Dad Convicted for Circumcision on Daughter

Originally posted by Flighty
I think this story is totally abhorent and I am not saying that this man and his wife shouldnt be punished but I would think as well as passing laws to combat the practice

The guy seemed to know it was illegal, he performed it himself instead of at a doctors or someone else. People don' tneed to give up their traditions, they just need to obey the law.

XphilesPhan
female circumsion is unnecessary. It serves no real purpose, not even for hygiene

Male circumcision serves no purpose either. The penis produces a waxy secretion called smegma, which can accumulate, along with just regular stuff, within the foreskin, but its not really considered a problem today. A few thousand years ago, when people didn't bath every day, it could become a problem, but today it serves no purpose. Some studies even suggest that a circumcised penis is less sensitive than an uncircumcised one. In general, the body isn't made to have parts of it cut off willy nill.
Pardon the pun.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Male circumcision serves no purpose either. The penis produces a waxy secretion called smegma, which can accumulate, along with just regular stuff, within the foreskin, but its not really considered a problem today. A few thousand years ago, when people didn't bath every day, it could become a problem, but today it serves no purpose. Some studies even suggest that a circumcised penis is less sensitive than an uncircumcised one. In general, the body isn't made to have parts of it cut off willy nill.
Pardon the pun.

this was true up until currently, where male circumcision may be vital to certain countries, especially those in Africa:
www.msnbc.msn.com...
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Nygdan

smallpeeps
It is a comment on their religion and on them, that they allow this. Where's their version of Martin Luther to nail a schism to the door of the Mosque and end this horror?

Where does it say that the guy that did this is even a muslim?
This is not a religious practice, its a cultural practice. You can have every imam and mosque demand that it be stopped, and its still going to occur, because the christians from over there are going to be doing it.

It is Mohammed who endorsed this practice and it is he who has ensured its survival for the last 1200 years. Sure there may be other cultures who also do it. Do I need to explain to you the difference between an organized global religion and a tribe of a few thousand people who might have some silly custom?

You are trying to argue that the Christians in Addis Ababa are just as likely to do this because they live in Africa? Is it that Africans are just savages? Please Nygdan, expert of all things including genitals, tell me where it has been recorded and dictated for hundreds of years and taught to billions of people that it is okay to mutilate one's daughter in this way? Which holy book would that be?

You say that Christians also do this and it may be so that Christians in muslim countries do this, but other than Mohammed, I think you'll be hard pressed to find ANY prophet of god who gives instructions on how to cut the clitoris of a small girl. To say that it is just a cultral practice, is stupid.


[edit on 3-11-2006 by smallpeeps]

I agree, its a disgusting practice, the guy belongs in prison

I know you do and I know we agree on this point.

BUT, at the same time, I don't think that its necessarily done to control women, I don't see how it fucntions all that well as an aspect of control...the aboriginies in australia that practice sub-incision, we wouldn't say that the men are trying to 'control' the younger men, and how woul sub-incision induce control anyway? So I don't see a reason to treat this differently than sub-incision, at least in terms of the motivation.

See know you've crossed the line. You brought up the topic of sub-incision, something I was not familiar with which of course forced me into the horrible position of having to go read and learn stuff, after not even one cup of coffee! Damn you Nygdan...from the depths of hell I stab at thee!

Hence my only recourse is to parce words purely out of spite.

So in my limited and recent learnins' of sub-incision, it seems not only is this completely voluntary (in some cultures) it is said to actually increase sexual pleasure of the male and width of the penis.

The draw backs seem to be pretty bad like increased chance of stds, a decreased chance of impregnation and what appears to be a really bad "aiming" problem.

But it doesn't in fact take away the pleasure of sex for the male and in some cases adds great status to the male as in learning secret knowledge or performing certain sacred rites.

Now I know we both agree that we don't want anybody messing around with anybodys junk...but the difference between sub-incision and clitoral castration seems subtle yet signifigant.

Personally and I know this is only my opinion, in male dominated societies like the cultures of north-east africa a sexually empowered woman is a threat to the male ego.

Heck even in the states where we like to think we're evolved there are many men who are intimidated by strong, aggresive or succesful women.

A woman who is not allowed to enjoy the act of love making and who looks on it simply as the womans duty to please her mate and provide healthy off spring is automatically put in the position of submission.

She is reduced to nothing more than a vessel to be used at the man's whim. She may be revered by those around as a good woman a pure woman who does her duty...and this is fine it's in the culture and I understand that.

But a woman who is sexually empowered is a woman who feels confident and happy and usually unafraid to speak her mind.

