# if genital mutilation were a problem affecting men the matter would long be settled



## tlh (Oct 10, 2007)

from the Waris Dirie website.

http://www.waris-dirie-foundation.com/web/e_index.htm


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

If it were only that simple.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

It is. What a bizarre argument.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

How ignorant and incredibly dismissive of MGM!!!!!!!!







:


----------



## savienu (May 26, 2007)

Wow. I'm femle, and I'm offended at how sexist that is!







:


----------



## MommytoB (Jan 18, 2006)

I agree because circumcision does effect men so to say it doesn't his head been somewhere else .


----------



## bluetoes (May 12, 2007)

That is incredibly dismissive and sexist. At first I was thinking, well if MGM was done crudely on an older child without pain relief then men would complain more. But the attitude those that have gone through it seem to have is that it's a rite of passage that boy's have to 'man up' and go through.

And I wonder what percentage of women who have it done to them think it's a bad thing? Or just a rite of passage a woman must go through.

The only difference is a cultural one. Western society thinks we're more civilised so what we do must be ok.


----------



## Tinker (Mar 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
It is. What a bizarre argument.

Exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

This is the current tpic of conversation in our house - how MGM ever got started in a patriachy. I don't understand it, unless it was a cult thing with the hold those leaders have over their people. But how would it spread after that?


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Because no man would want to admit that something done to him might be wrong so he then perpetuates circumcision.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Her information is what the recent Mothering magazine article on circumcision was based on. Totally biased and non-scientifically justified -- claimed female circ (removing clitoris) is the same as removing the entire glans of the penis.

C'mon, I am 100% opposed to FGM in any form, but the sexism totally rubs me the wrong way. ALL genital mutilation on EITHER gender is ALWAYS wrong for ANY reason.


----------



## rambunctiouscurls (Oct 4, 2006)

I don't get it. As a victim of FGM, she, of ALL ppl should know it affects men.
I see that she is also a muslim. I wonder if she circumcized her own kids.


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommy2Amira* 
I don't get it. As a victim of FGM, she, of ALL ppl should know it affects men.
I see that she is also a muslim. I wonder if she circumcized her own kids.

I bet you she circumcised her son without blinking twice.


----------



## Stardust27 (Feb 6, 2004)

As far as I know, she says in one of her books that she had him circumcised and goes on about how clean and neat it is.







: Not that I've read them - I refuse to do anything to support her.

I once wrote to her organization about male circumcision and also posted something on her guest book - the entries were deleted and I never got any reply to my e-mail.

So it's not just that she's innocently ignorant, but willfully blocking off this issue. She's definitely in my top ten







persons.

Stardust


----------



## tlh (Oct 10, 2007)

maybe she isn't aware of MGM.she lived in Africa.here is what she has said about her son and FGM.

By now my career had taken off. I was appearing in commercials, music videos, and worked with the biggest photographers in the fashion business. My life was heavenly.
I had told Mama that I had not found the right man for me. But then one night in the fall of 1995 I discovered him in a tiny jazz club in New York. He was a shy drummer with a '70s Afro and a funky style. His name was Dana Murray, and I knew from that moment he was my man.

At dinner the next night I laughed and told him that someday I was going to have his baby. For the first time in my life I wanted a man. Soon we realized we were in love and wanted to spend the rest of our lives together. My crazy prediction came true with the birth of our son on June 13, 1997; He was beautiful, with silky black hair and long feet and fingers.

I named him Aleeke. With his tiny mouth, chubby cheeks and halo of curls, he looks like a little black cupid.

From the day he was born, my life changed. The happiness I get from him is everything to me now. Life--the gift of life-is what matters, and that's what giving birth to my son made me remember.

After going through the cycle of womanhood that began prematurely with my circumcision at age five and came full circle with my baby's birth when I was about 30, I had even more respect for my own mother. I understood what incredible strength the women in Somalia possess.

When Waris was five, her mother held her down on a rock while another woman cut off parts of her genitals with a razor blade.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I would be pretty shocked if she wasn't aware of MGM (I doubt she calls it that though). If she did infact circumcise her son she is the worst kind of hyprocrite.

It is awful what was done to her , just thinking about it is making me cry.







:


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quirky* 
Totally biased and non-scientifically justified -- claimed female circ (removing clitoris) is the same as removing the entire glans of the penis.

But that's correct - the clitoris is analogous to the glans, the prepuce to the foreskin, the labia to the scrotum.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe*
But that's correct - the clitoris is analogous to the glans, the prepuce to the foreskin, the labia to the scrotum.

