Egypt MPs vote to outlaw female circumcision
1 hour ago CAIRO (AFP) — Egypt's parliament on Saturday outlawed female circumcision except in cases of "medical necessity," a condition which could undermine the ban, parliamentary sources said.

Female genital mutilation, which dates back to pharaonic times in Egypt, will now be punishable by a jail term of between three months and two years or a fine of 1,000-5,000 Egyptian pounds (190-940 dollars), they said.

The new legislation is part of a bill on children's rights which has been the subject of fierce parliamentary debate for several weeks.

Those who supported the practice argued it was appropriate when female genitals protruded too much, adding that it was needed to preserve the woman's virtue.

"Nothing in Islam forbids circumcision," said Saad al-Katatni, president of Egypt's main opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood.

The health ministry tried in 1997 to ban the tradition, which affects both Muslim and Christian women in Egypt, and introduced curbs which allowed only doctors to carry out the operation and solely in "exceptional circumstances."

The restrictions were further strengthened in June 2007 when Health Minister Hatem al-Gabali issued a decree -- rather than law -- banning all doctors and members of the medical profession from performing the procedure.

The new law, which takes immediate effect, toughens penalties for anyone who is convicted of flouting the ban.

Circumcision involves the partial or complete removal of the woman's external genitals and has remained widespread in Egypt despite the efforts by political and religious authorities to stop the practice.

Female circumcision can cause death through haemorrhaging and later complications during childbirth. It also carries risks of infection, urinary tract problems and mental trauma.


Source

In the book club we're reading, "I'm Happier to Know You", which briefly discusses female circumcision in Egypt. The author claims that over half the female population is circumcised with the majority of those women being in Upper Egypt. It describes the three different types of female circumcision and the severity, damage, and reasons behind it. The worst being the equivalent to cutting off half of a males penis.

This part of the book in reference to the culture not only shocked me but greatly disturbed and angered me. I have read before that female circumcision was practiced in Africa but I was under the assumption that it was done by indigenous tribes today and a long time ago by those in Egypt and other parts. I questioned my Husband about this during our courtship and at the time he told me that it was so rare and didn't really happen. My Husband is a Doctor how could he not know about this procedure before?

According to the book and this article it was still widely practiced in Egypt and in the region that the majority of my Husbands family is from. It has me questioning did his Aunts have to have it done? Did his Grandma have to have it? There are other parts of the book I find greatly disturbing about the culture as well in regards to how the women are treated. Such as what happens to some of the females the night before or the day of the wedding. The claims made are so disgusting I can't go into it in this thread. You'll just have to read the book.

I celebrate this achievement for all the women of Egypt to no longer have to be subject to this barbaric treatment!

I just hope they don't find a loop hole with the "medical necessary" exception.

I can't understand why any man would want a woman with this procedure. I would think that they would want to have a wife that will enjoy the special area of a marriage as much as he does.

i agree this is barbaric.it should not happen at all.my fiance lives in egypt and this is a subject i talked alot about with him many many times.it takes everything away from the child.and another thing why should the man just enjoy the marriage and not the wome.if you know what i mean .thats not right at all.and the child has no say.i even watched videos of the women in some tribes have this done.and it changes them all together.they were doing this in a lot older age like 13.what a terrible life to violate a child that way and them thinking its ok.thats so sad its because of how they was brought up.what a shame.

I pray to God those women/girls who have already had it done - God bless them with faith to still go on with life and be women of God's grace. Just because humans have let them down God still stands with better things.

3 months? Try life in jail because you've ruined someone elses!
I have a couple of comments but I won't even bother posting them up they might come off sexist.

In many cases I have read about, it is the mothers who insist on having it done to the daughters. It is rarely discussed among men because of the nature of it. I read a trilogy about a princess in Saudi Arabia whose mother and older sisters had the procedure done. Thankfully someone told her mother how unnecessary and dangerous it was so this princess never had it done. Later when this princess was visiting in Egypt she was asked to intercede on a woman about to be circumsized against her will. The princess spent an hour telling the Egyptian mother of the dangers of it, but in the end the mother forced her daughter to get the procedure. I believe her daughter was in her late teenage years. It was horrible.

