Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

It is my belief the concept of human rights is currently being used as a pretext to destroy cultural diversity. In a debate with Crash in another thread this belief was given some support. My original attempt at an OP on this topic turned into a tome rather quickly, so I'm going to switch my methodology. This OP will not advance my full argument, nor answer all the questions posed to me earlier by Crash, and he had some very good ones. Hopefully, however it will set the stage for an adequate debate where these things can all come out.To my mind, the term "Human Rights", is a misnomer. It is more aptly called "Individual Rights". It is not a set of objective rights that all humans have by right of just being born human, nor is it a set of rights that all humans would agree with or apply in the same way to the same issue.It was developed within Western Culture (WC), from earlier cultural concepts of individual autonomy being more important than societal institutions/function/stability. I will define WC briefly as the amalgam of norms/values/political beliefs within European Nations, as well as those directly created or influenced by--- to the extent they ascribe their normative systems to--- European expansion.As a member of this culture, I grew up exposed to it and am a fervent individualist. I believe in protecting the individual rights of others, and broadening those rights as far as possible. Along these same lines (a theme I will not develop, to save space) grew the concept of national rights, or community rights. Within a nation one has individual sovereignty others cannot cross. On a larger scale, each nation has a sovereignty that other nations cannot cross.This idea of national sovereignty included cultural sovereignty and was a natural extension of the idea of individual rights. As individuals they had the right to organize and behave as they wished among themselves... to continue their own traditions. Being outside our own nation and culture meant their worldviews and ways could directly conflict with ours and be quite offensive. Beyond a political allegiance to this concept, I am a moral relativist that holds there is no single valid culture, and so I have no ability to judge (beyond a personal preference) other cultures. And moreso, I believe there is inherent value to cultural diversity, so that human experience and intellect does not stagnate in a monoculture.Crashfrog argued that human rights are objective and belong to the entire "human community". As such he has a right, and obligation to fight injustices he sees according to that framework of rights, regardless of borders and any impact on other cultures.Does a human community actually exist? That seems like a convenient imaginary concept similar to what the Catholics and Protestants used long ago to "save" other cultures from objective harm as they viewed it. Isn't there simply a human species, just like other animals, in which there are different human communities, just like other animals? For example there is no "wolf community" such that one wolf, or pack, suddenly gets entry to all others by virtue of being the same species. Individual packs would use force, or flee if such an attempt were made by an outsider. Same goes for humans.Second, while an appeal to the human community to enforce "human rights" sounds logical, aren't other individuals in other cultures human? If they invented their own concept and called it "human rights" derived naturally from one's just being human, do they have an actual obligation to apply it to every other culture, or you to accept it as real? Why or why not?And finally, while appealing to this human community, do they now have access to everything you have (in your nation), or is it just a one way thing? Is it that you get to tell them what they are doing wrong... coerce them to change so they don't offend you... then block any expectations they might have in return using the financial, military, and social protections at your disposal? For instance, in your own nation you'd have expectations of integration and accepting certain tenets, before allowing them into positions to vote and change your way of life. Isn't it unfair to expect others to change according to your desires if you do not take the time to enter their communities through their process of integration?Somehow I don't see this as a coming together to share a human community at all, otherwise they'd have a say, and a vote, in how you live. Isn't this concept in practice the creation of a 'community' where everyone in poor nations and cultures are automatically disenfranchised? If not, why not?I hope from this setup, one is able to understand what boundaries I have placed on where I (and others in the West) can legitimately (without hypocrisy) actualize personal beliefs regarding individual rights. Certainly within one's own nation (for me the US) which is their real community, certainly not in other nations which are outside of it... unless one takes the time to become a part of those others communities based on THEIR criteria for entry.This is where I'll let it start. For examples of cultural traditions that violate human rights and considered worthy of change, Crash and I were using Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). I'd prefer sticking with that, but if someone has something else I guess they can throw it in the pot.