Not entirely. See, the clitoris that you see on the outside is the tip of the iceberg, literally -- far more of the structure of the clitoris is on the inside than is on the outside. There are also sexual structures (g-spot) on the inside of the vagina. So a clitoridectomy may be equivalent to the partial amputation of the glans, but it is not equivalent to a full amputation of the glans. There are many women who report still being able to orgasm and have satisfying sex lives after Type I/II FGM, but if you were to remove the entire glans from a man -- I doubt you'd get the same reports.

Great video explanation here:

http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_b...he_said_b.html


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby* 
How ignorant and incredibly dismissive of MGM!!!!!!!!







:

I know, right? How blind can people be? If I wanted, I could take my perfectly healthy three year old, who has never had the slightest problem with his foreskin, and schedule a doctor to amputate it. If I so much as mention the idea of removing any tissue from my daughter's vulva I would go to jail. This is incredibily sexist and wrong.


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

I wrote this but haven't hit submit. Unfortunately there's a word limit so I can't write all I wanted. How does it sound before I send it to her?

Ms. Dirie,

I whole heartedly support any efforts in ending female genital mutilation, but I can't donate to a site that downplays the terrible cruelty of routine infant male circumcision by saying that "if genital mutilation were a problem affecting men the matter would long be settled." This is entirely untrue. Thousands of boys born in the US each year greet the world by having part of their penis amputated. A baby boy strapped down, with his genitals crushed and cut by a surgeon bleeds just as red as the little girl held by relatives and cut by the local midwife.

Please remove that sexist quote and speak out against the genital cutting of all helpless, unconsenting children and babies. Even if you can't make male circumcision your fight, at least don't belittle our efforts to end such barbarism.

Thank you!
Renee


----------



## rambunctiouscurls (Oct 4, 2006)

It's perfect Renee, send it and let us know if she responds!


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Okay cool. I sent it but it hasn't shown up yet.

~Nay


----------



## tlh (Oct 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AntoninBeGonin* 
Okay cool. I sent it but it hasn't shown up yet.

~Nay

is this yours?

It is a shame that you do not use your experience as a victim of genital mutilation to advocate for genital integrity for ALL. Both men and women. Male circumcision performed without the consent of the boy being circumcised, is just as wrong and unethical as the violation of young girls. When will you speak up against this?


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tlh* 
is this yours?

It is a shame that you do not use your experience as a victim of genital mutilation to advocate for genital integrity for ALL. Both men and women. Male circumcision performed without the consent of the boy being circumcised, is just as wrong and unethical as the violation of young girls. When will you speak up against this?

That's me.







:


----------



## Stardust27 (Feb 6, 2004)

Great comments, everyone!







Keeping my fingers crossed that they won't be deleted...

If you want to write something more comprehensive, you'll find an e-mail address if you click on "Imprint" (near the bottom of the page, right side). No word limits for e-mails.









Stardust


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quirky* 
Not entirely. See, the clitoris that you see on the outside is the tip of the iceberg, literally -- far more of the structure of the clitoris is on the inside than is on the outside. There are also sexual structures (g-spot) on the inside of the vagina. So a clitoridectomy may be equivalent to the partial amputation of the glans, but it is not equivalent to a full amputation of the glans. There are many women who report still being able to orgasm and have satisfying sex lives after Type I/II FGM, but if you were to remove the entire glans from a man -- I doubt you'd get the same reports.

Great video explanation here:

http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_b...he_said_b.html

But the internal structures are analogous to the shaft, not the glans...

Men can apparently orgasm from stimulation of the prostate.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

But I don't think we can necessarily say that that means that cutting off the external clitoris is the same as cutting off the glans. Just because the structures are analogous doesn't mean they're identical in terms of innervation or function. I think it may make Type I/II FGM seem worse than it is and male circ better than it is to state that removing the clitoris=removing the glans.


----------



## tlh (Oct 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AntoninBeGonin* 
I wrote this but haven't hit submit. Unfortunately there's a word limit so I can't write all I wanted. How does it sound before I send it to her?

Ms. Dirie,

I whole heartedly support any efforts in ending female genital mutilation, but I can't donate to a site that downplays the terrible cruelty of routine infant male circumcision by saying that "if genital mutilation were a problem affecting men the matter would long be settled." This is entirely untrue. Thousands of boys born in the US each year greet the world by having part of their penis amputated. A baby boy strapped down, with his genitals crushed and cut by a surgeon bleeds just as red as the little girl held by relatives and cut by the local midwife.