This is my opinion of course but would you really want to have sex if it didn't feel good? Wouldn't you look on it as more of a chore or duty of procreation?

If you take away the pleasure the only thing left is either pain or boredom...basically everytime you have sex its like doing taxes.

Now that cant sound fun.

Spiderj

I hope this doesn't offend anyone by me asking, but was this guy a muslim?

Originally posted by laiguana
I hope this doesn't offend anyone by me asking, but was this guy a muslim?

Would it make a difference if he were? What is the reasoning behind the question?

What could make a man do something like this to his own daughter.

This is just sick. If he thinks he can preserve the sanctity of his daughter this way then he is grossly mistaken. Not only will he go to jail and spend rest of his life there. He also permanently scarred a little girl and caused her huge physical and emotional trauma.

Female circumsicion should be treated like first degree murder. Punishments should be same.

This man is obviously mentally unstable. If he can pick up his little daughter and cut her with scissors, and not feel the pain she is feeling, then there is something definitely wrong with this man. Even murderers have compassion for children sometimes.

I can see some people already jumping to the conclusion that this is an 'Islamic issue'. As nygdan explained, it is not. It is more to do with culture.

If you read the wikipedia info on female circumcision then you would know that doctors in the US practiced this procedure legally up until 1996.

Anyway, point is, it was widespread practice among many continents. But now, the laws have changed which make it illegal. Also, the human rights organizations have taken strong steps to end this practice once and for all.

Still in some backward countries, people practice this procedure, sometimes against the law. Like the above mentioned man did. As I said, only a really sick person would do such a barbaric thing to his own daughter, regardless of his religion, culture, race, etc.

Simply put. I would equate such a person with a murderer.

I would not equate female circumcision with murder, but it is not far behind. This goes above and beyond rape, but falls short of murder.

There is no loss of life, so murder is not much of an option. But the mutilation of another person is a serious offense. Sexual mutilation would be like a hate crime, it just adds to the severity of the offense.

It should carry the same punishment, 25+. As much of a backlash we are seeing here, I would not support the death penalty for this.

Well. In this case I would equate it to murder. traumatazing a 7 yr old by cutting her with scissors leaving her permanentaly scarred for life, emotionally and physically. I think thats worse than murder actually.

Murder can be caused by any kind of motives. But such acts have only one motive and speak the truth about the mentality of such people.

I believe the instructions for female circumcision in the Quran are to not remove too much. They are instructed to remove only the hood of the clitoris. Unfortunately the sexual oppression of women is a powerful motivator in the practice of female circumcision. The two schools of thought are sunni and shiite. One removes only the clitoris the other removes the clitoris and the major labia, sewing the whole mess shut and leaving a pea size hole. Often this type of circumcision results in death during child-birth.

For a while in the 80's, muslim activists lobbied for the right to circumcise their daughters in Canadian hospitals. Feminist activist and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, fought the legislation and prevented that practice from being legally condoned in Canada.

More needs to be done to protect the children of new immigrants to Europe and North America. Many families simply make a trip home to have the mutilation done. Legislation allowing daughters to sue their fathers for abuse and mutilation, once they have grown up - would do much to halt the practice.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Im not attracted to cold fishies which is basiclly what you would have without a clitoris

Well, you have a woman who is unresponsive to sex because her sex nerves have been ripped out and her genital mutilated.

Maybe you should ask a woman, but our sexuality doesn't lie solely within the clitoris. While I understand the point being made here, the way it's being discussed seems to assume that the clitoris is absolutely necessary for any sexual response. It may be true for some, but it's certainly not true for all. Obviously clitoral removal would interfere with a woman's natural sexuality.

Originally posted by chissler
It was a case study I read last year for a university course I was taking. It talked about how it was an insult to the male if the woman was not completely
closed. The women rarely objected to the ritual, as it was a form of sanctity, an honor to themselves.

I think you're mistaken, Chissler. There has to be at least a small opening to allow for menstrual blood, urine and natural cleansing of the vagina to occur. To close the vaginal opening completely would prevent these from happening. But, that is not to say that the size of the opening left is not of value, because it is. The smaller the more worth of the woman when it comes to marriage later on it seems, but there must be an opening. Making things worse, this opening will be re-opened, or cut open, to allow for sex, and will be opened even more to allow for birth. For a woman who has an unaltered vagina the labia will stretch quite a lot (they may tear, though) during birth, but for a woman who has undergone infibulation and has nothing but a small opening and scar tissue, she will have to undergo reopening, and apparently will have to experience being closed again after, reopened, closed, reopened, etc. for the duration of her child-bearing years. So, it doesn't just stop after the first "operation."

