Again my understanding is that male and female circumcision are practiced for different reasons. For the male there is the presumption of health whilst for the female it is simply a male desire to take away any achieved pleasure during intercourse from the female thus maintaining male dominance. She is less likely to stray from the fold.

Its my understanding that the limited research does not back up the oft repeated claim that FGM is primarily a male perpetuated thing.

It does not appear to be a clear issue however the stuff I've seen on the issue would suggest that the blaming men game is no more than sexism.

If I find more exhaustive research (not a topic I tend to keep references for) I'll post them but a brief on the topic from WHO might be enough to prompt further consideration. https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2010/WHO_RHR_HRP_10.16_eng.pdf

Its a cultural issue that will be better helped by a lot less gender blame game thinking.

R0bert

The two views above mine are in fact the way I see it.
No disrespect to other posters is meant.
But some times a blind is placed and maybe picked up by others who are unaware, to cloud issues.
I under stand I could be wrong,totally.
But here is what The facts tell me.
In males it is done as an act of cleanliness.
And many will argue to increase the enjoyment of sex.
In women it is done in my unshakable view to control women, stop the enjoyment of sex.
Yesterday I heard a clear description on ABC Radio National, of why some believe in things that are not true.
It wisely in my view told of folk protesting against wind power , becoming ill.
And developing the symptoms said to come from the innocuous wind mills.
They let them selves believe the untrue even talk them selves in to getting sick.
* Here is a danger not to be ignored*
Some never believe anything a conservationist says ever! because of too many blind and untrue fallacy's perpetrated by the unknowing.
It ended that show with a truism.
To mistake the wind in the trees for a Bear is OK.
But to mistake a Bear for wind in the trees can be fatal.

Belly, "The facts tell me. In males it is done as an act of cleanliness. And many will argue to increase the enjoyment of sex."

Your prejudice might inform you so. Particularly if you are Islamic, Jewish or are making $$ out of cutting boys.

Belly, "In women it is done in my unshakable view to control women, stop the enjoyment of sex."

Cutting girls is based on ignorance and tradition. There are risks and it does change appearance and affect inclusion by women in their culture. It is done without the informed consent of the child victim. It is discriminatory, just as cutting boys is discriminatory.

There is no acceptable reason why infants are denied the protection of Australian law. The cutting of boy babies and other body modification such as tribal tattooing performed on minors without informed consent is already illegal under the law. It is assault causing grievous bodily harm against the most vulnerable in society who have no voice and no way of protecting themselves. But the lawa are not enforced. Aboriginal children can be child brides too, for example. That is the power of fundamentalist religion and fundamentalist multiculturalism.

Cutting of girls is unlawful in Australia. Cutting of infant boys is allowed and religious fundamentalists have the gall to demand that the Australian taxpayer pay for their religious rite, through Medicare.

If the cutting of girls is done to control them and to limit enjoyment of sex the same motivations are well documented where cutting of boys is concerned. It is not the fault of one gender, males, the cutting of girls is done at the request and will of mothers and female relatives, female friends and with the support of female society. Women take the children to be cut, women even trick girls into it and they reject girls who haven't been ritually cut to tradition. Women perform the practices, including the actual cutting. No man is allowed to take part.

Mothers want their girls to look like them, just as some men want their sons to be cut like them.

Contd..

Continued..

While it serves the feminist blame game to use the 'M' word when referring to female cutting, and doubtless it assists in getting government grants to link women+discrimination+sex+'M', it could be counterproductive to refer to mutiliation where cut immigrant women are concerned. Because it could cause them to withdraw in shame.

All cut women are immigrants and they are exclusively the group likely to have their daughters done. It would be more diplomatic, sensitive, empathic and reasonable to refer instead to cutting if those women are to come forward. They are harmed already. So why not have some consideration for what they feel and use the more acceptable term, cutting? Or are sexual politics and the dollars that go with it more important?

It is barbaric to mutilate girls for sexual preservation and privation. Lock the mongrels up and throw away the key.