I also read of cases where women insist on being nearly closed up after they give birth to each child. They do it to themselves believing it is in their best interest!!! I think it will take time and education to change people's ways in this regard. It just makes me sad to think of those girls suffering needlessly. God save them from the pain and infection.

Hello ... Outlaw? Waw FINALLY! Now if they could just outlaw the hymenoplasty trend ... then women of all the world would finally be at peace with the whole virginity thing! Gosh, either he excepts you or he doesn't!

The passing of a law doesn't mean much. This is a positive step, but it hardly means women still will not be subjected to it anymore. For laws to be effective, they have to be enforced, and there are all too many laws that are never/rarely enforced, often in place simply to appease the international community.

True, very true ... hard to get past cultural norms. And clitorodectomy unfortunately is not only in Africa or ME ... but with the new wave of immigrants coming to America! The form practiced varies by ethnic group and geographical location. It crosses the numerous population groups and is a part of the many cultures, traditions and customs that exist in Nigeria. It crosses the lines of various religious groups. It is found among Christians, Muslims and Animists alike.

But on a final note: I would like to ask the avocates of clitorodectomy, if the God made a mistake? By giving women, this prt to enjoy herself sexually?

Source

I am very happy for the improvement of Human Rights being extended to women and children in Egypt.

And male circumcision was initiated to limit the man's hability to masturbate.
Would it be so much better if circumcision was practiced when these women were babies?
There was a poll right here on VJ, the results showed women prefer their man to be circumcised. Yet, male circumcision is equivalent to type I or II of female circumcision.
Stop both female AND male circumcision!

Saludos,
Caro

No offense but the plumbing is different. Male plumbing hangs on the outside and they are circumcised for cleanliness. Females plumbing is internal and it is known that the labia minora and labia majora are there to protect the vaginal opening & vagina from getting bacterias & ect inside it. They are anatomically designed to protect the vital procreation organs. The structure of the internal organs in this part of the female region is an incubator for bacteria, ect. It's warm, dark, and moist. Cutting off the male foreskin for cleanliness makes logical sense seeing that anatomically the penis inserts and introduces foreign partials into the vagina. Thus cleanliness becomes important for procreation. Whereas the cutting of the female parts does far worse damage to the females internal and external organs then it does to the minds perceived virtue.

I get really thrown off when people say to ban male circumcision. I do understand the view though. I agree it's cleaner for men.

Great point. I was thinking the same thing. In fact, my husband who is a doctor pointed this out to me about risk of infection in women if their partner is not circumsized. Yet he says there is rarely a reason for women to be circumsized and you wouldn't really call it that. A small number of women are born with too much skin which makes intercourse painful for them. In this case they have a small amount of that excess skin removed. They don't have vital parts removed though.

some studies i've seen indicate that male circumcision can decrease the chance to catch aids, so there's another reason to consider it.

It really is the same.


Source: Notjustskin.org

Saludos,
Caro

I don't think there's any evidence that circumcision was initiated to limit an ability to masturbate. Most people think it came about as a hygienic practice. Male circumcision is NOT equivalent to even Type 1 female genital cutting; type 1 is removal of the clitoral hood. It's a very different story from cutting off the foreskin of the penis. I've done dozens of circumcisions and if you give the baby sugar water they don't even cry.

That being said, maybe male circumcision isn't that humane either, though there is substantial evidence that it decreases transmission of HIV and other STDs.

Please see my previous post on how male circumcision is the equivalent to female circumcision type I or II.
Regarding the origins, since it was started way before the jewish religion, from a sociological point, it is easy to see that it is the other way around.

Source: CIRP.ORG

History of Circumcision
This index page links to material relating to the origin and history of male circumcision. Material is indexed in chronological order of publication.

