steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (01/07/84)
I am responding to an article in net.women.only, in net.women,
for obvious reasons. -Steve
> Clitorectomies are still practiced in Africa among many tribes. As
> a maturity ritual, adolecent girls are held down while thier
> clitorises are scraped off with a sharp stone. The wound is then
> crudely stiched. Many girls die of infection. The process is done
> because since these tribes practice polygyny (one husband, many
> wives), and it is impossible for a man to satisfy all those women,
> this way, the woman won't be sexually interested, and therefore
> won't stray. When educated women in these countries try to get
> these rituals stopped, they are accused of having no respect for
> tribal tradition.
............
Ariel (more fuel for the fire) Shattan
decvax!tektronix!tekecs!ariels
==============
Excuse me, Ms Shattan, but where is your degree in Anthropology?
I only took 3 courses of study in the field, but at least I can see
that you have not the least idea of what you are talking about. It
is true that in many tribes (in Africa and elsewhere), a sexuality
ritual is performed upon boys and girls upon coming of age. And it
is also true, that often these rituals include laceration of the
sexual organs. However, about your fantasies about "poligomy" and
the unsatisfaction of women in these cultures, I can only laugh.
Why do I laugh at your culturally-bogoted opinions??
First: Where pologmy is practiced, it is the exception, rather
than the rule. This is rather plain to see, because
if it were not, there would be a lot of frustrated MEN
hanging around (the ones lacking wives). If it were true
that "Many girls die of infection.", there would be an
even smaller female to male ratio. (Of course, few girls
die of infection, about the same as the number of boys who do).
Second: There has been no evidence in any non-victorian culture
of any desire to impair the sexuality of a youth through
these rituals. Paint, however, tends to wash off. So
influcting scars is the general rule.
Third: These tribes also perform circumcision, and quite often
put scars on the penis. This is not mentioned in any
protest, because we have much the same tradition.
Fourth: If you protest that the clitorous is the be-all, end-all,
of female pleasure in coitus, whereas the male gets off
with a relatively minor lacerations -- I would point you
to a book called "The G-Spot" (you might be missing out
on a lot). Women from these countries, interviewed, have
said that they enjoy sex, and even have orgasms; this is
ignored by our cultural bigots.
Fifth: The modern myth about "circumcision being healthy for the
woman", has not been proved. Only one, (now believed biased)
study supported it. Circumcision is just as physically
unnatural as clitorodectomies, its only reason for existance
is because it is a decendent of the same tribal ritual so
many europeans find objectional now.
I do not, in any way, support these practices. However, I also do not
like to read uninformed culturally-bigoted opinions. We must assume,
that the rituals refered to are important to the cultures involved,
because under colonial rule, they could not be stamped out.
Steven Maurersaquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/08/84)
Steve Maurer writes: > I only took 3 courses of study in the field, but at least I can see > that you have not the least idea of what you are talking about. It > is true that in many tribes (in Africa and elsewhere), a sexuality > ritual is performed upon boys and girls upon coming of age. And it > is also true, that often these rituals include laceration of the > sexual organs. However, about your fantasies about "poligomy" and > the unsatisfaction of women in these cultures, I can only laugh. Yes, there are many sexuality rituals all over the world, but they do differ. Coming-of-age sexuality rituals such as male circumcision are usually done with the boy's consent, and are done as a ritual of introduction to adulthood and are accompanied by celebrations. Female rituals on the other hand are often done without the little girl's consent and are not accompanied by cele- brations. Many of those rituals are not a "rejoicing of womanhood", as the male equivalent and the girls are not made to feel proud as little boys are, but if anything, ashamed. > Why do I laugh at your culturally-bogoted opinions?? > > First: Where pologmy is practiced, it is the exception, rather > than the rule. This is rather plain to see, because > if it were not, there would be a lot of frustrated MEN > hanging around (the ones lacking wives). If it were true > that "Many girls die of infection.", there would be an > even smaller female to male ratio. (Of course, few girls > die of infection, about the same as the number of boys who do). > Many girls do die of infection. As we all know male/female ratios vary greatly around the world. many more boys than girls are conceived, and many more die in childhood, as they tend to be frailer. Most girls survive clitoridectomies, but a significant number die of side effects. How the ratios work out in the end, I don't know. How do ratios work out in polygamous societies where men are allowed more than one wife? the problem is the same. > Second: There has been no evidence in any non-victorian culture > of any desire to impair the sexuality of a youth through > these rituals. Paint, however, tends to wash off. So > influcting scars is the general rule. > In some tribes, at the same time as clitoridectomies, infibulations are performed. Infibulations in the female is done by sewing up the outer lips of the vulva, sometimes leaving space for menses to go through, sometimes not. Sometimes, objects such as rings, are sewn along. The purpose of infibulations is to prevent the women from having pre-marital sex. When they get married, the