American Academy of Pediatrics softens its stance on FGM

Jesus. wrote:

Now, see, here's the question that I failed to consider before. Who is feeding this market for female genital muti- oh sorry, "correction"? Who is persuading who that it should be done? Are the parents begging the doctors or are the doctors "advising" the parents?

I have no idea, though I can imagine it going either way, with the parents pressuring the doc or the doc pressuring the parents. Though in this day and age, there's so much information widely available on the Internet about how harmful this can be and the risks involved that I believe no one has an excuse when it comes to forcing genital surgery on a child.

It's just so... foreign to me, it really is. My parents never worried (at least that I know of) over the size of my clit or the shape of my labia or anything like that. I was never made to feel like my genitals were ever abnormal or strange in any way that I can recall.

I honestly do not understand why a parent would derive ANY comfort over the thought that their child's genitals have been forcibly altered for the sake of mere looks. That's just so fucked up to me; I can't comprehend it. I would just derive comfort from the thought that my child hadn't been caused pain and was physically whole, no matter what they had or what it looked like.

The reasons given in the articles that are linked to above by Martha Coventry -- "she'll grow up to be lesbian"; "her sexual partner(s) might think she's a man"; "she'll think she has a penis" -- just seem like prejudices of another age, though I'm probably being far too optimistic again. Maybe these parents are asking (if they're the ones pressing for it) for their daughters' genitals to look "pretty"? The striving for looks plays a big part in our culture, especially with women, and the rise in labiaplasty and anal bleaching shows that there is a pressure for one's genitals to look pretty, now, as well.

Jesus wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Okay, let's break this down. If that's 'respectively', and the scale is 0 to 5

I think it was actually 0-10. Not sure though.

Edit: it is. The Q tip thing was 0-5. The vibratory thingie was 1-10.

Doesn't that make the clitoris only having 'sensations' of less than a 2 worse, then? ...Shit I'm gonna have to re-read this thing, aren't I.

And still, I'll say it again, I have no idea why he is fucking comparing the sensitivity of a thigh to a clit. Different fucking nerve endings, dumbasses.

Malganis wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Okay, let's break this down. If that's 'respectively', and the scale is 0 to 5

I think it was actually 0-10. Not sure though.

Edit: it is. The Q tip thing was 0-5. The vibratory thingie was 1-10.

Doesn't that make the clitoris only having 'sensations' of less than a 2 worse, then?

Yes. Yes it does.

My genitalia has never been a problem in my family either, except when I got my hernia. Then again, mine are very obviously female. my brother of course, got circed and that was the end of his "adventure". I honestly can say that unless my kid wouldn't be able to pee/poo properly or have proper sex in the future, the ambiguity of my childs genitalia would likely be the least of my worries. Then again, that's simply because now I know better. I've learned and accepted that there is more than heterosexual male and female. I never really knew that homosexuality existed until high school, and that intersexuality/transsexuality/transgender/genderqueer existed until college when I specifically started taking gender studies classes and human sexuality classes. For some, that is quite literally all they know and all they will accept. And that's where "My childs clitoris is too small, what do I dooooooooooo?" comes from. And it's sad, because that creates the market for this shit.

Malganis wrote:

the rise in labiaplasty and anal bleaching shows that there is a pressure for one's genitals to look pretty, now, as well.

Because of porn.

Quote :

Jesus wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Okay, let's break this down. If that's 'respectively', and the scale is 0 to 5

I think it was actually 0-10. Not sure though.

Edit: it is. The Q tip thing was 0-5. The vibratory thingie was 1-10.

Doesn't that make the clitoris only having 'sensations' of less than a 2 worse, then?

What the - WHO FUCKING CARES WHAT RESULTS THEY GOT HE MASTURBATED LITTLE GIRLS WITH Q-TIPS AND VIBRATORS

FOR NO FUCKING REASON

WHAT'S HE GOING TO DO IF THEY HAVE NO SENSATION, PUT THE TISSUE BACK

Cyberwulf wrote:

Malganis wrote:

the rise in labiaplasty and anal bleaching shows that there is a pressure for one's genitals to look pretty, now, as well.

Because of porn.

Not necessarily -- there's been porn (or, if you want to put it like this, erotic depictions of the human body and human/human or human/other sexuality, either in pictoral or literary form) for about as long as people have been able to draw, sculpt, carve, and/or write. Granted, there has also been genital mods, for whatever reasons people do them. Whether porn has always influenced mods or mods have influenced porn is debatable.

