FGM is not an Islamic practice. It is practiced by a variety of people in Africa including Christians, Muslims, and Animists. If FGM/FGC was an Islamic practice it would happen in the largest Muslim nation in the world, Indonesia and FGM/FGC does not occur in Indonesia. Demba Diawara the local Imam mentioned in the article is probably not educated, cannot read in the local language or in the language of the Quran, Arabic. If he could read the Quran he would know that the Quran does not even condone let alone mention the practice of FGM/FGC.

That being all said it is a barbaric practice that must end and I am glad Tostan is making excellent progress.

One wonders how long it'll be until male circumcision in the West is likewise seen for what it is in any anthropology classroom: genital mutilation.

(CD isn't letting me change my typo in the previous post. Anyway, as an anthropology student when we studied other cultures male circumcision is likewise refered to as genital mutilation.)

yes, when will male genital mutilation (MGM) end? Well we outlawed female genital mutilation in the Good ole U.S. of A. 10 years ago, why wasn't MGM included in this legislation?
Let's see, you tie an unwilling, unconsenting infant down to a board and then while it screams in terror and agony you amputate a perfectly normal healthy functioning part of his anatomy, sounds like child abuse to me. Since the part of the anatomy happens to be his genitalia it would also be sexual abuse. Some of us did feel it and haven't ever been able to forget it!

Paul and greenman you have it right. It is a barbaric and unnecessary practice. It seems to me that fathers should stand up for their sons and protect them from this appalling experience. I know that mothers are upset when their baby boys are being circumcised, but they are following medical advice. They need education which they aren't getting, they are being misinformed about it. And there is money to be made with the procedure - at the expense of helpless infants. So maybe men could do what no one else is doing, protect baby boys from torture and mutilation. After all, it was African women who stopped female mutilation.

And yes, it is against Islam to do that. I talked with Muslims who were horrified at the idea and told me it was a cultural, not religious tradition.

Well as far as male circumcism it is a Jewish and Islamic tradition. However, I agree with the rest of the posters that it needs to be the choice of the parents whether or not that they want this done especially for those of different faiths. The medical establishment should not be forcing this on anyone.

kathyodat, that is exactly it. Most people I know who had their sons circumcised did it because the father wanted his son to look like him. Most of the time it is the father who watches the mutilation occur. This is a barbaric practice that should end and men should be the ones to stand up for their sons and see to it they remain intake.

It was Congress that outlawed female mutilation. Congress was then as it is now, predominately made up of men.

dcbeltway - You'll accept MGM if the parents choose it. Will you accept FGM if the parents choose it?

If not, then how do you reconcile the difference? Do you feel confident expressing a preference for Jewish and American traditions over African traditions? Do you think that males and females should have different sets of rights?

If so, then, well, I guess we disagree on that.

Gaving would you argue that with a Jewish person or Muslim person? It doesn't matter what I think I am just pointing that out.

Give me a break. Male circumcision is in no way comparable to the female circumcision practiced in parts of Africa.
The World Health Organization and Amnesty International both use the term "female genital mutilation" when describing the procedure. In type II, the clitoris is removed along with most of the exterior female genitalia. Type III is even more extensive. In both types, the genitalia is then sewn together, leaving only a small hole for urination. When a woman is married, the husband must open her up with a knife to have first intercourse. According the the WHO, a mother who has type II results in a 30% increased likelihood of infant death. Type III increases that likelihood by 55%.
Not to mention the very real liklihood of infection and death by bloodloss to the mother

bligh,not to mention the fact that some of the procedures are done so badly that if, should the girl not die during or following it, she will walk with a limp for the rest of her life. I have seen it on a number of occasions. The whole purpose of FGM is to remove all sexual desire from the female, purportedly to keep her from straying.

bligh and mtlcowgirl - You are both exactly right. But there's more - a friend who has worked with a medical charity in Africa told me that FGM is responsible for much of the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. It leaves an open wound, after all, and one that never really heals, just perfect for the HIV/AIDS virus to enter the body through. (But while we're on the subject, please note that in the West, the breaking of the hyman is also a wound. However, that does heal, and quickly. So just hope that your daughter's first boyfriend doesn't have HIV/AIDS. Or better yet, take her to a doctor to have it surgically broken).

bligh August - thanks for saying that circumcision and female genital mutilation is different.

I had my son circumcised as I am, but that was not my reason. My wife and I gave it a lot of thought. We also discussed someone I knew who had a problem and had to have it done after he was married.

His experience tipped the scale to circumcision.

No woman anywhere would ever NEED the disgusting torture passed off as female circumcision.

I've read recently that men who are circumcised have better protection against
getting aids, sorry I don't remember my source or have a link.

Male & female circumcision are hardly comparable, what is done to the male is not likely to change his life for the worst, while what is done to young girls brings lifelong physical & mental problems.

Pain, medically unnecessary, typically done to unwilling children, can cause infections & complications, etc.

