context of the culture involved, it is appropriate to interfere, given that in some tribes NOT being infibulated or having your clitoris excised will result in your becoming a social outcast and unmarriagable. Within the cultural context therefore, is the temporary pain of infibulation and the diminuition of sexual pleasure of clitoral excision disproportionately worse than never being able to marry, have children, form a family and be an accepted member of the tribe? Not a pleasant choice to be sure, but who is to say which is worse for any particular woman?

Which is not to suggest that attempts to change those cultural practices should not be made, but still, one has to consider the unintended consequences of imposing western mores on primitive African cultures. We learned how badly that can work out with the American Indians I believe.

It should be a choice of an adult or marriage age woman and not something forced on a child.
This however, is a topic for another time and place.

You're probably right, and it ought to be spun off into a "Genital mutilation and cultural interference" thread.

OHSU · #8 by **OHSU** » Jul 24, 2010 5:12 pm

Seth wrote:That it is a cultural thing in some places suggests that the consequences of not submitting to the practice are worse than doing so.

That would only be true if women submitted to the practice. For the most part, they don't. Especially in the case of more extensive mutilation. It is forced on them as children. It should not be the privilege of the parent to choose genital mutilation and the attendent risks on behalf of the child. I have already agreed that a mentally competent adult should have the right to consent to any physical mutilation she chooses for herself. But that's not what we're talking about here, even though your choice of words implies it.

The simple fact is that there is a direct relationship between education and choosing not to submit one's children to FGM. The most well-educated frequently opt out without any inflence outside their culture. This indicates that the social consequences you have mentioned can be eliminated simply through education.

The solution to the problem is to ban the torture and mutilation of non-consenting children AND to educate people to eliminate social consequences of non-participation.

Seth · #9 by **Seth** » Jul 24, 2010 5:27 pm

OHSU wrote:
Seth wrote:That it is a cultural thing in some places suggests that the consequences of not submitting to the practice are worse than doing so.

That would only be true if women submitted to the practice. They don't. It is forced on them as children. It should not be the privilege of the parent to choose genital mutilation and the risk of crippling or death on behalf of the child. I have already agreed that a mentally competent adult should have the right to consent to any physical mutilation she chooses for herself. But that's not what we're talking about here, even though your choice of words implies it.

The simple fact in these countries is that there is a direct relationship between education and choosing not to participate in FGM. The most well-educated frequently opting out without any inflence outside their culture. This indicates that the social consequences you have mentioned can be eliminated simply through education.

The solution to the problem is to ban the torture and mutilation of non-consenting children AND to educate people to eliminate social consequences of non-participation.

Again, this fails to explain why it is forced on children by their mothers and other women who were in their time subjected to the same mutilation. In America, infant boys are commonly circumcised, ostensibly for health reasons, and Jewish boys are circumcised for religious reasons. Parents make this decision based on cultural practice, and the same is going on with FGM.

I'm asking why this is so, and what the unintended consequences of interfering with the cultural practices might be, and what the moral and ethical basis for doing so is. Is it moral or ethical to prevent the practice if doing so creates unintended, life-long consequences for the victim that are, in her cultural context, far worse than suffering some pain and risking death by infection?

Do we have a right to subject a woman to a life without family or children, living as an outcast, in order to satisfy our outrage at the cultural practices of her society?

Gallstones · **#10** by **Gallstones** » Jul 24, 2010 5:28 pm

Group Backs Ritual ‘Nick’ as Female Circumcision Option

Islam - Female Genital Mutilation

NineOneFour · **#11** by **NineOneFour** » Jul 24, 2010 5:33 pm

Seth wrote:
OHSU wrote:
Seth wrote:That it is a cultural thing in some places suggests that the consequences of not submitting to the practice are worse than doing so.

That would only be true if women submitted to the practice. They don't. It is forced on them as children. It should not be the privilege of the parent to choose genital mutilation and the risk of crippling or death on behalf of the child. I have already agreed that a mentally competent adult should have the right to consent to any physical mutilation she chooses for herself. But that's not what we're talking about here, even though your choice of words implies it.

The simple fact in these countries is that there is a direct relationship between education and choosing not to participate in FGM. The most well-educated frequently opting out without any inflence outside their culture. This indicates that the social consequences you have mentioned can be eliminated simply through education.