As far as I'm aware, porn hasn't always had an emphasis on female genitals themselves looking 'pretty' (which is entirely subjective). Older porn movies just had female genitals look like... average female genitals, bush and all. If they were European porn, the guy was likely to be uncut; if American, then cut. But there was natural body hair and such.

I could be talking out my ass but I think that the rise in labiaplasty as connected with porn is a relatively recent phenomenon, both in porn and in the greater culture. I don't know if porn can entirely be blamed here -- I think it's a convergence of that and something else. What, I'm not certain.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Malganis wrote:

I think it was actually 0-10. Not sure though.

Edit: it is. The Q tip thing was 0-5. The vibratory thingie was 1-10.

Doesn't that make the clitoris only having 'sensations' of less than a 2 worse, then?

What the - WHO FUCKING CARES WHAT RESULTS THEY GOT HE MASTURBATED LITTLE GIRLS WITH Q-TIPS AND VIBRATORS

FOR NO FUCKING REASON

WHAT'S HE GOING TO DO IF THEY HAVE NO SENSATION, PUT THE TISSUE BACK

Cyber, I understand what you're saying and I'm fully aware of what this sick fuck is doing. I'm just saying that the 'results' he got with this relative scale thing makes his (extremely crappy, probably total bullshit) 'method' of testing their sensitivity look even worse -- and makes his 'nerve-sparing' results look pretty damn terrible. I mean, everything about this looks terrible, but his way of testing their sensitivity is so ludicrous that the 'results' just show that up even plainer.

Malganis wrote:

I don't know if porn can entirely be blamed here -- I think it's a convergence of that and something else. What, I'm not certain.

Maybe the growing acceptance of cosmetic surgery, and the expectation that people in certain fields will have some sort of work done eventually.

Sutremaine wrote:

Malganis wrote:

I don't know if porn can entirely be blamed here -- I think it's a convergence of that and something else. What, I'm not certain.

Maybe the growing acceptance of cosmetic surgery, and the expectation that people in certain fields will have some sort of work done eventually.

*nods* Also, the publicizing of said surgery, with it being splashed all over tabloids as to what star has had what plastic surgery. Dunno if weird novelty things like Vajayjay Bling or whatever it is is also an outgrowth of that. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Malganis wrote:

The research paper wrote:

This is a safe and reliable approach to correct the enlarged clitoris.

I love how they think it's something that they need to swoop down and correct. No one has ever considered the fact that maybe these girls will someday love their enlarged clits, either just because that's their body, or because they like large clits aesthetically, or because maybe they're FtM and having a large clitoris helps them in their adult transition. No one ever considers these things.

Or because they are STILL LITTLE GIRLS AND STILL GROWING and there's no way of knowing ahead of time whether the rest of her body might "catch up".

Cactus Wren wrote:

Malganis wrote:

The research paper wrote:

This is a safe and reliable approach to correct the enlarged clitoris.

I love how they think it's something that they need to swoop down and correct. No one has ever considered the fact that maybe these girls will someday love their enlarged clits, either just because that's their body, or because they like large clits aesthetically, or because maybe they're FtM and having a large clitoris helps them in their adult transition. No one ever considers these things.

Or because they are STILL LITTLE GIRLS AND STILL GROWING and there's no way of knowing ahead of time whether the rest of her body might "catch up".

I'm still amazed that some parents take such a close interest in their children's genitalia. Dude, some things you gotta let your kids figure out on their own. If a little girl has no idea what a clitoris is "supposed" to look like and she isn't the least bit concerned about it, why do you have to go in and fix what ain't broke?

Nihilist wrote:

The actual research paper

OK, having finally got around to reading this research paper, two things struck me (that I haven't seen mentioned yet. The small point is the sizes of clitorises: the article refers to them as "phalluses", which I think is a little rich considering directly afterwards sizes are reporting. Some are a centimetre long. This is, apparently, "too large" and should be deemed a "phallus".

Secondly, my big fuckoff point: this is bad science. Dr Dix wants to show how his procedure preserves clitoral sensation. So he tests the children after their surgery. How is this possibly going to show that his procedure retains sensation? There would have been two ways of showing this: firstly, by testing the girls before the procedure, as well as after. Comparing the scores would show whether the children lost sensation. Alternatively, he could have compared the sensations in girls who'd had the procedure with a control group of age-matched girls who'd had similar surgery without this "nerve-sparing" technique. What I'm trying to say is that not only has Dr Dix fingered little girls, but he has done it for nothing. There is no way that doing this can show anything. It's not science.