Introduction
The practice of male genital mutilation is far older than recorded history. Certainly, it is far older than the Biblical account of Abraham (Genesis 17). It seems to have originated in eastern Africa long before this time.6

Many theories have been advanced to explain the origin of genital mutilation. One theory postulates that circumcision began as a way of "purifying" individuals and society by reducing sexuality and sexual pleasure. Human sexuality was seen as dirty or impure in some societies; hence cutting off the pleasure-producing parts was the obvious way to "purify" someone.

It is now known that the male foreskin, or prepuce, is the principal location of erogenous sensation in the human male (see Anatomy.) Removal of the prepuce substantially reduces erogenous sensation.12,16 Therefore (in the appropriate cultural context), circumcision is revealed as a sacrifice of "sinful" human enjoyment (in this earthly life), for the sake of holiness in the afterlife.12

The Jews adopted circumcision as a religious ritual8,10,15,18 and preserved this prehistoric practice into modern times.10,16,18 The circumcision of Abraham removed only the very tip that extended beyond the glans penis.8,17,22,28 Moses and his sons were not circumcised. (Exodus 4:25) Although Moses apparently prohibited circumcision during the 40 years in the wilderness,15,18 (Joshua 5:5) Joshua reinstituted circumcision at Gilgal after the death of Moses.15,18 (Joshua 5:2-10) It is interesting to note that after the Israelites were circumcised, they immediately became soldiers in Joshua's army for the conquest of Palestine. (Joshua 6:1-3)

In contrast to the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans placed a high value on the prepuce.31 The Romans passed several laws to protect the prepuce by prohibiting circumcision.31

Much later in the Hellenic period, about 140 C.E., the circumcision procedure was modified to make it impossible for a Jew to appear to be an uncircumcised Greek.8,18,25 A radical new procedure called peri'ah was introduced by the priests and rabbis. In this procedure the foreskin was stripped away from the glans, with which it is fused in the infant (See Normal.) In a painful procedure known today as a synechotomy, more foreskin was removed than before and the injury was correspondingly greater. With the introduction of peri'ah, the glans could not easily be recovered, and so no Jewish male would easily be able to appear as an uncircumcised Greek.8,18,25

It may have been at this time that the Pondus Judaeus (also known as Judaeum Pondum), a bronze weight worn by Jews on the residual foreskin to stretch it back into a foreskin,8,18,23 gained popularity amongst Jewish males. This lessened the ugly appearance of the bare exposed circumcised penis.18 This restorative procedure was known by the Greek word epispasm,8 or "rolling inward."

The third stage of ritual circumcision, the Messisa or Metzitzah, was not introduced until the Talmudic period (500-625 C.E).8,17,23 In Metzitzah, the mohel (ritual circumciser) sucks blood from the penis of the circumcised infant with his mouth.31 This procedure has been responsible for the death of many Jewish babies due to infection.13 In modern times, a glass tube is sometimes used instead.

The Reform movement within Judaism considered circumcision to be a cruel practice.17 The Reform movement at Frankfort declared in 1843 that circumcision was not necessary.17,21

The Christians took a strong stand against circumcision in the first century. Christians rejected circumcision at the Council at Jerusalem.17 (Acts 15) St. Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, taught parents that they should not circumcise their children. (Acts 21:25) In a reference to the old practices of genital mutilation, St. Paul warned Titus to beware of the "circumcision group." (Titus 1:10-16)

The modern use of Hebrew circumcision as a medicalized practice dates from about 1865 in England and about 1870 in the US.10 The procedure accepted for medical use essentially was the Jewish peri'ah. Moscucci reports that circumcision was imposed in an attempt to prevent masturbation.15 Gollaher further describes the history of medicalized circumcision.10 No scientific studies were carried out to determine the efficacy and safety of circumcision prior to its introduction into medical practice,10 nor were any studies conducted to determine the social effects of imposing genital alteration surgery on a large portion of the population.

Saludos,
Caro

It's torture if it's seen in that light. God gave sexual intercourse b/t husband and wife to enjoy each other. Men who are circumcised obviously have not lost pleasure (as you can imagine and go throughout life being healthy and happy) vs a woman being circumcised has lost it.

it sure never stopped me

I've never heard of any circumcised male complain about it. None of them seem to have the ill effects of lack of pleasure or desire. I didn't take a survey though, lol.

