female circumcision is “an aesthetic surgery”.

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Here is what this genius, Habib Ellouz, had to say about female genital mutilation in Tunisia.
This man, a member of the new constituent assembly of Tunisia advocates for a free, democratic, non racist and non sexist country and comes up with this kind of disgusting statement. No need to say that it caused a national outrage, even more that female genital mutilation is a real problem in a lot of African countries.


FGM is typically carried out on girls from a few days old to puberty. It may take place in a hospital, but is usually performed, without anaesthesia, by a traditional circumciser using a knife, razor, or scissors.


Genital mutilations of girls of a couple days to twelve years old are Aesthetic surgeries?


The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound is opened for intercourse and childbirth.[5] Around 85 percent of women who undergo FGM experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III, though Type III is the most common procedure in several countries, including Sudan, Somalia, and Djibouti.[6] Several miscellaneous acts are categorized as Type IV. These range from a symbolic pricking or piercing of the clitoris or labia, to cauterization of the clitoris, cutting into the vagina to widen it (gishiri cutting), and introducing corrosive substances to tighten it




Cultural or not, I would never stand for this sort of atrocities.
edit on 21-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ParovStelar
 


You can't fix stupid.
And people suffer for it.
smh.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ParovStelar
 
People who endorse this type of mutilation are monsters! Aesthetic- really?
I wonder what would happen if the women of the region decided it would be more aesthetic for males to have their scrotums removed, starting with Habib Ellouz to set an example? I think he would probably have a change of mind as to what is aesthetically pleasing!



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ParovStelar
 

I don't have a definite idea or argument, just throwing out thoughts to be explored, so be nice.

On what grounds do we condemn this practice? The U.S. has accepted the idea, presented by the pro-choicers, to "Keep your laws off our bodies."

The Supreme Court has allowed ritual slaughter of chickens as part of Santeria worship, the possession of eagle feathers by certain Indian groups, and the use of mar... ooops, herbs, in some religious ceremonies.

Circumcision is common. We have installed special footwashing facilities in schools for the use of Muslims, and allow them to leave class for prayers.

What line will we draw and say "I don't care what your religion requires, you're not doing that here?" And how will we defend that line? Sodomy, abortion, adultery, were not only frowned upon but illegal. We couldn't keep those lines drawn. Where do we get the strength to say "No." Or is it too late?



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
And what is it about a clitoris that needs to corrected in order to be more 'aesthetic'?

This is wrong on so many levels.. I don't care if its a religious or a cultural thing, it IS mutilation.



Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound is opened for intercourse and childbirth


Okay. So they cut off the the labia and clitoris and sew the whole thing up (almost) only to open it later for sex and childbirth? There was already a passage there was fully equipped for those activities.

'If it aint broke, don't fix it!'



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 


How do you feel about the foreskin?



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I know where you are going. If the girls decide they want to get their vagina mutilated when they reach adulthood I have no problem against it. It is their bodies after all. But to mutilate a child that cannot yet choose if she endorses such a culture or understands what the medical implications of such an act do to their bodies is not acceptable, cultural or not.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
If it involves only the removal of clitorial hood, then maybe, to the extent that male circumcision is or isnt a cosmetic surgery.

Anything more and it is mutilation.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 



How do you feel about the foreskin?


Removal of the foreskin does not completely rob the man of the ability to have an orgasm as removing the clitoris would.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I don't know a hell of a lot about why this is done but its sickening to say the least. And why would it be done, my guess is to suppress sexual enjoyment to the women of a certain religious or ethnic group.... I'm not surprised, just sickened. It is barbaric and in humane.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
"How do you feel about the foreskin? "

dont know , i dont have any..


there are a lot of different bad thing in the world , male/female genital mutilation is just one of them.


different people have different view on what is good and bad , might makes right.
if one have the might one can make one's right.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ParovStelar
 

Dear ParovStelar,

Thanks, I think you've got a good point. I still don't have any firm ideas, may I keep playing some more? And no, I'm not trying to start a fight or derail the thread, but what do we do with 12 year-olds getting abortions without parental notification? I am absolutely certain that few, if any, understand "the medical implications of such an act." Should we require them to be 18, or 21? And we still have the circumcision problem.

