Male and female circumcision are equivalent as far as both practices being mutilating.
Although, is there not a situation where some men are actually unable to roll the foreskin back because it is too tight to fit over the glans? My understanding is that it makes intercourse painful, and cleaning next to impossible. I believe circumcision is used in such cases. Though I might be wrong.
The last female circumcision in America, according to that article was done in
1958???? I am continually amazed by how backwards we have been, and how recently.
Talk about barbaric:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Infibulation
The form of female circumcision regarded as the most severe is Type III, which is also referred to as infibulation or pharaonic circumcision. This is often carried out by a "gedda," or matron of the village, without anaesthetic, on girls between the ages of two and six.
Infibulation replaces the vulva with a wall of flesh from the pubis to the anus, except for a pencil-size opening at the inferior portion of the vulva to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through. A reverse infibulation is where the opening is left in the anterior part of the vulva in front of the uretha. After excision, the labia are sewn together, and since the skin is abraded and raw after being cut, the two surfaces will join via the natural healing and scar-formation process to form a smooth surface. The girl's legs are tied together for around two weeks to prevent her from moving the wound.
|
