Pardon me if this article has been posted before but as a result of a series of coincidences, i came across this and i found it quite shocking since it is published as a scientific research. There we go, the first and last paragraphs are added by a website which was referring to the article itself :

A recent study of FGM

While male circumcision must inevitably alter sexual functionality, sexual pleasure is a highly subjective response, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at quantitative data on this issue. While it usually reduces the pleasure of fine touch and gentle manipulation (by excising the relevant nerves, found only in the foreskin), circumcision does not completely eliminate the capacity for sexual pleasure, and certainly does not inhibit the final orgasm. These points are sometimes presented as a positive reason for circumcision, but the same is true of all but the most severe forms of FGM. A recent study by F.E. Okonofua and colleagues in Nigeria examined 1836 women who had been subjected to either FGM type 1 (71 per cent) or type 2 (24 per cent). They concluded:

"No significant differences between cut and uncut women were observed in the frequency of reports of sexual intercourse in the preceding week or month, the frequency of reports of early arousal during intercourse and the proportions reporting experience of orgasm during intercourse. There was also no difference between cut and uncut women in their reported ages of menarche, first intercourse or first marriage in the multivariate models controlling for the effects of socio-economic factors. In contrast, cut women were 1.25 times more likely to get pregnant at a given age than uncut women. Uncut women were significantly more likely to report that the clitoris is the most sexually sensitive part of their body, while cut women were more likely to report that their breasts are their most sexually sensitive body parts. Cut women were significantly more likely than uncut women to report having lower abdominal pain, yellow bad-smelling vaginal discharge, white vaginal discharge and genital ulcers.

"Conclusion: Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings. However, female genital cutting may predispose women to adverse sexuality outcomes including early pregnancy and reproductive tract infections. Therefore, female genital cutting cannot be justified by arguments that suggest that it reduces sexual activity in women and prevents adverse outcomes of sexuality."

F.E. Okonofua et al, “The association between female genital cutting and correlates of sexual and gynaecological morbidity in Edo State, Nigeria”, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Vol. 109, October 2002, p. 1089

Abstract available here

The conclusion here seems odd to western readers: arguments in favour of female circumcision because it curtails sexual activity and inhibits the inclination to promiscuity are invalid because female circumcision does not have these effects. It must be assumed that Okonofu is addressing a Nigerian audience, which believes that female sexual activity should be restricted and that circumcision is an efficient means to this end. The contrast between this perspective and western discourse is striking: articles in American medical journals which find that circumcision makes little or no difference to male sexual activity always present this as a positive reason why circumcision of infants should be performed. One can well imagine how this study might have been reported in the American media had it involved males: “Circumcision boosts pregnancy chances” is one likely headline.


for the original article :

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abs/

Pardon me if this article has been posted before but as a result of a series of coincidences, i came across this and i found it quite shocking since it is published as a scientific research. There we go, the first and last paragraphs are added by a website which was referring to the article itself :

A recent study of FGM

While male circumcision must inevitably alter sexual functionality, sexual pleasure is a highly subjective response, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at quantitative data on this issue. While it usually reduces the pleasure of fine touch and gentle manipulation (by excising the relevant nerves, found only in the foreskin), circumcision does not completely eliminate the capacity for sexual pleasure, and certainly does not inhibit the final orgasm. These points are sometimes presented as a positive reason for circumcision, but the same is true of all but the most severe forms of FGM. A recent study by F.E. Okonofua and colleagues in Nigeria examined 1836 women who had been subjected to either FGM type 1 (71 per cent) or type 2 (24 per cent). They concluded:

"No significant differences between cut and uncut women were observed in the frequency of reports of sexual intercourse in the preceding week or month, the frequency of reports of early arousal during intercourse and the proportions reporting experience of orgasm during intercourse. There was also no difference between cut and uncut women in their reported ages of menarche, first intercourse or first marriage in the multivariate models controlling for the effects of socio-economic factors. In contrast, cut women were 1.25 times more likely to get pregnant at a given age than uncut women. Uncut women were significantly more likely to report that the clitoris is the most sexually sensitive part of their body, while cut women were more likely to report that their breasts are their most sexually sensitive body parts. Cut women were significantly more likely than uncut women to report having lower abdominal pain, yellow bad-smelling vaginal discharge, white vaginal discharge and genital ulcers.

"Conclusion: Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings. However, female genital cutting may predispose women to adverse sexuality outcomes including early pregnancy and reproductive tract infections. Therefore, female genital cutting cannot be justified by arguments that suggest that it reduces sexual activity in women and prevents adverse outcomes of sexuality."

F.E. Okonofua et al, “The association between female genital cutting and correlates of sexual and gynaecological morbidity in Edo State, Nigeria”, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Vol. 109, October 2002, p. 1089

Abstract available here

The conclusion here seems odd to western readers: arguments in favour of female circumcision because it curtails sexual activity and inhibits the inclination to promiscuity are invalid because female circumcision does not have these effects. It must be assumed that Okonofu is addressing a Nigerian audience, which believes that female sexual activity should be restricted and that circumcision is an efficient means to this end. The contrast between this perspective and western discourse is striking: articles in American medical journals which find that circumcision makes little or no difference to male sexual activity always present this as a positive reason why circumcision of infants should be performed. One can well imagine how this study might have been reported in the American media had it involved males: “Circumcision boosts pregnancy chances” is one likely headline.


for the original article :

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abs/

Note: To add an image or link in your message,<br/> use <img src="http://www.hi5.com/example.jpg"> or <a href="http://www.hi5.com/example.html">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

It may be shocking to us, given our stance towards FGM, but this publication is not unsupported by scientific research.

I think that we have to broaden our own perspectives on this matter, and also take into consideration that many of our own notions about FGM might not be based on the most sound research. That is not to say that we should not speak out against FGM, but we need to consider our reasons for doing so. I think we need to look again at the facts.

It may be shocking to us, given our stance towards FGM, but this publication is not unsupported by scientific research.

I think that we have to broaden our own perspectives on this matter, and also take into consideration that many of our own notions about FGM might not be based on the most sound research. That is not to say that we should not speak out against FGM, but we need to consider our reasons for doing so. I think we need to look again at the facts.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,<br/> use <img src="http://www.hi5.com/example.jpg"> or <a href="http://www.hi5.com/example.html">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

:)

yes Ozlem,this has been posted earlier too. :D

:)

yes Ozlem,this has been posted earlier too. :D

Note: To add an image or link in your message,<br/> use <img src="http://www.hi5.com/example.jpg"> or <a href="http://www.hi5.com/example.html">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic