I think most people do realise there is a difference in severity. However both
are wrong and one is not less wrong than the other.
susan+rick wrote:
> Oh, the far-reaching Joni Discussion List! I have to step in here with a
> comment regarding the comparison of male and female circumcision.
>
> It's true that male circumcision is largely an unnecessary procedure, often
> performed without anaesthetic, and may produce some amount of local
> insensitivity but I think it is important for people to realize the
> difference in *degree* between male and female genital mutilation. The two
> operations are so far apart in severity that it is like comparing caning to
> flogging around the fleet. As well, female genital mutilation is most often
> performed for the benefit of the future husband of the girl being mutilated.
> It is intended to make her more "attractive" and keep her faithful, either
> by making sexual activity unpleasant or even impossible without further
> surgical procedures.
>
> If anyone is interested in further reading go to
> http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/fgmintro.html
>
> Ranger Rick
--
bw
colin
BRO GC, 950i 940,864, 260, 890,Silver 830 and 270, Passap 6000
Duo80
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html
