Recovering from FGM

[eudaemonia]

Googling for info w/r/t another thread on Lit, I got an interesting hit where a zoologist claims that women have four, not three (as I thought), distinct erogenous zones in the genital/pelvic area.

From The Clitoris, A-Spot, G-Spot and U-Spot by Desmond Morris (excerpted on Heretical.com from his book*):

Students of female sexual physiology claim (perhaps over-enthusiastically) that if these four erotic centres are stimulated in rotation, one after the other, it is possible for a woman to enjoy many orgasms in a single night. It is pointed out, however, that it takes an extremely experienced and sensitive lover to achieve this.
(Emphasis mine.)​

It has been claimed that two out of every three women fail to reach regular orgasms from simple penetrative sex. As mentioned above, most of them find that only digital or oral stimulation of the clitoris can be guaranteed to bring them to climax. This must mean that, for them, the two 'hot spots' inside the vagina are not living up to their name. The reason for this, it seems, is monotony in sexual positioning. A group of 27 couples were asked to vary their sexual positions experimentally, employing postures that would allow greater stimulation of the two vaginal 'hot spots', and it was found that three-quarters of the females involved were then able to achieve regular vaginal orgasms.​

If this is so, then why haven't efforts been made in helping victims of Female Genital Mutilation recover their sexuality by spreading this information about how to achieve sexual satisfaction via the G-Spot and A-Spot/AFE-Zone? Even with up to two of their four known erongenous zones excised (clitoris and U-spot), it's clear from a reference at Amnesty International's page on FMG that some victims report being capable achieving orgasm:

Clinical considerations and the majority of studies on women's enjoyment of sex suggest that genital mutilation does impair a women's enjoyment. However, one study found that 90% of the infibulated women interviewed reported experiencing orgasm.2 The mechanisms involved in sexual enjoyment and orgasm are still not fully understood, but it is thought that compensatory processes, some of them psychological, may mitigate some of the effects of removal of the clitoris and other sensitive parts of the genitals. (Emphasis mine.)

AI's latest cite on this subject is from 1990. We know for certain that there's been much more research since then, as the Morris book (see below) would indicate.

Furthermore, why aren't more efforts aimed at dispelling the myth that it's even possible to begin with to eradicate the possibility of female sexual enjoyment? You'd essentially have to mutilate a woman to the point of death, which would require either total removal of the vagina, or sewing up the anterior and posterior formix zones as well as removing all the para-urethral/erectile tissue (to say nothing of the clitoris and vulva).

No surgeon, even those who perform ritual clitorectomies in hospitals, would perform such a radical procedure in this day and age, unless completely insane. If done outside an OR, I can't imagine a woman surviving such an attempt.

Anyway, I'm looking for as much popular and scholarly literature on this subject as I can find. I just wanted to share what I've found so far that I could cite w/o restriction, and what's been on my mind the past few days.

I'm feeling very stirred up right now. On the one hand, I've realized some new things about my own sexuality lately that are wonderful and very freeing, but I also feel very sad over the fact that millions of women alive now will never be able experience these things because their sexual liberties have been criminally taken from them.

~~~~~~~~
*Desmond Morris, The Naked Woman: A Study of the Female Body, Jonathan Cape, London (2004)

 

[TBKahuna123]

A little bit of knowledge goes a long way, but you also have to look at it from a religious/cultural viewpoint, not just a medical one. You call this a myth, but there are two reasons that is incorrect.

First it's not a myth, but a cultural/religious belief. It's a woman's duty to provide for the needs of her husband sexually, not her own. If a woman doesn't have sexual needs, then she won't be tempted by infidelity in her search for sexual fulfilment. Women are the property of their husbands, and as such, are not entitled to having sexual needs or desires. Still, they are weak and without physical intervention to remove those sexual needs, they would be incapable of maintaining their demanded fidelity. The penalty for a woman committing adultry is death, therefore parents who have their daughters mutilated in this fashion do so out of love and for their own protection. Now, everyone pick up your jaws off the floor, because this is honestly how the people in cultures who practice FGM think.

Secondly, this practice DOES in fact work. You said it yourself, how come more isn't done to help women rediscover their sexuality even though they have been mutilated? The fact is because that shame, the psychological trauma of such mutilation causes them to lose any semblance of sexual identity. I don't kow this for sure, but I would bet that most young girls discover their sexuality for the first time because something rubs on their clit and it feels good. That makes sense because it's external, it's accessable, and it has no other purpose but that. It is this accidental contact which awakens the sexual identity, much the same as a boy getting his first spontaneous erection. Take away that external trigger though, and a young girl's sexuality may never be piqued. It's not like they are going to experience accidental contact with their g-spot. This is especially true in a developing country where tampons are not normally used, because most girls wouldn't think to insert anything into their vaginas unless their sexuality ahd been awakened. So to this end, FGM does in fact produce the desired results.

Now I have no case studies, no references to cite to back this up. This is all my opinion which I arrived at through logical thinking and what I learned of these countries (primairly Islamic Africa) in college and other studies, and a few bits of research into what they call female cricumcision. I still remember hearing that term and researching it because I had never heard of that, and I wondered if the women I'd been with were cricumcised or not. Boy was I in for a surprise when I discovered what it really meant. I applaud recent changes in which this is no longer called female cricumcision, but what it truly is, Female Genital Mutilation.

Oh and before any of the anti-circucision guys want to jump on about how boys being circumcised is genital mutilation, don't! We get off light! Go ahead and be pissed off, I don't neccesarily agree with you, but you have a right to your feelings. However, until someone tries to carve off the head of your cock wiht a chunk of broken glass, I don't think we have any room to put ourselves on the same level as these poor women. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Straight-8]

First it's not a myth, but a cultural/religious belief.

Ain't religion grand, eh?

The 'little bit of knowledge' I gleaned from reading the article was about the 'A' zone located in the anterior fornex. In an earlier post I mentioned the effects of deep penetration (I used the contentious phrase 'beyond the cervex') into the fornix - and how it resulted in thunderous orgasms from my wife if done at the right time. I am glad to learn there is a clear physiological basis for what I (well, my wife) has subjectively experienced.

Does this mean there really is something besides ego/appearance behind the attraction of some women to well endowed guys?

 

[SweetErika]

Have you read Possessing the Secret of Joy by Alice Walker, E? If not, it's an amazing, enlightening book.

 

[TBKahuna123]

Have you read Possessing the Secret of Joy by Alice Walker, E? If not, it's an amazing, enlightening book.

Sounds like a good book worth reading.

 

[SweetErika]

Sounds like a good book worth reading.

It's a beautifully crafted, informative, yet very painful, book that everyone who cares about women should read. I read it as part of a college English course on culture ten years ago; while I'm not up on most of the details, the ideas and emotions evoked are burned in my memory. I'd love to read it again as an adult, and will have to see if my copy made it through all of these moves.

 

[eudaemonia]

A little bit of knowledge goes a long way, but you also have to look at it from a religious/cultural viewpoint, not just a medical one. You call this a myth, but there are two reasons that is incorrect.

First it's not a myth, but a cultural/religious belief.

Certainly, I'm well aware, as think we all of us are, of the profound psychological sway that cultural and religious beliefs can have.

But I can see now after re-reading my OP (written very late after a long, exhausting day) wasn't very well-worded. My thesis, simply put, is that it's a myth to think that total eradication of a woman's physiological capacity for experiencing sexual pleasure is achieved by ritual FGM. *Of course* there are enormous psychological factors involved in realizing one's physiological potential, sexually mutilated or not. I figured that went without saying in this forum.

My intention in pointing out physical facts in the context of FGM is that when individual victims begin to question whether their cultural and/or religious beliefs may be based on mistaken conclusions, they'll either have to sublimate the truth in order to survive in their current condition (consciously or subconsiously) or they'll have to flee. Those who manage to escape, either by good fortune or sheer strength of will, will have a different set of worries and fears to address, including: "Who will want to love me now that I have no feelings "down there/I'm incomplete?" It's this set of women -- those trying to recover all aspects of themselves as individuals -- whose concerns I was addressing.

In no way was I suggesting that mere awareness of the full possibilities of female sexual response could single-handedly eradicate the practice of FGM. That would be laughably simplistic. But just because the practice has the desired effect in the short-run doesn't make it any less irrational as a practice and worth fighting against.

Morever, because this "desired effect" is really pretty ephemeral in the face of physiological realities, not to mention the long-term survival and flourishing of the species, it's all the more reason to challenge the practice in terms of geopolicy, and also to help victims recover their rightful sense of wholeness and personal sovereignty as fast as possible. Because these are sexual organs we're talking about, I think sexologists have a lot to contribute to the discussion.

 

[TBKahuna123]

Hmmm, eudaemonia I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying, I guess I got a little too cute and highbrow with my agreeing with your by disagreeing with you approach. I've spent too much time in meetings with old white guys lately, I guess.

Seriosuly though, I totally got what you were saying, I should have just said that. Yes it is a complete phalacy that removing the clitoris can take away the deep seeded biological response of sexual desire, though it can cause enough psychological trauma to cover it. On one hand FGM is effective in that it destroys the sex drive through psychological trauma. On the other it is ineffective because if a victim can be brought through that trauma and the psychological damage repaired, then the sense of sexuality and sexual enjoyment can be reinvigorated. The physical removal fo the clitoris does not change that from a physiological sense.

I guess my view though, is that this makes the practice all the more repulsive and heinous.

 

[Straight-8]

Rather than quote your entire second post, Eudomania, I'd just like to chime in with my take on this issue. I expect everyone on this board agrees it is a horrific practice. But I am reminded of Swift's quote:

"It is not possible to reason someone out of something if they were never reasoned into it."

You identify the psychological issue but don't dwell on it. I think the psychological toll of fgm must be such that very few could ever really overcome it, regardless of the physiological potential for a satisfying sex life afterwards. And it won't persuade the perpetrators. This is like rape. It is not a matter so much of the physical act (repulsive as that may be) but of the symbolic domination of women. The effect must be even stronger when it is bolstered by the state and religion...hence my facetious comment in my first posting on this topic.

 

[TransJason]

I watched a wonderful programme on the TV recently..cant remember what channel but it was of a surgeon in the USA who is rebuilding womens clitoral heads after FGM.

It was amazing as the women mostly Africans, would come baclk aftre they had healed and burst into tears with emotion that they could now have an orgasm and enjoy sex for the first time.

These were wealthy women, single or with husbands who wanted to help them, mostly white American husbands.

So it can be reversed by the look of it as the clitiros is about 6 inches in deepth and he was bring some forward somehow.

FGM is a digusting practice, misguided and nothing to do with most religions, i.e Islam. It has a tribal ancient history, its cultural.

 

[eudaemonia]

Thanks for that, TBK. Sometimes I'm overcome by spells of peevishness after chewing on such unjust circumstances, and I don't see that others are actually agreeing with me.

I expect everyone on this board agrees it is a horrific practice. But I am reminded of Swift's quote:

"It is not possible to reason someone out of something if they were never reasoned into it."

I'm unclear about who you have in mind for that quote: The perp or the victim? Or both? I read it the first time through as for the former, but upon rereading it maybe you meant for the latter ...

 

[TBKahuna123]

I'm unclear about who you have in mind for that quote: The perp or the victim? Or both? I read it the first time through as for the former, but upon rereading it maybe you meant for the latter ...

I think I get it. The point is that the women who suffer this aren't reasoned into it, they are forced into it. So how can reasoning with them rebuild the psychological trauma? I disagree with the point though. I think the psychological damage can be overcome with proper therapy and care. Though I agree, I can't imagine getting over something like this.

 

[Straight-8]

I'm unclear about who you have in mind for that quote: The perp or the victim? Or both? I read it the first time through as for the former, but upon rereading it maybe you meant for the latter ...

I first intended to refer to the victim but the more think about it the more I agree that it does apply to both.

 

[M's girl]

Wonderful...


Now there is a U-spot that I should be looking for? I'm having a hard time as it is reaching orgasm through clitoral stimulation and seem not to have a G-spot nor A-spot that 'works'.... I'm afraid I can now add another disfunction of my body to this list.

Still... I guess I should not complain. My sexlife is satisfying anyway and I don't have to worry about all this idiot mutilation-stuff, so I'll shut up now.

 

[eudaemonia]

I first intended to refer to the victim but the more think about it the more I agree that it does apply to both.

Yeah. I think that's what made me so sad the other day. Irrationalism is a tough cycle to break, and hard to watch from afar especially knowing that it doesn't have to (and shouldn't) be that way.

 

[gregor2001us]

Here is a book that may be of interest on this subject:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/18...002-0982497-6696035?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

title: The Rape of Innocence: Female Genital Mutilation
author: Patricia Robinett

Book Description
Female genital mutilation in the USA has been a well-kept secret. "The Rape of Innocence" is an autobiographical account of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant woman who discovered she had been the victim of female genital mutilation as a child in Kansas in the 1950s. The author is a therapist who deals with trauma. In her work, she has met several other American women who were genitally mutilated as children and adults. Could you -- or someone you love -- have been cut too? This book may help many women understand and get help for their dysfunctional sex lives and psychological trauma. Now that the word is out, the healing can begin. By telling her own story, Patricia Robinett is helping liberate an entire generation of women who have had no idea why they have been angry, fearful, depressed. This book invites us all to come out of childhood trauma and step into the safety of the present moment.

 

[TBKahuna123]

Breast Ironing

I had never heard of this before. What I found most interesting is that it was most prevelant in primarily Christian parts of West Africa. I was also moved by the fact that this has nothing to do with protecting women from cheating, it's to protect young girls from sexual predators. Is rape really so prevelant in that part of the world that mothers would mutilate their daughters to make them less attractive? I think I can safely say that sexual predators aren't that picky.

Damn I'm glad I'm not a woman in the 3rd world.

 

[eudaemonia]

I think I can safely say that sexual predators aren't that picky.

Exactly. The whole issue of visible sexual characteristics is a red herring. Vaginas aren't visible. So you can be the flattest woman in the world and still be the target of rape.

 

[Straight-8]

Here's a twist in this issue:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/story.jsp?story=698961

Obvoiusly, like everything else, it all depends how you define something. I think there is a profound difference in an elective procedure that leaves genital functioning intact from the kind of forced FGM that I think we were discussing. Nevertheless, it is interesting to contemplate the societal and other pressures that result in these 'elective procedures' and to consider how different they really are.