Hmmm. Just on a side note, is it mental mutilation to teach a child religious principles before they are adults?



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Sadly it is rarely just that. The most common form of female mutilation is to sew the lips together to be certain that they remain virgin until they marry.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Sure Charles.


what do we do with 12 year-olds getting abortions without parental notification? I am absolutely certain that few, if any, understand "the medical implications of such an act."


We could compare it to things culturally acceptable to our society all day long, but like a member said earlier, having an abortion does not rob you of having an orgasm in the future or enjoying an healthy sex life.




Just on a side note, is it mental mutilation to teach a child religious principles before they are adults?


The real mental mutilation is to not teach a child to reason and make use of critical thinking. To not question the world around him and to seek answers to the things he does not understand. I was brought up in a certain religion, but was given the right tools by my parents to think by myself and I no longer am part of that religion.
edit on 21-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

At the mass ceremony, I ask the foundation's social welfare secretary, Lukman Hakim, why they do it. His answer not only predates the dawn of religion, it predates human evolution: "It is necessary to control women's sexual urges," says Hakim, a stern, bespectacled man in a fez. "They must be chaste to preserve their beauty."


Source

It seems to be more about suppressing women than anything else.

Hakim, here, seems to be saying that women are inherently promiscuous and that if this isn't controlled, they will lose their beauty.

The article is highly disturbing. This is even offered as part of a package deal at birth.
edit on 21-3-2013 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Just reading a book about female mutilation in the Middle East. The book is called Nine Parts of Desire by Geraldine Brooks.

According to the author, Geraldine Brooks, the mutilation is often done to protect the honor of the male relatives. She describes a common practice where the entire labia is removed and then acaia thorns are used to close the wound, leaving only a small opening for urine and menstruation. I dont know the statistics, but this can lead to infection and death. Supposedly this rids the girl of sexual desire, thus keeping her virgin (and preserving the honor of her male relatives).

On her wedding night, the groom must use his knife to cut an opening for intercourse. I can't began to imagine the pain involved, and it doesn't stop there. The scar tissue that forms makes childbirth far more painful and dangerous than is typical. Apparently the strain of trying to birth the child through the scar tissue can cause the woman's bladder to rupture, leaving her with a constant trickle of urine. If the rectal wall tears, the trickle includes fecal matter. Women with these conditions are often shunned by their fellow villagers.

Interestingly, a lot of Westerners associate female genital mutilation with the practice of Islam. However, from what I've read, the Koran does not endorse or require the mutilation. It is more of a cultural thing, and Christians in the region also mutilate their girls.
edit on 21-3-2013 by smyleegrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Cutting off your manhood could also be considered "asthetic"

Perhaps we should try it on him and see if he likes his new look?



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Female mutilation = a procedure Dreamt up and carried out by men with a severe insecurity problems..

And Before anyone jumps in with the steel toe caps on...I'm a Man with his tackle intact thank you very much.

Barbaric doesn't even come close.
edit on 21-3-2013 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 

I hadn't considered the scar tissue as far as giving birth goes.

I can attest that scar tissue makes a difference. I won't go into too many details as I'm quite sure that no one would want to know the horrors of my childbirth experience (it was awful), but scar tissue from the first baby definitely affected things the second time around.

Its a horrible, barbaric practice. I feel so sorry for them girls/women that have had this done to them. Its sickening.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Cover your face.
Stop showing your hair.
Your skin is showing.
Cut that vagina out.

Ahhh what would we do without primitive religions and cultures, eh?

it's mutilation as soon as you cut. Not if you cut too much, or the wrong way. AS SOON AS.

Anyone who thinks cutting parts off a baby or young adult - is a good thing or acceptable, then you're brain is bung.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join