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Well, I guess I'm gonna jump in on this one a bit early...cuz I have a feeling that eventually this is going to turn in primarily a discussion between you on one side, and Crashfrog on the other (with nator joining in as well). And to be honest, I'm looking forward to that debate. I will start of by saying that I am in agreement with Crash on this one. Not that I'm against cultural diversity (nor, do I believe, is he), but rather because I think that in that day and age, change in inevitable. I seems to me that (at least as it pertains the diversity), you want to keep things static. You have some sort of noble cause to save the World from cultural stagnation. However, I honestly believe that cultures will, for lack of a better decription, somewhat blend. That is, as the World grows smaller, huge differences between cultures will lessen. To think otherwise is a bit unrealistic.I don't think that Crash is advocating one culture for the entire World (but hey, maybe he his... I'll let him speak for himself). Instead I think he is taking a realistic approach in dealing with an ever shrinking World. He, and the rest of us, are now aware of FGM...on this I think we all agree (well except for maybe RiVerRaT. It's possible that he has never heard of FGM ...sorry RR, I couldn't resist...and honestly, it's only a joke). Forcing the men of this culture to stop this practice will not destroy their culture. It may change it, but it will not destroy it. Societies and culture evolve over time, Holmes. It's one the the results of globalization. It's inevitable.But yet you seem to be of the adage that it's OK, for the sake of diversity, to ignore this practice. Personally, I think you're being a bit naive by simply stating that we, with our own biased views or morality, should accept the status quo. Taking a hand-off approach troubles me. While it may seem "noble", it's actually quite scary. When do we, as a "society" step in and stop an injustice? And I know that you're going to respond with: "define injustice". But again, you're ignoring the question. It (FGM) is oppression in the worst sort of way. You want to ignore the practice on the grounds that "hey, it's their culture, who are we to judge". But what sort of response is that? Again I ask, "when should we step in?" How long do we ignore something like this? Where do we draw the line". It's cowardly to play the diversity card. It's too easy and does nothing. You seem to enjoy taking things to the hypothetical extreme, so let me present this "cultural practice" to you and then pose a question. But first, let's set up the scenario as we currently see it. The practice of FGM is a cultural tool used by men of the society to oppress women. Globally, it seems to be a rather small issue, in that it certainly is not widely discussed or shown on the nightly news. Some people compare this sort of genital mutilation to male circumcision. It would be a more fair comparison if we (males) had our glans penis removed during "circumcision", rather than just our prepuce, don't you agree. So for the sake of argument, lets assume that there exists a female dominated society that forcibly removes the male glans penis at puberty.And now here, finally, is my question. Do you, Holmes, believe that once this practice was brought forth to the World, that it would be ignored to the degree that FGM is being ignored? Not by you personally, but as a society? Your view (I assume) would be that it's no big deal and should be basically ignored. I'm not taking issue with you on that..I think it's at least commendable that you would view it the same as female genital mutilation.My question wants to look at current society. Female genital mutilation, I contend, is basically ignored because it is happening to females. If males were having the heads of their dicks chopped off, the christian community, conservative, and most other groups that are currently ignoring (by and large) FGM, would be screaming bloody murder.So I guess the answer to your question, would be "yes", if the a fore mentioned practice was being preformed on me. Hell, I'd damned well fully expect other cultures and societies to step in and help. What I (and Crash and Nator) are advocating is change where there is outright oppression. I fail to see how you can view FGM as anything other than female oppression. Do females look forward to this day? Are they eagerly anticipating the idea of having their clitoris cut off? I doubt it. But hey, even if they are indeed happy to undergo this practice, I think one has to ask "Why?" Why would a female willing subject herself to something so awful? Does she not know the joys a clitoral stimulation? Does she not care? Or could it be that she has be indoctrinated with the concept for most of her life? If you keep telling someone (especially a small child) that something is for their own good, does that indeed make it right?By your logic, it is then acceptable to indoctrinate kids to become suicide bombers...right? After all, it's simply their culture to hate non-Muslims, so blowing them up is not only acceptable...it's a culture right!I guess my point is that it's a mistake to somehow assume the stopping FGM will in some way have a detrimental affect of Global cultural diversity. Their culture will still be different from ours. That's diversity, is it not? Their culture may change as a result of stopping the practice, but that certainly doesn't mean that they now share all of our cultural values. We may all now share a view more values...but we'd still be quite diverse. Basically, I think your fears are unfounded because you are taking them to the extreme.