As for the cultural reasoning behind this sort of mutilation, from my understanding it has to do with somehow ensuring the "moral character" of the woman and her devotion to whomever will become her husband. Afterall, if the woman can feel no pleasure from sex (which is obviously a very male-centred act in the involved cultures) it decreases her likelihood of "straying." There are a variety of other reasons, too, none of which show the cultures involved holding women in any esteem. One that I've heard that sticks out is that a women's genitals are ugly and that somehow this "surgery" makes her acceptable to a man.

Yeah the details of the ritual are vague at best parr. I openly admit I could be mistaken on some aspects of it. What I am sure of though is that closure was a form of sanctity and this was the reasoning why they would be sewn closed. The degree of the closure is open for interpretation.

Boggles my mind why people would permit their wife, daughter, sister, etc., to endure such pain. The case study explained how the only thing equal to the pain the surgery inflicted, was intercourse with their husband for the first time.

i am an African man,and i don't in anyway support such a terrible practice (female circumcision)which is prevalent in most African cultures.But what i want to mention here is that everybody is crucifying this guy and none is questioning the mom whom i believe is equally as guilty as him.How on earth can a mom not know for a year and half that her two year old daughter has been circumcised! I believe this is a personal vendetta against this guy as a result of their bitter divorce.I mean after all this years,her not objecting to it or not reporting it implied consenting to such which i believe she's culpable of same crime.But as the justice system is emotions held sway and only the guy gets punished.

Those are very good points and while it is possible that he's innocent, remember we are only hearing that from the defense attorney, which of course any decent defense attorney would do.

We also don't know everything that went on in court and all the evidence that was provided by both sides.

We'll see how serious the defense attorney is if/when he appeals the case. If the girl was coached and the mother's family responsible...well a defense attorney rarely gets to defend an innocent man, heaven help the person going up against that defense attorney.

And I can't speak for everyone but I will when I say we do not lump all africans male or female into the same group just because of an ignorant few.

Spiderj

Originally posted by laprecana
But what i want to mention here is that everybody is crucifying this guy and none is questioning the mom whom i believe is equally as guilty as him.How on earth can a mom not know for a year and half that her two year old daughter has been circumcised!

You're right. I think one of the biggest problems is that this form of violence is perpetuated against women by women in many African cultures - they see it as much a necessaity or desirable as some men. This is a HUGE problem.

I think, in this case, the attention on the father is being given simply because it was he who committed the barbaric act according to the charges. I do think the mother's involvement is questionable, and any mother who pays attention to their child would be fully aware that they've had their clitoris removed. I cannot see it as bloodless or painless and a 2-3 year old chil will damn sure let you know they are hurting so I think she is lying to cover her own butt - she either knew and didn't stop it, or agreed with the practice.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Sure there may be other cultures who also do it. Do I need to explain to you the difference between an organized global religion and a tribe of a few thousand people who might have some silly custom?

The only difference is the numbers of people involved.

You are trying to argue that the Christians in Addis Ababa are just as likely to do this because they live in Africa? Is it that Africans are just savages?

Its their culture in that part of the world to shear off the labia of women. They do it because its their custom, just like people in autralia rip open the shaft of their penis, because its their custom.

Please Nygdan, expert of all things including genitals, tell me where it has been recorded and dictated for hundreds of years and taught to billions of people that it is okay to mutilate one's daughter in this way?

I never said it was.

You say that Christians also do this and it may be so that Christians in muslim countries do this,

There's no 'may' here, they do it, plain and simple, and they're not doing it because muslims are forcing them too. Its a tradition/cultural practice in and around the horn of africa. The pre-muslim people's did it, and the post-muslim people's are doing it.

To say that it is just a cultral practice, is stupid.

To continuously argue against strawman arguments that you've made up is stupid.

other than Mohammed, I think you'll be hard pressed to find ANY prophet of god who gives instructions on how to cut the clitoris of a small girl.

Where does mohammed say to do this?

clearwater
I believe the instructions for female circumcision in the Quran are to not remove too much. They are instructed to remove only the hood of the clitoris.

THis would be analagous to removing the foreskin.

spiderj
You brought up the topic of sub-incision, something I was not familiar with which of course forced me into the horrible position of having to go read and learn stuff

Yikes! Bad move! Never research 'penis mutilation traditions'.

it seems not only is this completely voluntary (in some cultures) it is said to actually increase sexual pleasure of the male and width of the penis.

