Further to the 'ritual nick' - Effective Intactivism

I've been reading more about the circumcision debate and happened upon a couple of very good blog posts on a site called Peaceful Parenting in my net travels.

The following quote was from a post was about the purpose of the prepuce . The article is well worth reading as it contains a thorough and thought provoking run down on the astonishing functions of that little bit of 'useless' and 'unnecessary' skin on a penis. The prepuce is rightly defined as an organ by two human sexuality experts. A full description of the myriad purposes of the prepuce are on the Peaceful Parenting blog post, but the following information really stood out for me

"A circumcised male, or his partner, for that matter, can never know the intimacy of the normal penis and the ability of the foreskin to open and glide up and down the shaft. An entire dimension of sexuality has been lost to both the male and his sexual partner"... Intact males can be more tender, gentle, relaxed, and loving during sex because the slightest and subtlest gesture or motion evokes deeply satisfying sensations. Circumcised males have to work harder just to feel sensations. This is an unhealthy situation for both the male and his partner".

I know that female circumcision is popular amongst some groups because cutting out her clitoris diminishes a woman's enjoyment of the sexual act, not to mention any sexual feelings and therefore functions to keep women 'faithful' - and under control! I don't think that as a culture, we truly understand the way that male circumcision interferes with male sexuality to the degree that it does. Circumcised men often laugh when that suggestion is made, because sex is just fine for them. The reality is of course, that they don't know what they haven't got. If circumcised males have to work harder, thrust harder and for longer just to feel sensations and get that level of stimulation required to orgasm because the sensory nerves on the head of their penis have been traumatised AND they lack the sensory nerves of the prepuce, that level of activity would be normal for them. The leap to thinking about what that level of activity actually means for their partners is then an easy one to make. Our cultural practice of male circumcision is actually blunting the sexual pleasure of couples, not just the head of the penis's feelings.

Coupled with that reality, the fact that circumcision leads to trauma and even death for some boys is explored in another post by Peaceful Parenting's Danelle Frisbe.

Intactivism is gaining ground as social media takes up the case for keeping both girls and boys intact. The latest post on Peaceful Parenting is excellent, explaining why we need to focus on solutions and in this case it is keeping children safe by keeping them intact. Aubrey Taylor a social activist, explains that negative emotions are understandable when we really think about what circumcision means and how human rights are being violated by the practice. However, people don't respond to negativity and anger - such reaction tends to invoke resistence and opposition.  Aubrey talks about Effective Intactivism which involves getting our language and feelings 'right' and coming with clear vision of how we want the situation to be.

Effective Intactivism involves education, compassion, love, persistence and patience.

The Ritual Nick

What's the ritual nick?   A ceremonial pinprick or 'nick' in a young girl's clitoris.

Female circumcision otherwise known as female genital mutilation, has been illegal in the US and other countries, including Australia for some time. 'Intactivists' have been positioning male circumcision as male genital mutilation and campaigning to make male circumcision illegal too. In Dakar, on the west coast of the African continent, lawmakers from 27 African countries, together with envoys from the African Union and United Nations came together in early May 2010 to create a resolution which clearly bans female genital mutilation as a violation of human rights.

"The African Union's envoy Yetunda Teriba stressed that the West had a role to play in combating genital mutilations".

Just as the African nations are moving to ban the practice of FGM, the American Academy of Paediatricians recently  suggested a 'ritual nick' may be a good idea for girls from other countries to stop them being taken overseas for more severe forms of 'cutting'. What a confusing message to send!  That suggestion created a wave of criticism and caused the backdown of the AAP on this idea.


And now the clever country is getting in on the act. Our Australian doctors are considering this as a way  of dealing with female genital mutilation! What are RANZCOG thinking?  Obviously they are not thinking.

The 'ritual nick' is being called a 'modified' form of genital mutilation. Now that's a perfect example of a 'minifism' '

'Minifisms' is a word coined by Lawler (1991) describing behaviours which minimise the significance or severity of problems.

and get this:

"But experts are divided on whether to allow the practice, given that in some cultures it is used to remove the sexual feelings of women".

I'm speechless with that remark. I'd love to know which experts and experts on what exactly? 

Intactivists have considered the 'ritual nick' suggestion as a way to defuse and take attention from the growing call to have male circumcision made illegal.

This link is to the Intactivists page, where you will find recent media on the AAP moves and counter moves on 'the ritual nick'.


Marilyn Milos, a long time campaigner for the ending of circumcision said

"Circumcision is where sex and violence meet for the first time."

What do you think of that statement?

and finally, I refer you to Jeannine Parvati Baker's piece quoting Marilyn Milo's comment.

http://birthpsychology.com/violence/baker.html

What are your thoughts on all of this?


Reference:
Lawler, J. (1991). Behind the screens: Nursing, somology and the problem of the body. United Kingdom:
Churchill Livingstone