The solution to the problem is to ban the torture and mutilation of non-consenting children AND to educate people to eliminate social consequences of non-participation.

Again, this fails to explain why it is forced on children by their mothers and other women who were in their time subjected to the same mutilation. In America, infant boys are commonly circumcised, ostensibly for health reasons, and Jewish boys are circumcised for religious reasons. Parents make this decision based on cultural practice, and the same is going on with FGM.

I'm asking why this is so, and what the unintended consequences of interfering with the cultural practices might be, and what the moral and ethical basis for doing so is. Is it moral or ethical to prevent the practice if doing so creates unintended, life-long consequences for the victim that are, in her cultural context, far worse than suffering some pain and risking death by infection?

Do we have a right to subject a woman to a life without family or children, living as an outcast, in order to satisfy our outrage at the cultural practices of her society?

Yes.

Without people actually trying to effect change, nothing ever would.

As for your assertion that this woman would have a life without family or children, the point is to change the CULTURE so that these mutilations are not expected and not required.

Which pretty much demolishes your attempt at derailing the thread and promoting some bizarre form of multiculturalism.

As for the sheer horror of not having a family or children, what's so bad about not having children? Neither you (as far as I can determine) nor I have children, are unlikely to ever have any, what's the big deal?

OHSU · **#12** by **OHSU** » Jul 24, 2010 5:40 pm

Seth wrote:Again, this fails to explain why it is forced on children by their mothers and other women who were in their time subjected to the same mutilation. In America, infant boys are commonly circumcised, ostensibly for health reasons, and Jewish boys are circumcised for religious reasons. Parents make this decision based on cultural practice, and the same is going on with FGM.

Where did I say it wasn't cultural? Where did I say it wasn't analogous to circumsion?

OF COURSE IT IS. But the reason the practice continues is because women don't choose it for themselves in adulthood. It is significantly easier for a woman to force it on her child than to choose to have it done to herself. For the adult the pain of her own FGM is something in the distant past (maybe long enough ago that she doesn't remember), she is naturally one of those who wasn't crippled and didn't die of infection, so she is blissfully ignorant of the risks she is forcing on her child.

The decision to inflict this on children isn't merely a cultural preference made in the light of knowledge. It is largely due to extreme ignorance and misinformation. Combine that with the injustice of being able to decide for another person whether she has the most intimate parts of her body permanently and irreversibly mutilated.

If women were left to elect to have the procedure done in adulthood, the practice of infibulation would die out entirely, and less-invasive froms of FGM would be reduced to a tiny fraction of what they are today.

Seth wrote:I'm asking why this is so, and what the unintended consequences of interfering with the cultural practices might be

Why don't you give us some examples of possible negative consequences.

Seth wrote:... and what the moral and ethical basis for doing so is.

Did you skip over the part where I talked about the horrible physical crippling that occurs both as result of "correctly" and "incorrectly" performed FGM? Don't you think the mutilation of non-consenting children is a sufficient ethical basis for ending a pracitce that provides no benefit whatsoever?

Seth wrote:Is it moral or ethical to prevent the practice if doing so creates unintended, life-long consequences for the victim that are, in her cultural context, far worse than suffering some pain and risking death by infection?

Any ADULT woman who feels that she has missed out on some cultural benefit should be free to have her genitals mutilated.

Seth wrote:Do we have a right to subject a woman to a life without family or children, living as an outcast, in order to satisfy our outrage at the cultural practices of her society?

Two points I'm now tiring of repeating:

1) Adults can always weight the risks and choose for themselves.
2) Education has already been proven to alter the social consequences.

Gallstones · **#13** by **Gallstones** » Jul 24, 2010 5:49 pm

Gallstones wrote:Group Backs Ritual ‘Nick’ as Female Circumcision Option

Islam - Female Genital Mutilation

I'm With Stupid · **#14** by **I'm With Stupid** » Jul 25, 2010 1:33 am

Seth wrote:No, I meant "let's put it to a popular vote, with veto override by Life, but let's all vote not to impose prudish censorship requirements based on the personal preferences of a few members."