Lets all keep something in mind here, the women in that part of the world aren't generally opposed to this practice, its 'voluntary', as voluntary as sub-incision amoung the aborigines. I'd personally call it brainwashing, other people might call it enculturation.

But it doesn't in fact take away the pleasure of sex for the male

I agree, its not an analog, the only analog that's actually practiced anywhere would be a sex change operation.
Heck, even that leaves some of hte material intact in order to replicate a clitoris.

...but the difference between sub-incision and clitoral castration seems subtle yet signifigant.

No arguement here. But, it does show that people can be made to think and do some pretty stupid things.
As far as 'sexual pleasure', these cultures, that severely mutliate their genitals, they're not concerned with sexual pleasure per se much anyway. These are cultures that have strict controls on sex, even outside of this mutliation issue.

in male dominated societies like the cultures of north-east africa a sexually empowered woman is a threat to the male ego.

Sexualy active and empowered women in these kinds of socieities are prostitutes. Its not liek over here where people equate sex primarily with physical pleasure and see it as a virture, sex in other places is a reproductive act that must be controlled.

Wouldn't you look on it as more of a chore or duty of procreation?

Thats what it is in these cultures, not a pleasureable act that a person might be in the mood for and jump into or go looking for, but a mode of reproduction.

Hey nygdan,

Nice points and I think we agree on the generalities if not the specifics but...

Thats what it is in these cultures, not a pleasureable act that a person might be in the mood for and jump into or go looking for, but a mode of reproduction.

that really doesn't sound very fun at all.

Spiderj

No arguement here, that doesn't sound fun at all. Thank god I was born and raised in the decadent amoral west.

Originally posted by Nygdan
To continuously argue against strawman arguments that you've made up is stupid.

I could see how you'd see my points as straw man arguments. Doesn't make it true. Keep trying. My point about the Muslim ability to end this practice (or substantially reduce it) is valid and true. It is the muslim culture that keeps this practice active and even recommended.

Where does mohammed say to do this?

Again you want me to educate you? But you seem to enjoy presenting yourself as such a fountain of knowledge.

www.minaret.org...

Although female circumcision is not mandated, one tradition of disputed authenticity permits (but does not encourage) the removal of a minuscule segment of skin from the female prepuce, provided no harm is done:

A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina [Madîna]. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.'–Sunan Abu Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.

Here's another wording which says that the prophet of Islam was walking by a woman who was applying the knife to her daughter's genitals. He of course had to stop and clairfy the process:

www.ummah.net...

No mention of female circumcision is to be found in the Qur'an either directly or indirectly. There is no known Hadeeth which requires female circumcision. Some argued, however, that one Hadeeth, while not requiring female circumcision, appears to accept it: "Circumcision is a commedable act for men (Sunnah) and is an honorable thing for women (Makromah)." [5]

There are two observations on this Hadeeth:

a) A distinction is made between male circumcision which is described in a stronger religious term (Sunnah) [6] or commendable while another weaker description is given to female circumcision (Makromah) which implies no religious obligation.
b) This Hadeeth is of weak authenticity (dha'eef) according to Hadeeth scholars. [7]

There is, however, a more authentic Hadeeth in which Prophet Muhammad (P) is reported to have passed by a woman performing circumcision on a young girl. He instructed the woman by saying: "Cut off only the foreskin (outer fold of skin over the clitoris; the prepuce) but do not cut off deeply (i.e. the clitoris itself), for this is brighter for the face (of the girl) and more favorable with the husband."

So here we have the prophet of Islam describing how to do this practice. And as we can see, the creative apologists may try to remove his actions but what IS clear is that this is a practice which his followers are too stupid to flat out condemn as they should do according to any civilized morality.

Moreover, here's a quote from the link above which shows that Islam is propagating this practice:

The remaining question then relates to the first procedure. Some (e.g. the late Rector of Al-Azhar University, Sheikh Gad Al-Haque) argued that since the Prophet (P) did not ban female circumcision, it falls within the category of the permissble.

I will draw you a simple analogy: If a bunch of people are sitting around a table, and a subject comes up, that opens an window or opportunity for CLARIFICATION or perhaps CONDEMNATION of that subject. If a subject is raised, and Mohhammed is at the table and he says nothing, or as in this case, clarifies how to do it, then he bears full responsibility for his actions.

Now if only your precious GWOT was not a false-flag war against "terror", but a war for the rights of women. Then I might support it.



[edit on 11-11-2006 by smallpeeps]