Please remove that sexist quote and speak out against the genital cutting of all helpless, unconsenting children and babies. Even if you can't make male circumcision your fight, at least don't belittle our efforts to end such barbarism.

Thank you!
Renee


it's perfect.i hope she gets it.
i saw PAPAI'S this is the comment i left.

"if genital mutilation were a problem affecting men the matter would long be settled"

this is a very sexist remark and totally ignores the fact that every day thousands of boys undergo MGM.please educate yourself on these issues and sign the Montagu resolution and support the MGM bill.

http://montagunocircpetition.org/

http://www.mgmbill.org/


----------



## kmeyrick (Aug 30, 2006)

I don't believe in MGM, but at least most boys can go on with normal function of their genitals. FGM results in death, sterility, an inability to feel sexual sensation, chronic pain, infection, elimination disorders, etc. If circumcision had _those_ results more often than not, then Waris is right, it would have been "settled." But a baby who is unable to articulate his pain and unable to recall the event later...it's too easy for people to divorce themselves from the reality: MGM is pointless and cruel. We are victimizing defenseless infants for the sake of tradition, misinformation, and "so they don't get laughed at in the locker room."


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kmeyrick*
I don't believe in MGM, but at least most boys can go on with normal function of their genitals. FGM results in death, sterility, an inability to feel sexual sensation, chronic pain, infection, elimination disorders, etc.

I am not at all trying to minimize the losses suffered by victims of FGM. But first, boys DON'T have normal function of their genitals -- their sensory losses are huge, not to mention the structure and function of the penis is completely altered. Yes, most can still orgasm, but what they have is not normal sex as nature intended it.

And second, the complications faced by victims of Type III/IV FGM are horrific, including those you mention -- but again, this is not the majority of FGM victims. 80% of FGM is Type I/II, and only 20% is the most disfiguring and damaging kind. This is the type that Waris suffered, and yes, its results, especially when done in highly unsanitary conditions, are far worse than most routine infant circs done in modern hospitals. But this is not the norm/majority even for FGM done in less developed countries.

I just think that we need to recognize more the horrors of RIC and understand that it's not OK to perpetuate male circ because it's less brutal and disfiguring than the worst kind of female circ. We need to understand that it's pretty comparable, actually, to the type of female circ most often performed.

Quote:

If circumcision had _those_ results more often than not, then Waris is right, it would have been "settled." But a baby who is unable to articulate his pain and unable to recall the event later...it's too easy for people to divorce themselves from the reality: MGM is pointless and cruel. We are victimizing defenseless infants for the sake of tradition, misinformation, and "so they don't get laughed at in the locker room."
ITA.


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AntoninBeGonin* 
I wrote this but haven't hit submit. Unfortunately there's a word limit so I can't write all I wanted. How does it sound before I send it to her?

Ms. Dirie,

I whole heartedly support any efforts in ending female genital mutilation, but I can't donate to a site that downplays the terrible cruelty of routine infant male circumcision by saying that "if genital mutilation were a problem affecting men the matter would long be settled." This is entirely untrue. Thousands of boys born in the US each year greet the world by having part of their penis amputated. A baby boy strapped down, with his genitals crushed and cut by a surgeon bleeds just as red as the little girl held by relatives and cut by the local midwife.

Please remove that sexist quote and speak out against the genital cutting of all helpless, unconsenting children and babies. Even if you can't make male circumcision your fight, at least don't belittle our efforts to end such barbarism.

Thank you!
Renee

I'm sad to say she did not remove the sexist quote that greets visitors when they first log onto the site.









I don't know if my comment was published. It probably was. The guestbook at that site is insane. I don't have time to read 4-5 comments per page, waiting for each page to load.


----------



## Stardust27 (Feb 6, 2004)

I would have been really surprised if she had reacted. She's got her head very deep in the sand as far as MGM is concerned.







:

But at least the two intactivist comments are still in the guestbook. There's one from 28.10.2007, 20:40 and one from 27.10.2007, 00:03 (both currently on page 3).









Stardust


----------



## tlh (Oct 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stardust27* 
I would have been really surprised if she had reacted. She's got her head very deep in the sand as far as MGM is concerned.







:

But at least the two intactivist comments are still in the guestbook. There's one from 28.10.2007, 20:40 and one from 27.10.2007, 00:03 (both currently on page 3).









Stardust

it's hard for me to believe that someone so against FGM and a victim of it wouldn't have ever heard of MGM.that statement is very harmful and i hope she reads the guestbook and pulls her head out of the sand.


----------