It's not about the personal preferences of a few members though, it's often about the practical requirements of certain members. I'm not sure where I stand, but I think there's a good argument for maintaining a forum which won't be banned on the computers of public libraries or schools, for example, not to mention people who might visit from their work computer.

Julia · **#15** by **Julia** » Jul 25, 2010 1:05 pm

OHSU wrote:

Those who suffer none of these problems are put in a position where their vaginal opening must be torn open during their first intercourse. Of course, the heavey scar tissue may be too tough to be torn by a penis, and the husband must resort to using an object like a broom stick to tear her open. (Obtaining assistance from a doctors to cut the vagina open would be an admission that his penis was insufficient. Many men refuse to make this admission, and resort to cutting or tearing her open himself.)

It's institutionalized sadism :nono:

OHSU · **#16** by **OHSU** » Jul 25, 2010 7:33 pm

Julia wrote:It's institutionalized sadism

They psychology of it is very complex.

-- Part of it is the cycle of abuse, similar to what is seen when someone who was sexually abused as a child becomes a molester as an adult. Women who have been tortured and humiliated torture and humiliate a new generation.
-- Part of it is the evolved tendency we all have as humans to want to control the sexual behavior of others. (This is a very complex subject.)
-- Part of it is a religiously reinforced concept of women and their sexual organs as "dirty".
-- Part of it is men subjugating women. (This is extremely complex, since the procedure is most often carried out by women, but they're motivated by their own psychological subjugation to a male-dominated culture.)
-- Part of it is "us vs. them" tribalism. ("We are cleaner and purer than our cultural competitors [our 'enemies'] because we've removed this inherently dirty part of our body.")

And on and on. It is definitely an insanely sadistic practice. It is almost never performed with anesthetic, even the extreme forms, like infibulation. Some of the girls die of shock, some die of blood loss, some die of infection, some are crippled because of having nerves or tendons accidentally cut, many have problems urinating and menstruating after they've healed, many suffer urinary incontinence, some suffer extreme problems during delivery of children, many suffer extreme pain during at least their first intercourse, all lose most pleasure from sexual intercourse, and almost all suffer emotional trauma.

This is one of the worst forms of torture a woman can suffer. Truly a horrific practice. And in virtually 100% of instances it is inflicted on either infants who can do nothing but writhe and scream, or children who scream and beg to be spared. It is almost never performed on a consenting adult.

I have read accounts written by women who had this performed on them when they were 10 or 12 years old and how it destroyed their lives, destroyed the relationship they had with their mother and grandmother, ruined their future relationship with their husband, and left them joyless and emotionally hollow. Some of these accounts go on to describe how they then participated in doing it to their own children, something I cannot comprehend considering that they were perfectly aware of how it had destroyed their own life. Unbelievable.

Seth · **#17** by **Seth** » Jul 25, 2010 8:39 pm

OHSU wrote:
Gallstones wrote:It should be a choice of an adult or marriage age woman and not something forced on a child.

Agreed. Any adult should be able to do whatever he/she likes with his/her own body. Adults should not have the right to force this (and it's horrible consequences) on children.

Question: According to your source, at what age is infibulation and/or clitorectomy performed, on average?

Question: According to your source, in the particular culture involved, at what age is a girl considered to be an adult?

stijndeloose · **#18** by **stijndeloose** » Jul 25, 2010 9:07 pm

Seth wrote:
OHSU wrote:
Gallstones wrote:It should be a choice of an adult or marriage age woman and not something forced on a child.

Agreed. Any adult should be able to do whatever he/she likes with his/her own body. Adults should not have the right to force this (and it's horrible consequences) on children.

Question: According to your source, in the particular culture involved, at what age is a girl considered to be an adult?

Does it matter? The point is, I think, that it should not be forced on anyone, be that person a child or an adult. No-one should have the right to force this on anyone.

OHSU · **#19** by **OHSU** » Jul 25, 2010 11:41 pm

Seth wrote:Question: According to your source, at what age is infibulation and/or clitorectomy performed, on average?

I believe she said that something like 75% of FGM is performed on girls between 5 and 11 years of age. Obviously, it depends on the specific variety of mutilation. Clitoridectomy can be performed on small children, whereas the pain and blood loss of infibulation are more likely to kill children the younger they are.

So, the age varies depending on the culture and the specific type of mutilation.

Seth wrote:Question: According to your source, in the particular culture involved, at what age is a girl considered to be an adult?

It is probably true that that in most of these cultures adulthood as associated with the first menstruation. However, we should be careful not to associate "adulthood" in these cultures with "adulthood" in our own. In our culture "adult" refers to someone who has autonomy in making decisions, owning property, entering into legal contracts, etc. In these cultures, a child who has recently become an "adult" is still treated as a child except that she can now be given as a "wife", usually to an older man who treats her as his sexual and domestic slave. There is no rational comparison between this situation and "adulthood" in western culture.

Sometimes, the genital mutilation is not performed in infancy or early childhood, but around the time of first menstruation, as part of a ceremony wherein the girl is considered to "become a woman". But even in these cases, children are usually forcibly restrained and mutilated against their will. This fact is reported over and over again in asylum cases where mutilated women flee these countries to spare their daughters.

If you're going to suggest that it is ok to mutilate an 11-year-old girl because she will soon be considered an "adult" by the standards of her community, you're also going to have to demonstrate that she was capable of giving consent and that she did give consent. For this to be the case 1) the true nature of the actual procedure must be accurately and completely explained to her, 2) the risks and benefits of the procedure must be accurately explained, 3) the child must be capable of understanding the explanation, and 4) she must actually consent. This is basic logic. You can't consent to something you don't understand. Women escaping such cultures to the west report that either nobody told them anything about what was going to happen to them, or they lied to them about it.

And, yes, they do lie to them about it. They tell them that if they don't have it done, after going through puberty their genitalia will "hang between their legs like a goose's neck". They're told they'll smell bad and have problems in childbirth (which, perversely, is the exactly opposite of the truth). They're lied to about the procedure making them "cleaner". They're not told it could cripple them, subject them to recurrent infection, require that their vagina be torn open with a blunt object on their wedding night, or any of the other horrors that accompany the life of a mutilated woman.

Evidence that they are lied to is the practice of ritualistically "nicking" the clitoris with a razor blade, rather than cutting it off, or engaging in even more extreme mutilation. This practice was essentially invented by wealthier, more educated women who didn't want to mutliate their daughters, but who didn't want them suffer the social stigma of not "becoming a woman" or of being "dirty" or having "ugly genitalia". So, they pay the castrator to leave the genitalia intact and just make a small cut across the clitoris, instead. They also pay her to keep her mouth shut and not tell anyone that she didn't castrate the child. The girls, themselves, are none the wiser. It hurts and causes bleeding, which are the only parts of the procedure they actually expect, and they're convinced they've been "castrated" or "circumcised". Now, how could this possibly be, if girls actually understood what traditional FGM really is?

In other words, evidence that they are lied to about the nature of the procedure is that something as invasive as clitoridectomy or infibulation can be replaced with something like a ritualistic "nick", and the girl herself doesn't know the difference.

But even in the tiny fraction of cases where a soon-to-be "adult" willingly submits, there's no way an uneducated 11-year-old girl is capable of making an informed decision about an invasive and unsterile procedure performed with rudimentary cutting implements by someone with no medical training, when she has been lied to about the nature of the procedure. Nothing a child says under those circumstances can be considered "consent" by any honest rational person.

I'm surprised that someone like yourself who normally debates from a position of rigid absolutist values has suddently become a cultural relativist. I wonder if you're debating in favor of this dispicable atrocity for no other reason than that you enjoy taking an opposing position, even when it is an ethically reprehensible one.

Seth · **#20** by **Seth** » Jul 26, 2010 2:52 am

OHSU wrote:
Seth wrote:Question: According to your source, at what age is infibulation and/or clitorectomy performed, on average?

I believe she said that something like 75% of FGM is performed on girls between 5 and 11 years of age. Obviously, it depends on the specific variety of mutilation. Clitoridectomy can be performed on small children, whereas the pain and blood loss of infibulation are more likely to kill children the younger they are.

So, the age varies depending on the culture and the specific type of mutilation.

Thanks. It was my understanding that it did not usually take place until menarche.