Also, this is a fucking terribly-written paper. It's not replicable (thankfully), most of the discussion reads more like an introduction and even the author seems to be unclear about which terms to use. If it were one of my students, I'd fail it on the writing alone.

BTW, Mal: regarding labiaplasty and porn. Watch this, for interesting analysis of what sort of labia are acceptable.

ZoZo wrote:

Nihilist wrote:

The actual research paper

OK, having finally got around to reading this research paper, two things struck me (that I haven't seen mentioned yet. The small point is the sizes of clitorises: the article refers to them as "phalluses", which I think is a little rich considering directly afterwards sizes are reporting. Some are a centimetre long. This is, apparently, "too large" and should be deemed a "phallus".

Yeah, I did notice that. i'm 99.999% sure that male newborns even have penises WAY bigger than that, generally with no labia at all. A centimeter long clit is NOTHING. *groan*

ZoZo wrote:

Secondly, my big fuckoff point: this is bad science.

Dude, seriously. Not only is he fucking with little girls sexual function, he's fucking with the scientific method. Them's fighten words, bitch. And seriously, who did write this? The whole paper reads "This is controversal, but we don't give a fuck so we're going to do it anyway. To shut you all up, I, fabulous me, GOD HIMSELF, made a way of doing it that supposedly lets the little girls still have their damn clits, but smaller and more pretty. Ahhh the status quo. What money you bring me. Oh fuck, the papers due in 10 minutes on Turnitin.com! FUCK!"

My question is, why are little girls with inch-long clits and such considered intersexed? The way they talk, it almost sounds like they consider an abnormally long clit to be a penis. Only it's not. It looks like a clit, it functions like a clit, than it's a clit? Intersexed implies that they have both girl parts and boy parts. But they don't. The clit, no matter how long it is, is a girl part. They don't have a penis, just a really long clit. So why do they call them intersexed? Just... why?

Mr.Doobie wrote:

My question is, why are little girls with inch-long clits and such considered intersexed? The way they talk, it almost sounds like they consider an abnormally long clit to be a penis. Only it's not. It looks like a clit, it functions like a clit, than it's a clit? Intersexed implies that they have both girl parts and boy parts. But they don't. The clit, no matter how long it is, is a girl part. They don't have a penis, just a really long clit. So why do they call them intersexed? Just... why?

As far as I can tell, it's because it's a little bit different. Seeing as a clitoris and a penis are made from the same stuff, a bigger one would make it more penis-ish. Or something.

I think it's mostly just a neat justification for performing unnecessary surgery on healthy genitals--medicalising a cosmetic procedure.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

My question is, why are little girls with inch-long clits and such considered intersexed? The way they talk, it almost sounds like they consider an abnormally long clit to be a penis. Only it's not. It looks like a clit, it functions like a clit, than it's a clit? Intersexed implies that they have both girl parts and boy parts. But they don't. The clit, no matter how long it is, is a girl part. They don't have a penis, just a really long clit. So why do they call them intersexed? Just... why?

Because, quite simply, girls clits are not *supposed* to be long. So claims popular culture, parents, and the medical profession. If your clit is that long, it means, somehow, that there is a defect somewhere, whether it be with the clit itself, the hormones, the childs future sexual preference, it's all in danger/indanger of clashing with the norm. Clits should only be cute lil buttons covered by the hood. Anything else could be (and medical professionals who will preform this surgery will claim) a deformed penis, or an XY girl, or a girl with testosterone issues.

Simply put, if its not perfect, its something in between and must be destroyed. As far as I can tell, thers no really *good* reason.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

My question is, why are little girls with inch-long clits and such considered intersexed? The way they talk, it almost sounds like they consider an abnormally long clit to be a penis. Only it's not. It looks like a clit, it functions like a clit, than it's a clit?

But that's the thing... what's a clit, and what's a penis? They're actually fairly similar (though not the exact same thing, with a clit just being a mini-penis). A clitoris gets erect, just like a penis; it has spongy erectile tissure, like a penis; sliding shaft skin, like a penis; a glans and (on really large clits) a somewhat similar shape to the glans when compared to a penis; a prepuce or foreskin that protects the glans, like a penis (on girls it's often called the clitoral hood); a sensitive frenulum that connects to the prepuce, like a penis.

So they're actually fairly similar. I think (not entirely sure) that 'phalli' is the correct term for both... a clitoris is not exactly a penis nor vice versa, but they are technically both phalli.

Quote :

Intersexed implies that they have both girl parts and boy parts.

Not necessarily... technically, hypospadias of the penis is a mild intersex condition, since it messes with the position of the urethra. A guy can have all-guy parts and be completely 'masculine' otherwise, but still have hypospadias, which is intersex.

However, the problem with intersex is that it is very hard to define.

Jesus. wrote:

Clits should only be cute lil buttons covered by the hood. Anything else could be (and medical professionals who will preform this surgery will claim) a deformed penis, or an XY girl, or a girl with testosterone issues.

Seriously, their ignorance amazes me, since... it's like they've never heard of clit-pumping. Or any sort of alternative sexuality/gender presentation at all. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Malganis wrote:

(though not the exact same thing, with a clit just being a mini-penis)

Or the penis being a large clit. [/linguistic nitpicking]

Malganis wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Malganis wrote:

the rise in labiaplasty and anal bleaching shows that there is a pressure for one's genitals to look pretty, now, as well.

Because of porn.

Not necessarily -- there's been porn (or, if you want to put it like this, erotic depictions of the human body and human/human or human/other sexuality, either in pictoral or literary form) for

Quote :

I could be talking out my ass but I think that the rise in labiaplasty as connected with porn is a relatively recent phenomenon, both in porn and in the greater culture.

Really? I like, totally would never have thought of that! It certainly wouldn't have been my original point or anything.

Quote :

I don't know if porn can entirely be blamed here -- I think it's a convergence of that and something else. What, I'm not certain.

The widespread availability of porn? The fact that it's more acceptable to view pornography nowadays? Airbrushing? Photoshop? Advances in surgical and cosmetic techniques that make labiaplasty and anal bleaching possible?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Really? I like, totally would never have thought of that! It certainly wouldn't have been my original point or anything.

Then you should have made the point instead of going 'porn!' and walking away. Even 'modern porn!' would have been enough.

Bumped with a truly horrible news story.

I couldn't read but two paragraphs before feeling ill. Anyone who would do that to their child has no right to call themselves parents.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

I couldn't read but two paragraphs before feeling ill. Anyone who would do that to their child has no right to call themselves parents.

Agreed. FGM is utterly shameful, and that western nations let it go on in their countries without taking action is appalling.

I can't begin to describe my face while reading that.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I had to stop after a couple of paragraphs. Very, very few things make me actually gag, and that was one of them.

Also I want to kill things but that's my normal anger response to things I can't fix.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

I couldn't read but two paragraphs before feeling ill. Anyone who would do that to their child has no right to call themselves parents.

I think what we need to keep in mind is that the parents who do this (generally) think they're being good parents. They're not evil people, or, at least, they don't see themselves as evil people. A lot of them probably lead very healthy, law-abiding lives aside from having this process done to their children. The problem is, a lot of them are very heavily indoctrinated. They feel that what they're doing is the best for their child.

I don't think harsh crackdowns on FGM in western countries is going to help curb the problem. Like I said, a lot of these people are so indoctrinated, they probably won't see what they're doing is wrong and will probably just think they're being persecuted.

The real answer is to spread knowledge and to shine an ever brighter light on the issue. We need to show their children, and their children's children that FGM is not needed and it is not ok.

I've read this stuff time ands again, so rather than feeling ill, I just felt incredibly saddened. Until I read this.

Quote :

Jamelia's mother paid extra for the woman to use a clean razor.

Oh good GOD. I can't believe that, if nothing else, you couldn't use a fucking CLEAN RAZOR. Thats COMMON SENSE. assgdfkjhaDFStkdfla,gb

Mr.Doobie wrote:

The real answer is to spread knowledge and to shine an ever brighter light on the issue. We need to show their children, and their children's children that FGM is not needed and it is not ok.

I completely agree. The first thing we need is more girls speaking out. It's going to be a long, tough process but first we need to get it out there that this happens and it isn't right. And that it certainly isn't necessary.

Did anyone watch the video? One of the women who had been mutilated suggested gynaecologists at airports. I think that's a little excessive, but fuck it, the poor girl can't have kids because of what was done to her. I can't even imagine how angry I'd be about that.