Maximus,

You show great taste in women like Devine and Albrechtsen, but mate, I gotta ask; do you really think it wise to expose so much of your own genitalia on this particular thread?

Banjo, I don’t want to create a red herring either because the topic of this thread is very important. And your point about advising people about Australian law before they come here has real merit.

However, it is not a mere quibble to challenge your use of the terms ‘culture’ and ‘race’ and their derivatives ‘multi-cultural’ and multi-racial’ (or alternatives such as ‘multi-ethnic’ and ‘multi-faith’). The term ‘culture’ is one of the most complex inventions in language and thought. It encompasses to varying degrees aspects of practices deriving from ethnicity, birthplace, religion, age, education, social class and gender (among others).

Your definition of ‘multi-racial’ – it “refers to the physical characteristics of those in our community and we are quite varied and from differing ancestry” – is, in this context, most unhelpful. In what way can you predict a person’s attitude to genital mutilation by knowing their physical characteristics? (or for that matter, their country of origin)

You appear to be using a strictly pejorative definition of ‘multi-cultural’ when you assert that, “…to say we are a multicultural society suggests that we allow numerous unfettered cultures in our community.” If a ‘cultural’ practice is illegal in Australia it is still illegal when immigrants from many countries with different laws settle here. Calling ourselves ‘multicultural’ or ‘multiracial’ makes no difference. Australian law makers make Australian laws and all citizens are obliged to comply. Where does this notion of 'unfettered cultures' spring from?

So I can’t see how it is logical or helpful, using this elusive distinction, to argue that a change in label from ‘multi-cultural’ to ‘multi-racial’ would bring about a change in the practice of genital mutilation?

When you get down to basics the old women support and perform FGM because it was done to them and the men are in favour because they are incapable of having a normal sexual relationship with a normal woman.

Is Mise, I'm not convinced that any of us really understand the individual motivations of those involved.

I'm guessing that much of the support is because the practice so woven into cultures that it becomes something that only the truly brave challenge. Those who do challenge it probably get the same howling down from traditionalists that reformers in our culture get along with social consequences.

Old women may support it because it is proper, moral etc - see the effort some old women (and some old men) put into keeping younger women in line in our culture. Others because it is "tradition" (add a trumpet fanfare in there to show how important tradition is).

Younger men may go with it for similar reasons, maybe marrying a woman who has not been mutilated is similar to the way marrying a woman with a reputation as a "slut" used to be seen in our culture.

A wife who enjoys sex and knows it is better for both husband and wife than one who either does not enjoy it or who insists on seeing it as distasteful but if social mores are strongly against it then few people will buck the system.

R0bert

Female and male circumcision; both involve surgery and changing of the genitalia and, especially, if performed without anaesthetic, are abuse and violence inflicted on children and adults.

I understand that many men see circumcision as an affront and mutilation, however, genital surgery is generally performed for different reasons for males and females.

Biologically it is not on an even playing field.

1. The penis is a multifunction organ. It eliminates waste, is used for insemination of sperm and induces orgasm.

2. The clitoris has only one function; it induces orgasm. The nerve endings in the tiny clitoris are more numerous and more densely packed than in the entire male organ. Without it, orgasm is virtually impossible.

Circumcision, if performed correctly generally has no or little effect on the male libido or his ability to urinate. The reasons include hygiene (no dick cheese) and initiation into manhood. The objective is not and has never been to subdue male sexuality. While male infibulation does occur (fastening the prepuce in males) it is very rare.

Whereas, removal of the clitoris and sewing together the labia is a direct attempt to manipulate female sexuality. The majority of women cannot have an orgasm without direct stimulation of the clitoris – it is very rare for women to achieve orgasm solely on vaginal stimulation. (Sorry, fellas).

Many cultures simply cannot deal with the fact of female sexuality. Female virginity is held in higher esteem, women who are chaste are considered ‘better’ than women who, well, behave in the same manner as men sexually and, finally, there is the issue of paternity.

Coach stated FGM occurs in childhood; therefore, no reason to grant asylum to the Sierra Leone athletes. Coach is making an assumption here.

Sometimes, this barbaric practice is not performed until adulthood.

Regardless, genital mutilation is wrong for both sexes.

Cultures where it is performed are in violation of basic human rights.

Granting the Sierra Leone women asylum is one way in which to protest this violation of female sexuality and autonomy.

Some more info on male circumcision:

http://www.norm-uk.org/

I regard circumcision as a fatuous superstition and wonder at the mentality of those who continue to do this to their male children. As for 'tradition', if this is the only reason which can be given for doing [or not doing] something, then it probably means that there is no reason.

I agree with Scout that the effects in almost all cases pale into insignificance compared to female genital mutilation.

My father's mother was Jewish, but for whatever reason my father was not circumcised.

My mother told me an interesting story in 1952, when I was eighteen. We were all [in England] being called up for the Korean war and I had just come home from my medical, prior to being drafted into the Royal Navy.

She asked me how I had gone with the medical. I told her grade one. She asked if there was anything needing doing. I told her everything was OK. She asked if I was sure that nothing needed doing. So I asked her pointedly what was on her mind.

Apparently, when I was born, the doctor just happened to be Jewish. He suggested circumcision and my mother asked him if it was medically necessary. Wise woman! When he told her 'no', she decided not to have it done. And then she worried if she'd made the right decision for 18 years!

Traditions change. For instance, my lady friend is Japanese. Until quite recently, a Japanese husband was the undisputed boss and could get away with just about anything and his poor downtrodden wife just had to put up with it. [I'm sure there were exceptions, but this was the norm.] But Emiko has told me that many young Japanese women will not accept this anymore.

Of course, it's different when things are done to babies and young children, but I hope that the time is not far off when some young adult in Australia successfully sues the parents and perhaps also the doctors for a medically unnecessary genital mutilation which the mutilated person did not consent to.