before you make judgements about the destruction of cultural diversity, you really must judge whether it really is diversity or inherent harm. before you judge that, i strongly suggest you educate yourself by reading people who lived this.The Hidden Face of Evethere are, of course, plenty of other books. but really, look into the prevalence and voice of feminist movements within the culture. it's not an imposition if these women are crying out for protection.

Let me bring over what I said in the other thread, along with some additional thoughts.

quote:

---

Let me say that I grasp the merit of your point; it's just that, like most things, you take an obvious principle and extend it to ridiculous extremes.

​

Obviously, it would be folly in the extreme to think that the solutions of my culture, my neighborhood, my community could be transplanted verbatim halfway across the world and have positive results. I think we've seen the results of that kind of thinking writ large across the Middle East lo the past several years.

​

It's a serious mistake to disregard completely local customs, local outlooks, local solutions to problems. It would be a disaster. And to come in as an outsider to a culture and attempt to solve problems in a way that people are going to respect and help with is a difficult problem indeed.

​

But to say that it is difficult is not to say that it is impossible, or to say that there's no reason to think of problems as problems, or to simply abandon all hope of rendering aid to people not like ourselves, as you would seemingly have us do. It's simply hard.

​

Think of it like a neighborhood, Holmes. When neighbors can't get over their differences, when they're afraid to engage with each other for fear of misunderstanding or out of distrust, neighborhoods suffer for it. We see communities like these in our own country, in the roughest conditions. And, of course, declining conditions drive residents into even more insular and disconnected attitudes.

​

But when neighbors act like neighbors, explore each other's viewpoints, share what works for them, and yes - enforce community standards when it becomes necessary - the neighborhood is vibrant. People feel safe and problems come to have solutions. And, hey, what works at one house doesn't work at another, without taking into account how the people of one home differ from another. Obviously. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't share. And, yes, when a neighbor threatens the community by violating its standards, our differences can't mean that we don't take action.

​

It's ultimately selfish to withhold from others the benefits we enjoy. It's ultimately racist to assert that those who are not like us can gain nothing from what we have to offer them, or they from us. I'm sorry you object to that, but it's true. Language, culture, and race are not excuses for us to close our hearts to one another, regardless of what precious multi-culturalism might tell you.

---

Now, you're going to object (I imagine) to me acting like my idea of community standards are right; but like Greg House, I simply can't operate from the assumption that I'm wrong about everything. Who can?And I don't envision this human community as one that does exactly what I say; I see it as a community where individuals bring what they individually think is right to the table, and then a consensus emerges through compromise and conversation.I don't see it as a deterministic process, subject to rigid interpretations and dogmatic assertions of what is right and wrong overriding all other belief. I see it as a holistic process where the community as a whole develops its own standards even as individual members take opposing viewpoints. You've just identified that wolf community - the wolf species, Canis lupis.Similarly, species Homo sapiens forms a community entire. In a biological sense its a reproductive community - by definition - but it's also a social community. The vast record of human history is not one of isolation, but one of congress, one of sharing, one of communication, however attenuated by distance. They do. Why wouldn't they? That's an astounding accusation of bad faith on your part. What possible evidence could you have that your opponents are motivated not by concern for other human beings, but out of a desire to "destroy cultural diversity"? Why would anybody want to do that?

Well, it's an imposition on the men, which is why he objects.

well, that brings out the question of whether men and women have distinct cultures, which they might, as many of the cultures which practice fgm have segregated societies. in which case, it is not an imposition on the men, because it's effects on their culture may be negligible. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

There are many ways of structuring societal interaction, and FGM is one of them. They are all valid, and all of them generally function.However, not all ways are equally desirable or valuable. Desireable to who? Valuable to who? People, is the basic answer to that. When cultures come into contact with one another, there will be a clash. Some ways of doing things will vanish, some will be adopted and adapted creating a kind of merging - others will remain unaffected.Who decides on these kinds of things? The people involved in the clash. At the individual level: neighbours might clash over FGM, one having done it to his daughter, another revolted by the idea. Maybe one side will be convinced to change as a result, maybe they won't. However, both sides will instigate some degree of social consequences on the other - which may yet again cause one of them to change their minds about affairs.It can also happen at the political level. One political power exerting argument, and political consequence on another political power to stop doing something (or start doing something) such as FGM. It might elicit change, which is the primary function of exerting consequences for behaviour that is not desired in society and incentives to behaviour that is.You might argue that it isn't necessarily right to apply pressure either political or social to elicit a change in another group's culture but that argument effectively undermines itself since applying pressure to elicit change is part of our culture and your argument can only lead at best to changing our culture.

I have individual rights, but I can't do anything I darn well please, even in the privacy of my own home. I cannot beat my girlfriend, I cannot molest children. The same applies to "cultural rights" or "national rights." There are things that cultures or nations are not supposed to do. I would think that it is obvious that FGM would be near the top of the list.

This has always been the problem which presents a crux: How do you balance cultural diversity without affecting individual rights? We have a society, richly diverse, with long traditions that, if lost, would only bring the world in to a more Westernized way of thinking. You have some groups that say this is an intrusion on their way of life. Its a good argument. Because some countries have said that American and/or European influence has tainted their culture.On the other hand, simply allowing any society to live life as they see fit also means having to turn a blind eye to moral qualms that we have with that particular society because it does not maximize individual freedom. Female circumcision is a prime example of this.In fact, this crux is exactly what is going on in many African and Middle Eastern cultures. How do we say that we appreciate your cultural diversity (i.e., leaving you alone), without also compromising on our time-honored Western beliefs, which is the expansion of individual right (i.e., don't cut off her clitoris because she is entitled to keep it)?Its quite the little conundrum. You sound Libertarian which is a great thing, only, it might limit you on the issues of cultural diversity which you also praise.I should add that I think both have their place in the sun and are beautiful in their own right. However, there are those instances, such as mentioned above, where they butt heads, leaving us with quite the quandary to sort out. This is another problem. If, say, the US invades a country, first to protect its own assets, and second to liberate a repressed society, the US runs the risk of trampeling and violating the cultural diversity, and not respecting the laws or the sovereignty of that nation. On the other hand, they are, say, executing dissenters, surgically removing the clitorises of females, are corrupt, etc, etc.This is why in many ways a nation like the United States will perpetually be criticized. We are scolded for going in to Iraq, and chastised for not going in to Darfur. We are condemned for going in to Somalia, and lambasted for not going in to (______ insert country here).I think the nation's leaders just have to say that it is impossible that we will gain the approval of all the people of the world. Because this ever present, vexing crux exists, we will be treading on someone, somehow, no matter how much we would try to avoid it. Yes, I would agree, however, some would argue that we are just playing world cop again, and that we don't respect the culture of that land. Case in point: Some Muslim women, who appear to us to be ostracized, may not know any better because that life is all they know. They may take great offense for the imposition that they are door mats. They may find it wholly condescending to liberate them from that which they don't want liberating from to begin with. And yet, there are those who see these injustices, but can't speak out against them. They want to be rescued, but can't get a word in edgewise. To an extent. But when you start talking about New World Orders, I'm outta there. I'll be hiding out in the mountains. People inherently want to categorize. They will take allegiance where ever they can get it. Crashfrog and I could be diametrically opposed politically, but if we were on the same sports team, watch how fast we begin to work with each other towards a common goal. The Utopian dream quickly devolves in to a dystopia, no matter how pure the intentions may be. That's the price of sin. Then again, don't we all aspire to perfection, knowing full well that we'll never actually achieve it?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Funny, but you will find people out there that honestly believe that freedom entails no hindrances of any kind. Obviously there are parameters-- namely, that your freedom does not impinge on another's.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

quote:

---

Well, I guess I'm gonna jump in on this one a bit early...cuz I have a feeling that eventually this is going to turn in primarily a discussion between you on one side, and Crashfrog on the other (with nator joining in as well). And to be honest, I'm looking forward to that debate.