husband is allowed to "cut the seams". He is also allowed to resew his wife whenever he leaves on trips. Infibulations are also performed on little boys by sticking pins on their penises or sewing rings around them (like horses). I don't have many details about this. I read about this in an anthropological study of the condition of women around the world. I do not remember whether infibulation is still performed, and if it is, how common it is. For obvious reasons, infibulations are more dangerous than simple clitoridectomies because of the risk of infection associated with the closing of the vagina, and the opening and closing of wounds. > Third: These tribes also perform circumcision, and quite often > put scars on the penis. This is not mentioned in any > protest, because we have much the same tradition. Two wrongs do not make a right. The issues of clitoridectomies and circumcision are definitely related. Saying that circumcisions are wrong does not make clitoridectomies less wrong. > Fourth: If you protest that the clitorous is the be-all, end-all, > of female pleasure in coitus, whereas the male gets off > with a relatively minor lacerations -- I would point you > to a book called "The G-Spot" (you might be missing out > on a lot). Women from these countries, interviewed, have > said that they enjoy sex, and even have orgasms; this is > ignored by our cultural bigots. "Fourth: If you protest that the penis is the be-all, end-all, of male sexual pleasure, I would point out (to no book, because this is a shameful subject directly related to homosexuality) that many men can get aroused and reach cli- maxes by simple stimulation of the anus." I don't think this is a good enough argument to defend removing a significant portion of the penis. The fact is that orgasm can be reached in many different ways, but that the most effective way in most people is by direct stimulation of the principal sexual organ, the penis in the male, and the clitoris in the female. Most people enjoy sexual contact without that direct stimulation, and some can even have orgasms that way, but for most people, the stimulation (direct or indirect) of the principal sexual organ is necessary to reach orgasm most of the time. My sources concer- ning all this are no more anodectal than yours, so I feel safe answering you, even though I am ready to admit I have been wrong if I am presented with more tangible evidence. As far as the G-spot is concerned, I might try to answer your arguments another day. > Fifth: The modern myth about "circumcision being healthy for the > woman", has not been proved. Only one, (now believed biased) > study supported it. Circumcision is just as physically > unnatural as clitorodectomies, its only reason for existance > is because it is a decendent of the same tribal ritual so > many europeans find objectional now. I agree with you. I would add that even if circumcision was proved to be healthy for the woman, I do not think this would be a good enough reason to perform them for the following reasons: 1- how do we know the man will have intercourse with women? 2- if he does, how do we know in advance he will stay long enough with one woman to harm her? 3- if he does, how do we know in advance that they will not be using some form of contraception which would prevent this (assuming that the cancer is caused by some substance going from the man's penis to the woman's cervix)? 4- even if they don't then how do we know she is not doing something else than sleeping with a uncircumcised man that might be making her high cancer risk? 5- if she isn't and it is the man's problem, he can always get circumcised if he thinks it is worth doing. I do disagree with you that circumcision as performed in america is a descendant of tribal rituals. Routine circumcision is a pretty recent "ritual" in america and europe (dates anybody?). In most european countries, and in most countries in the world, men are not circumcised unless there is something wrong with them (or they are jewish or muslim). As far as I know routine circumcision at birth is only common in english speaking countries, and of course muslim countries where boys are circumcised around 6 or 7. > I do not, in any way, support these practices. However, I also do not > like to read uninformed culturally-bigoted opinions. We must assume, > that the rituals refered to are important to the cultures involved, > because under colonial rule, they could not be stamped out. Making sure that women do not copulate with whomever they wish is and has been a very important part of most cultures. Rituals assuring this have not been stamped out by colonial rule because colonial rule didn't really care about stamping them out, as colonisers came from societies which believed in the same concept that women's sexuality should be controlled by society. You are right that the rituals are very important, they are EXTREMELY important as they keep an ordered society where people's roles are determined by their genders, and as they are not very natural, people have to be forced in these roles very young. I would tend to agree with you that if we were to respect those societies, we should let them carry on with their traditions, but we do not respect those societies because we do much more harmful things to them than stopping them from mutilating their bodies, so it is hypocritical to defend such awful practises if we are not willing to defend the rest of their way of life. Little girls on whom clitoridectomies are performed will go to school and will eventually learn about what has happened to them. Some of those have managed to get organised to try to stop sexual mutilations. It is too late to reverse this now, and the only thing we can do to alleviate the harm we have done by not respecting other ways of life is to help those who want the harmful customs stopped.