Seth wrote:Question: According to your source, in the particular culture involved, at what age is a girl considered to be an adult?

It is probably true that that in most of these cultures adulthood as associated with the first menstruation. However, we should be careful not to associate "adulthood" in these cultures with "adulthood" in our own. In our culture "adult" refers to someone who has autonomy in making decisions, owning property, entering into legal contracts, etc. In these cultures, a child who has recently become an "adult" is still treated as a child except that she can now be given as a "wife", usually to an older man who treats her as his sexual and domestic slave. There is no rational comparison between this situation and "adulthood" in western culture.

I accept what you say, and I agree. However, consideration still must be given to the cultural practices of the specific culture and we must be careful, as you suggest, not to impose our own western cultural preferences on other cultures too quickly. As I said, the consequences of even well-intentioned interference in ancient, stable cultures can and does cause grievous unintentional harm in many cases. This is not to suggest that attempts to educate people on the issue are wrong, but merely that due consideration must be given to unintended consequences in formulating policy, and to not imposing western cultural mores on other cultures without strong justification.

Sometimes, the genital mutilation is not performed in infancy or early childhood, but around the time of first menstruation, as part of a ceremony wherein the girl is considered to "become a woman". But even in these cases, children are usually forcibly restrained and mutilated against their will. This fact is reported over and over again in asylum cases where mutilated women flee these countries to spare their daughters.

I agree that this is the case. And the fact that this happens more and more frequently demonstrates that the cultural influences that have made such practices acceptable in the past are eroding, and that's a good thing.

If you're going to suggest that it is ok to mutilate an 11-year-old girl because she will soon be considered an "adult" by the standards of her community, you're also going to have to demonstrate that she was capable of giving consent and that she did give consent.

I agree. But the question of "capability" to give consent, again, we must be careful not to impose western notions of adult capacity to make decisions, particularly not the extended infantization of American youth that our society engages in today, where a young man or woman may join the military and be responsible for life and death decisions and use of force, but is not permitted to drink a beer in the local pub.

For this to be the case 1) the true nature of the actual procedure must be accurately and completely explained to her, 2) the risks and benefits of the procedure must be accurately explained, 3) the child must be capable of understanding the explanation, and 4) she must actually consent. This is basic logic. You can't consent to something you don't understand. Women escaping such cultures to the west report that either nobody told them anything about what was going to happen to them, or they lied to them about it.

And this is a fair point. I would agree that all three are required for informed consent to be present.

And, yes, they do lie to them about it. They tell them that if they don't have it done, after going through puberty their genitalia will "hang between their legs like a goose's neck". They're told they'll smell bad and have problems in childbirth (which, perversely, is the exactly opposite of the truth). They're lied to about the procedure making them "cleaner". They're not told it could cripple them, subject them to recurrent infection, require that their vagina be torn open with a blunt object on their wedding night, or any of the other horrors that accompany the life of a mutilated woman.

I have no doubt this is true, which appears to be one reason that simply informing people of the truth behind the lies will go a long way towards making the practice extinct. But it must be remembered that we are dealing with primitive cultures and entrenched, usually patriarchal, authority, and that many of these tribes also kill children thought to be witches merely for having different colored eyes or skin. Education is, it seems, the most effective tool for curing any number of despicable cultural practices in primitive societies.

But this again brings up the question of the moral right of one culture to interfere with another, and the effects of doing so on the original culture, some of which have survived for tens of thousands of years successfully, like the Aborigines of Australia.

I'm surprised that someone like yourself who normally debates from a position of rigid absolutist values has suddently become a cultural relativist. I wonder if you're debating in favor of this dispicable atrocity for no other reason than that you enjoy taking an opposing position, even when it is an ethically reprehensible one.

The latter. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. And, I find that by taking positions in opposition to my own beliefs, I stretch my assumptions and my mind, which improves my reasoning ability. That more people do not understand the value of arguing contrarian positions as a method of both stimulating debate and broadening one's perspectives is one of the reasons that so many people despise me. But that's okay, I'm used to it, because I've been doing this for nearly 20 years now. I do get a bit miffed when the Mods misinterpret and suspend me, but I need the time off anyway, I spend way too much time here when I should be concentrating on my own writing.