- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Female genital mutilation happens all over the world, and even in this country (albeit illegally). One could argue that it in fact is not really like losing a limb - there are prosthetics that can help one regain some functionality of a lost limb in many (most?) cases; however, FGM is not always just limited to removal of the clitoris. It often includes the closure of the vagina and other kinds of mutilation, to ensure virginity in the marriage bed.
It is also not like male circumcision - while I am also not in agreement with male circumcision, it does not have the same effect or intent, which is the total removal of sexual pleasure. Although some botched male circumcisions have had disastrous effects in regard to sexual pleasure, it is the very small minority. I would have to agree with Tracy here, that it seems to me to be more about the cultural relevance and value of female sexual pleasure vs. reproduction. After all, if it really were like losing a limb, would the panel send a refugee who had lost his arm back to Darfur, where he awaited more violence, especially if it was his own family?
What strikes me in the discussion here is that no one is talking about the other part of her argument - that she will be forced to marry her first cousin, and that her daughters will be forced into genital mutilation, as well. This is not just about what happened to her, but what will happen if she returns.
This also seems to be about precedent - what happens if they protect a woman from the hands of her male relatives? Will the world come to an end if they admit that this is a personal freedom worth protecting, the right of a woman to choose her own sexual and reproductive fate? The kind of violence being perpetrated here against this young woman by her family and culture really should be acknowledged, and she protected.