But they have lost a lot of sensitivity on the head of the penis, since it is a very delicate area that should not be exposed all the time. Of course, men who were circuncised at birth will never complain about it since they don't know what they are missing.

Saludos,
Caro

but losing sensitivity means more time in the saddle, don't it?

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/01/2...SHOW_index.html

With all due respect, I think even this has any shred of truth ... the lose of sensitivity commons nothing to what the woman has lost.

Closing, it would be for betterment of women and the world if such practices as clitorectomy, chasitity belts and hymenoplasty would wipe off the face of the Earth. But that is my just my wishful thinking.

EGYPT: Parliament criminalizes female circumcision

After weeks of heated deliberations, the Egyptian parliament on Saturday passed new pieces of legislation that impose relatively harsh legal restrictions on female circumcision and allow women for the first time to register their babies even if the father's identity is unknown. One law imposes a sentence of a maximum of two years and a fine of a maximum of $1,000 for performing female genital mutilation. This issue has caused much stir in the people's assembly, especially among the Muslim Brotherhood, which holds one-fifth of the parliamentary seats. Conservatives maintain that Islam condones the removal of a girl's clitoris to tame her sexual desires and condemn the amendment as a western import.

Attention-getting opposition to the bill came from an ostensibly secular MP a couple of weeks ago. Mohamed El-Omda, a member of a marginal opposition party, appeared before the people's assembly with his three daughters to protest the ban. One of his young daughters raised a banner reading: "No to any attempt to forbid what is divinely allowed. No to any attempt to allow what is divinely forbidden." El-Omda said that two of his daughters were already circumcised.

Although it was banned years ago, female genital mutilation remains widely practiced in Egypt. About 70% of Egyptian girls are believed to have undergone it. The promulgation of the new penalties came on the heels of the death of a 12-year-old girl in Upper Egypt while undergoing the procedure last summer.

Under the new law, female circumcision remains allowable in cases of "medical necessity."

The other new legislation granted women the right to receive birth certificates for their babies without necessarily giving the father's name. Under the old law, women could not register their out-of-wedlock children. According to women's rights activists, even married mothers face difficulties if they go to register their children without the father.

Islamists dismissed the amendment as enabling the proliferation of prostitution. "If woman carries a child and nobody knows who his father is, this means she is a prostitute," contended a Muslim Brotherhood MP during the deliberations.

The bill's proponents argued that a child should not be caught in the middle of parental feuds and had the right to receive a birth certificate. The amendment may help solve the problem of thousands of children whose fathers refuse to acknowledge them. According to official figures, there were 14,000 paternity cases in Egyptian courts in 2005.

—Noha El-Hennawy in Cairo

Source

I wonder what this necessity could be?



Same here in Algeria, when a women goes to the hospital to give birth ... most hospital will not admit you unless you have a "Livre d'Famille" (family book) When I was hospitalized recently a women almost bleeding to death 'forgot' her book and all the doctors were screaming bloody murder that they will not touch her!
And there are situations where the husband is off working, and not be able to be at the hospital as the women needs.


Waw, this is very Islamic! Mmmm ... what if she got raped?


Certainly, NO CHILD should be punished for what their parents do ... even Islam says this! Astagfuruallah!


Again, same here in Algeria. When we had to go court to obtain the right to marry .... I saw all too many cases where the woman took the man to court to demand the man marry her. Even some cases involving rape.

Amen to that! My sister in law is an OB/GYN and she says this trend is way outta control.

Exactly! Then these men will go out and have other relationships outside marriage because their women don't enjoy sex!

People just have too much money! And donnot bother to look around to see where this money could be really utilized! Next will be women acting getting into debt for operation! (Like with other cosmetic surgeries)

i'm still trying to figure that one out too.

I guess this will be on the little clever loophole people will use to have this clitoridectomy done! "Oooo, but my daughter needs it for medical reasons!"

personally i don't think anything in that region needs surgical improvement.