---

Thanks, but no thanks.

What it is it about cultural diversity you think is so valuable? Personally, I couldn't give a stuff about cultural diversity. It's an irrelevance. I do care about human suffering, and individual rights; these strike me as much more important concepts.

I see the issue being the mistake in thinking you have ANY rights , what in fact you have is a contract with your community(culture).The community grants you certian benifits for conforming to the community( cultures) rule set , you fit in and WE ( ie the big we)allow you to make the following personal choices ..with the understanding that WE may have to change the rules if the need arises.All our/your so called "rights" are given to you , and you dont even get to pick which ones you get, and all can be removed by the will of the community/culture/nationstates .
yes openness/ accountablity / free press / elections help defend you benifits but when it feels the need the comunity acts as it see fit. Look at the current anti terrorist laws springing up in the western faction nations .Now given that these "rights" are a pure fiction of your/our culture .. the use of such rights to attack cultural diversity is merely the continuation of culture aggression and imperialisum that makes up human history .All cultures , by their nature seek to defend themselves by supplanting any other culture they come in contact with.
All cultures belive themselves to be the correct one , and the better one .. as a matter of faith .
so it follows all people of differenning cultures would be better off if they belonged to "our" culture ..and so history and human nature marches onward ...Cultral missionarys are as harmfull as religious ones have ben shown to have been in the past .As humans this is what we do , we try to make everyone the same as us ( well just a step or two lower ), then they will no longer be a threat .conversely cultral diversity is a root cause of most of the worlds conflicts and the sooner we all share a single culture the better, this is not to say this would end all conflict , but it would remove a major excusse for disputes to start .The real question is how we can learn to think outside of our own culture/s and all the baggage it/they brings , and see a culture all can live with and in.

Holy sh... Wow, many excellent posts. I mean really, everyone brought something to work with on this one. In fact it's a bit much for me to take on all posts at once (though I did read them all before writing a response). Since Flies got here first (and really when don't flies get places first?) let me start to work with his post... Note: Since we are using FGM, people should probably take some time on their own to get to know about it. I'm going to create a separate post on FGM, that has some facts and asks some questions raised by those facts.Now... Excellent point, and I agree with you that blending is inevitable to some degree. I understand why my OP suggests an argument for stasis. Heheheh... now I can elaborate!You're right that the nature of the world, and cultures, is change. As it is, stasis within a culture would be the same as the stagnation I was criticizing in a world monoculture, only on a smaller scale. I DO NOT believe cultures have to be trapped in amber, nor that cultures shouldn't blend. My argument relates to HOW that should happen, not whether.Most have made the point that cultures will inevitably influence, or try to influence each other. But isn't there a polar difference between change intitiated when ideas are exchanged during the course of trade/tourism, and the intentional change of one by another through coercion? For example, the Spanish conquest of Central and South America was direct force applied to a culture to pull it apart so it would match the Catholic ideal. Isn't that something we--- those who value individual rights and national sovereignty--- would view as unjust and so oppose?If the argument runs that cultural change happens, and they (cultures) are all aggressive anyway, so there is nothing to be thought unjust or detrimental in such activity, then I don't understand how the Spanish subjugation, nor any missionizing efforts can consistently be criticized.IF such things can be criticized then aren't limits on legitimate mechanisms for change (of another culture) recognized? If so, what are they? I am arguing for a limit at no active coercion based on military or economic disparity. What is wrong with that kind of limit? Brenna mentions something that will be brought out further in my FGM info post. There is much misinfo in the west about FGM. But for right now I'll assume your description and argument is correct.It would not destroy OUR culture to ban homosexual marriages, nor homosexual acts themselves. In fact a majority of people (or at the very least nations) dislike homosexuality and have active laws against it at some level. If the argument runs that globalization is inevitable, a middle sought amongst all cultures, what does that say for the future of homosexual rights?Or will it be, as I would suspect, that we would argue that this part of our culture is NOT on the table for discussion. Well why shouldn't it be, if the reasonable result is global consensus on norms, and the consensus is that homosexuality is wrong? I don't think it's fair to play the cowardice card. While some might use such an excuse to avoid action, there can be very brave people who simply do not believe interfering with members of another culture, unless it is impinging on their own nation and rights, should do anything. It is a sense of respect and reciprocity.This will mirror somewhat my earlier question, but you ask when should we step in, how long should we ignore something like this (an injustice)? That's a valid question. Put another way... How long should other nations and cultures ignore injustices they see in our nation/culture? When should they step in?You presented an example where you WOULD want others to step in, but it was predicated on a subject you don't want. Imagine it is something you like, but they view as an injustice (or "wrong" for whatever reason). And should they be able to argue that you just like it because you were brainwashed from childhood to like it? Wouldn't your response be, who cares how I came to be this way if I like it? Isn't that all that matters... particularly for an individualist?Remember your points regarding FGM and MGM will be addressed in the other post. To everyone else, I hope this post addresses some of your own criticisms/questions. I will get to another post soon, concentrating on points I did not see raised in this one.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This post addresses the realities of FGM itself. People have thrown out a lot of descriptors regarding the practice which seem to indicate a general ignorance about how it is done, by who, and why. Admittedly, though I was able to spot some clear misconceptions, I was also ignorant to some large degree and did some learnin'!In the link above, you will find a good discussion of FGM. Instead of belaboring what has been claimed vs fact, I'll just stick to the facts. It has a limited general geographic range, especially compared to male genital mutilation (MGM) which I'll address later. It also comes in different forms, from a direct parallel to western MGM (just removing the hood which exposes the clitoris), to removal of all external genitalia (covering even the urethra) so that only a small hole remains. This might lead to the first question which would be if the degree of alteration matters to its morality, or applicability to "human rights"?In any case, there are varying reasons for this procedure. While the procedure (and we can use the most damaging one for our example, though keep in mind that is not the only kind) and its necessary follow ups are definitely tortu-ous, in the sense that it is excruciating, and oppress-ive in the sense that it has a binding obligation to the women who undergo it, calling it oppression and torture indicates an active intent on the part of those doing it which I don't think is accurate... or fair?The people within these cultures do not set out to hurt and make life worse for the girl (and surely not to make it more likely their children will die, right?). Indeed where better treatment is available they seek it out. When things go wrong they get the girl help. To the contrary, given their cultural beliefs about sex and genitalia, they believe they are improving the chances for a better life for the girl in question. And more to the point those doing it are almost invariably women who have had it done themselves, and want the chance for a good life for their daughters, grand daughters, etc. To this it might be noted how much status/prestige it comes with. The most severe form is called "pharonic" and is dated back to ancient egypt, where actual PHARAOS had the