Male circumcision qualifies as genital mutilation under any anthropological definition. There's long been a double-standard here. Circumcision is a primitive tribal custom in the modern era, no more, no less.

Bellthecat is correct. While I have always believed that circumcision was also unnecessary and barbaric, and initially had decided not to choose the practice for my son should I ever have one, after reading this report I changed my mind. Seems to me a local anesthetic would be in order--any reason why pain relief could not be administered?

Anyway, here is the link to a news report about the study, which says there is a 70% reduction in the transmission of the virus in circumcised males:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8473838/

Male genital mutilation is a very barbaric, sick practice. It is a painful, traumatic attack on the sexual organ of a child only a few days old; and it's been shown to have serious consequences relating to sexual and emotional health in later life. All genital mutilation must end everywhere! But actually, there are plenty of "religous" or "medical" females who insist that there is nothing wrong with mutilating their sons; it is not all the father's fault, and furthermore it is a unisex culture which tolerates it. The reason that sexual, physical, and emotional abuse are under-reported when the victim is a boy is the same reason that people allow this practice to continue; because males are seen as "disposable."

American secular circumcision started off as a way for disgusting, idiotic, stupid puritans to supposedly "prevent masturbation" in children. It didn't work (and isn't their right or choice whether the boy masterbates or not! his body, his choice, it doesn't matter the parents religion), but people kept doing it an eventually came up with fake reasons to substantiate the fact that they felt boys sexual organs were disgusting and needed to be mutilated to become "clean." We must end all genital mutilation and not point at someone else and claim their pain is "not as important."

http://www.dreamingearth.net

Another anthropologist here,

It appears to be a cultural practice from other cultures, since Americans didn't start it.

BUT

There is a medically beneficial purpose behind the male circumcision (at least in some reported cases) and absolutely none for the female version. However, let it be known that in Mali, where females are circumcised, males are too in some culturally accepted equalizing manner.

When it comes to cultural matters, we Americans have some something that causes us to claim that we have the only set of mores, or ideals that can be accepted anywhere on the planet. We told the indigenous peoples on this continent that we knew how to live on the land and it only took us a couple hundred years to prove we were wrong.

I object to our interference with and disrespect for other cultures. We can't seem to get past that one.

Just remember, we've got some pretty sick things that we do in this social grouping that are pretty nasty and objectionable to other cultures...

I don't agree that the practice has any merit, how would I know? I am not a member of that cultural group. As a female, I cringe at the thought. Having been tortured, I can relate to the pain, but I don't condemn others for their cultural beliefs.

I am thankful that I am not forced to practice them too.

Unfortunately, their children ARE forced to practice them -- male and female -- wherever genital mutilation is the norm.

The supposed medical "benefits" argument for male mutilation came thousands of years in hindsight, so it appears to be an attempt at modern day justification more than any sort of original motivation. There's no doctor who'll argue that circumcision is a substitute for safe sex, monogamy, etc.

Perhaps the answer lies with the Anabaptist approach to baptism. Let those who wish to get circumcised do so -- but they'll have to decide for themselves, as adults at the age of 18, to do so.

My husband is not circumcised, and we didn't circumcise our first born, not believing it to be medically or religiously necessary. But at the age of five, he turned out to have a urinary backflow problem which caused chronic UTIs, which apparently runs in my family. My sister has UTIs all the time. Our pediatrician said that he needed the procedure, so it was done under outpatient surgery. Afterwards, the dressing got stuck to him and I had to work it loose a bit at a time with petroleum jelly. That little incident scarred both of us, so when my younger son was born, I went ahead and had him circumcised, figuring that he might very well have inherited the same problem and it would be easier if done earlier. My older son ceased having UTIs after that, and the little guy has never had any, so I guess it was a good call.

I love you guys! :)

You discuss important subjects with sanity, compassion and intelligence, -thankyou for the light you bring to a variety of topics.

[And WHY aren't you folks running the country? --You'd make a brilliant job of it, you're just the sort of people who SHOULD be at the helm!] ;)

Paul Bramscher, I have a lot of respect for you / the things you write here at C-D, and I was thinking exactly the same thing, when you wrote: "Perhaps the answer lies with the Anabaptist approach to baptism. Let those who wish to get circumcised do so — but they'll have to decide for themselves, as adults at the age of 18, to do so."

~ Anything else is unthinkable.

Female circumcision is one more piece of evidence of the utter terror with which insecure males from insecure religions view the concept of an independent, sexually free, woman.

OK, let's do away with male circumcision in the USA, too.

About male circumcision, it is an elective procedure. Uncircumcised males have different hygiene requirements than someone that has the procedure done. The removal of the foreskin does affect sensitivity.

Also, I think if you re-read the article, it doesn't say that FGM is an Islamic practice. It says that an Islamic person helped develope the stategy for ending the practice with the existing cultural beliefs about marriage.

Paul Bramscher,

I agree with every comment you've made regarding this. btw, I did not have my son circumcised, and he's (now at 23) still grateful for the choice I made.