Female Genital... Whatever
What to call it? That seems to be the problem. If you use "mutilation" as the third word, you're disrespectful against the women it has been used on, despite the fact that it is a mutilation, though only if we're talking about anything beyond removal of the clitoral hood
( Read more... )
I find this dancing around the term frankly ridiculous, myself. In my eyes, it is mutilation, even when the woman in question has been brainwashed into wanting it (because her husband will love her, because she will get a husband, because she won't shame her family, because that's a good woman's duty, etc). In my opinion, we aren't equipped with anything we don't need, save perhaps the appendix, so attempting to pass off this kind of thing as surgery is something that personally offends me. A surgery is, in my eyes, a medical necessity which is performed because a woman's (or person's) health is at risk, and equating the completely unnecessary destruction of female genitalia to something like a health risk is something I consider an affront.
Furthermore, all the people oohing and aahing about political correctness where FGM is concerned or who, in fact, try to explain it away as being of "importance to another culture, you should respect the customs blahblahblah" are assholes. Suppressing and denying, flat-out removing a woman's means to feel sexual pleasure, thereby punishing her for daring to enjoy sexual contact, for daring to have sexual needs, desires and wishes of her own, has NOTHING to do with culture. That's like saying keeping black people as slaves is part of a culture. Or killing Jews. (Funny how people get riled up when it's about those topics, but not when it's about those icky disgusting vagoos.)
And the facts aside that female "circumcision" is about a hundred times more dangerous than male circumcision, because dammit you're taking away essential tissue here and the way this circumcision is carried out is anything but professional... I will go out on a limb here and express my anti-stance on circumcision in general. Female's as well as male's, even though male circumcision can't really be compared to female in terms of health risk, pain and restriction of pleasure.
I get why male circumcision was performed in former times, I get there are now superstitions attached to the foreskin, such as the contraction of diseases (Jesus, guys, learn to wash it and it'll be clean, it's as easy as that), but in the 21st century? No. Sorry, I don't understand it. If a grown man, out of his own decision and not due to outside pressure decides to have it cut off, fine. Let him. But taking that decision out of the guy's hands when he's a child, with no ability to say "hey, I want to keep this bit, I might enjoy having it later on", I think that's wrong, too. Yes, yes, I am a racist, I am intolerant, blahblah, but I see no reason to carry out ancient dogmatic practices just because they are ancient.
Reply
I should probably say the post that sparked this pointed out that we should use terms that those having been affected by, or live in cultures that use the various forms of FG...W uses, one of which is FGE (female genital excision, but that's just "removal" and that doesn't... encompass the dimension of "removal" that's involved in this practice. I mean, how can any word be enough to encompass the "removal", the destruction of a part, not just of genitals, but of sexuality, pleasure and enjoyment?
What I have trouble with isn't (not really) using words those women uses, but... that none of those words encompass the totality of it. Destruction. That's what it is. It's like saying that we shouldn't call a rape a "rape" because the woman who was raped doesn't, even when it was a rape. And if that's imperialistic and whatall, damn it, I can't help it, but I don't care.
And the female "circumcision", sure, I have no idea how taking away the clitoral hood (this is what I mean when I say "circumcision" since the clitoral hood is equivalent to the male foreskin (rather, the reverse)) affects the vulva, but I don't see how that would affect much. And as far as they're "equivalents" they're about as "acceptable", which is to say, not, since fe/male circumcision isn't necessary, damn it.
The majority (all? I have no idea) of our boys don't get circumcised, and why should they? It's not necessary, does nothing, and if they can't clean themselves, by kittens, then how are they ever gonna grow up?! =P So yeah. Circumcision = bad.
If we all could agree on that, no matter the degree and who it was done on, I think we could get somewhere... =//
Reply
Seriously? I don't get where they're coming from. The term FGM has nothing to do with being disrespectful to the victims (what, PC people, am I not allowed to call them victims anymore, either?), it has to do with calling the practice what it is. Jesus, that's like saying calling a blind person "blind" is disrespectful.
This is why I am at odds with this political correctness shit. Not only is it trying to act like "if you don't say it you don't mean/think it", it is also trying to soften terms which should be harsh because dammit, they are harsh and horrible and all kinds of wrong. Rape is rape, not "non-consensual sex" or "gray rape" or "oh it's not rape at all it was just forceful sex". FGM is mutilation, with all the brutality the act entails. And call me crazy, but a person really suffering from the condition, suffering from being raped or mutilated might want to have a word strong enough to express her pain and suffering.
The majority (all? I have no idea) of our boys don't get circumcised, and why should they?
From what I gathered, male circumcision was pretty widely practiced in America until about two decade ago, but I might be wrong about that, so that's why a lot of people there boggle at uncut penises and suddenly go bwuh when you mention a foreskin in porn. I don't think there ever was a European movement on the same scale, or much of a movement at all.
If we all could agree on that, no matter the degree and who it was done on, I think we could get somewhere... =//
Haha, yeah, that would be wonderful, indeed. And while we're on the matter of those so-called "beauty" surgeries you addressed, that's something seriously messed up, too. Like, if there are no medical reasons, be as you are, and be proud of it, damn it.
Reply
I'm thankful male circumcision never got much of anywhere here in Europe, the thought of what all circumcised little boys have to live with... the "operation" itself... brr. Ew.
Reply
It's funny, in a very sad way, how the human race is constantly trying to deny a woman pleasure and self-fulfillment, in the most insidious ways. You aren't allowed to eat because you'll get fat. You aren't allowed to go out because you'll get raped. You aren't allowed to wear what clothing you want because you'll get raped. You aren't allowed to enjoy sex because man won't like you if you do. You aren't allowed to have small breasts or a big ass or round thighs because then man won't like you. You aren't allowed to smell like your clean, freshly bathed self because man doesn't like you if your vagina doesn't taste like strawberries. And so on and so forth. GRRR.
On the topic of male circumcision, I found out a pretty interesting tidbit from my mom just now... apparently another weird reason why this thing became so popular in America was that by removing the foreskin, pleasure/stimulans was reduced and men could maintain their erections for longer. What kinds of weird is that? I'm sure I don't need to list the conclusions I'm arriving at here.
Reply
There's so much we "shouldn't" be to be "desirable", it's exhausting, not to talk about disgusting.
O____o WTF?
(I see you has kittins. I has kittins too! xD)
Reply
The way I see it, FGM has two main purposes: a) Intensifying a man's pleasure by sewing up the hole so it'll be tighter, and b) cutting off most, if not all, of a woman's means to think of the contact as enjoyable/pleasurable. Of course "keeping the woman chaste" has a large part in this, but a crazy number of men are convinced that women feeling pleasure are the devil's spawn and need to be eliminated.
And even if you leave out those nutjobs, there's plenty of them going HOMG NOEZ WOMENZ RITE (MEN)PR0N WRYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!1111eleventy The concept of women having sex drives is apparently a fairly recent one.
Yeah, seriously WTF. Dominance issues/proving yourself to be an unfeeling stud, anyone?
(Kittins make everything better. *gives more kittins*)
Reply
The only "fault" with this is that the hole has to be slit open again for sex. They sew her up with a hole only large enough for pee and menstrual blood, part of which ensure that she won't be sexually promiscuous, and then her husband slits it open with a knife at the wedding night (I have read, though, that in some instances he's supposed to tear her open with his (steel haaaard) penis to show his manliness, and use of knife is the "lesser" option). Ugh.
And even that "women have sex drives too" is hardly accepted yet. Fantastic, isn't it?
(I has no more kittins. =( But we can give the kittins Tia's Love Shack to play in.)
Reply
I'm so thrilled, I can hardly contain this. Seriously, I've seen whole essays written on the "Why yaoi?" question, but the only thing I respond with when a twat asks me is "Why not?" and then I automatically disregard everything they say afterwards.
(I shall invite my last kittins to live in Tia's Love Shack. It seems like a nice place!)
Reply
xDD And why not, indeed? I mean, there's no other reason to pair up any one at all than the "Because". Because they have great chemistry, because I want to see what they'll do, because the story wants to go that way, because... :D So many "becauses"!
(A very nice place indeed, just have them minding the albino snake and all the bottles hanging from the ceiling, and they'll be fine!)
Reply
Leave a comment