procedure, and it would be odd to think of them as oppressed. By tradition, okay, but then that is different than being oppressed by people.While their beliefs about sex and genitalia may seem ignorant, scratch that... ARE ignorant... these cultural standards are strong and not open to edicts, as history has shown. Passing laws, or other forms of enforcement has only increased resentment by those who practice it, and pushed it underground where the health risks are increased (hmmmm, just like abortion).Ironically one of their ignorances, have been repeated as factual here. While some women have had reduced or eliminated sexual pleasure, it has been found that most women have not had that problem. In fact , and we are talking the one's with total organ removal, are capable of more than satisfactory sex lives, including orgasms. While I can understand their myths, I was surprised to find people here thinking that a human body would not make up for a missing clitoris. The idea by some men that a clitoris alone is what makes a woman capable of having an orgasm is sad news indeed. Here's a study on that very topic. Note that it was western cultural ignorance which often led to a misunderstanding of the effects of this procedure on sexual gratification.This is already longer than I wanted to write, but I guess I'd like to ask so what if it did cut off sexual pleasure? Is sexual pleasure the only value a human life has? Would a woman's life mean nothing without it? And if sexual pleasure is important, does that mean cultures which don't cut off a clit, but are repressed sexually in general needing of change?This leads directly to my next point which is that attempting to end this practice by fiat, and in the nature of calling it such horrible things, and the women who have gone through it "mutilated", sort of does double damage. It in all practicality tells these women they ARE worthless, enforces them to hold that view (which seems cruel to me, especially the ones that feel their life is okay as is). And it sets up mechanisms which halt its ability to change as women who have had it and value it, don't want to view themselves that way. They will resist such commentary and any other information (which might be valuable) they could be given.Okay I should really wind this up quickly. Here's another article from the author on sexual satisfaction by those with pharonics. This author is no fan of the procedure and does view it as really horrible, ultimately a cultural instrument of sexual control (ironically failing due to ignorance of biology) in a sexually repressed society, and would like to see it end. Yet she lays out what I just did. Its very hard to end a cultural tradition. It is ingrained with views about the world as well as self. Legislation and other enforcements have had terrible backlashes. But there is something much more interesting in this article.While pretty much everyone here has suggested cultures affecting others is somehow natural and "good", the author above relates that it is spreading due to the pharonic cultures moving in to nonpharonic ones. So... is that good? If not, why not? Isn't this the natural "averaging" people talked about?And perhaps more interesting than that, pharonic FGM has actually increased in its severity in recent years due to EDUCATED women from these areas traveling to the West and discovering our "vaginal tuck" surgeries to make sex better for men and women alike. Yes it should be mentioned that the West has its own version of FGM, and it is catching on and growing. Albeit here is it Body Modification, and not allowed on the young.What's more the author, including citations from others, suggests that FGM is sort of a vicious cycle of traditional expectations regarding beauty and chastity, combined with the economical issues of health care in those areas. The practice generates a lot of money.Anyway, to wrap up on FGM, isn't it valid to see it as a form of extreme Body Modification, which these societies incorporated centuries ago, and do not view individualism in the same manner we do? Is there something inherently wrong with that? And if we can see that attempts to "save them" often have the reverse effect, isn't it better to provide them with methods to ease the problems associated with the practice, rather than to make it worse just to satisfy our own condemnations?By the way, Flies brought up MGMs, asking if this was being done to men if there wouldn't be a huge outcry over it? Well... it is, and there isn't. While it is true that "decapitation" does not always (gulp) occur, it does happen (if you saw how some tribe do it, you'd know why), along with other health problems associated with the MGM in general, and with poor hygiene conditions. Circumcision is much more common in the world than is FGM, and there are no laws against it in the west where we DO have laws against FGM. Hmmmmmmmmmm... But Circumcision is not the only form of MGM. Oh no. I'll leave out modern Body Mods such as splitting the whole thing in half, but traditionally there is pearling and subincision. Subincision is done on very young boys and is quite... nauseating.Yeah, so where's the uproar? My guess is because "violence against women" is considered worse than violence against men, its "victims" genitals more juicy to talk about, and young girls much easier to move the public's imagination. It is true that men are not intended to be "decapitated" as the harder FGMs are, but my guess is that is only because it would make reproduction virtually impossible. Is an erection and ejaculation possible without a head? This I do not know, but I can't imagine it would be easy, even if sensory-wise a man's body find new ways of gaining pleasure.But on MGMs, while some men do cry out about how horrible it is, and I personally don't like the fact that I had no choice and had suffered some minor issues from it... I gotta say my sex life was not impaired by it. I've had plenty of O's, and probably more than I needed. I don't feel that I'm "damaged", a victim, and less valuable. It pisses me off when anti-MC advocates make it seem so horrible and destructive. I'm sort of in the anti-MC crowd politically, but let's get a grip.... oh. Sorry.In any case, it makes me think of these women who by all accounts MOST do have pleasure and it is being mandated that they view themselves as total victims, because WE view them that way. I think with time... when biological facts make their rounds, as well as financial improvements... this practice will die down somewhat naturally, at least not be as extreme.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard