One would think an anthropologist would have found that interesting and plausible...
One would think that an anthropologist would be able to see thru obvious bullshit at a glance.
And she did.
I gave no more thought to Klein's unmitigated bullshit than a biologist would give to "creation science".
From what I could see...
You cannot judge an entire paper from its abstract.
If that were the case, then one wouldn't need to write the damn paper, now would one?
Did you not offer citations which were merely abstracts?
Two things.
One. I read the papers I cited. I cannot, in good faith, cut and paste entire papers here. They are copyrighted.
Two. I quoted relevant sections of the papers I cited, not just the abstracts.
My question to you... now what?
As with any research, one goes with the scientific consensus.
And the scientific consensus is, FGM destroys a woman's sexual response.
Am I supposed to ignore why you handwaved away my cite...
Do evolutionary biologists toss the ToE when one paper presents problematic findings?
No.
One reads the paper, pulls it apart.
If the methodology and data and analyses stand up to scrutiny, one tries to replicate the results.
And other researchers in this area are aware of Klein's findings.
And they find them no more credible than I do.
I am relying on the scientific consensus, as well as my own reading of original research that I find credible.
The second quote you referenced as coming from Hosken, F. (1993).
That is correct. Hosken cited another paper. Those wacky scientists. Go figure!
Your fourth cite was from amnesty which is also against FGM. You emphasized their statement that "a majority of studies on women's enjoyment of sex suggest that genital mutilation does impair a women's enjoyment." From which YOU then concluded studies I had cited, were "outliers".
I worked on finding and reading papers for over 3 hours. I drew my conclusions from that research. And yes, the papers you cited are outliers.
(Re: WHO site) That means their actual conclusion was NOT what you made it out to be.
Wrong.
The WHO made mention of Klein's paper. As they should.
The WHO knows Klein's paper is bullshit.
Which is why the WHO's conclusion remains:
The MAJORITY of the research shows most mutilated women have been robbed of sexual response.
As for the remainder of your pathetic attempt to bolster your position ... you can't read any of the papers you are criticizing. Therefore, you are in no position whatsoever to judge their merits.
Now. About this paper: Okonofu FE, Larsen U, Oronsaye F, Snow RC, Slanger TE. BJOG (2002 or 3).
Frequency of self-reported orgasm achieved during sexual intercourse and symptoms of reproductive tract infections ... Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings.
You will notice that there is no data in the abstract to support the conclusion.
Which is Reason Numero Uno that one must read a paper, yes?
Rather than point out the obvious (you can't read the paper and thus are in no position to use it to as evidence) let's, for the sake of argument, assume that both this paper and the two you cited in the earlier post are absolutely stellar. Methodologically sound, exquisitely analyzed, the whole nine yards (even tho we know Klein's is bullshit).
The fact remains:
The VAST MAJORITY of the research supports my contention that FGM destroys sexual response for MOST mutilated women.
Therefore, at best, there are 3 papers that support your idea that the MAJORITY of mutilated women retain sexual response.
That bumps you from 2 outliers to 3.
Hardly impressive.
As to your final cite, Ms. Bell's work. Ms. Bell doesn't deal empirically with the issue of sexual response at all. She simply acknowledges that the research is out there (that the majority of mutilated women are unable to climax) and then cites 2 anecdotes (Ahmadu, Gruenbaum) as evidence to the contrary.
In fact, the
majority of her paper is a rather tedious feminist pomo analysis of "Western v. Non-western ideas about gender and sexual response". And, as such, Ms. Bell's paper is irrelevant to a discussion of whether or not a mutilated woman is able to climax.
We are not debating Western v. Non-western
ideas about sexual response.
We are debating
physiological facts about sexual response: orgasm or no orgasm?
I do have a couple of bones to pick with Ms. Bell, tho.
Bell writes:
This is because the detrimental long-term health consequences seem limited largely to infibulation (see Obermeyer 1999, 2003; Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000:14-18; Shweder 2000), which accounts for around only 15 percent of cases.
Funny that she should mention Obermeyer. I read both those papers for my previous FGM post. And Obermeyer says NOTHING about 15% of FGMs being infibulation (aka type III).
I just pulled both Obermeyer papers up again.
The first is a literature review. The second is her response to criticisms that were made of the first paper.
NOTHING about 15%.
Shweder's paper hasn't any data in it either. It's just a response to Obermeyer's paper.
I can't read the Shell-Duncan cite. It's a book available only as a limited preview on books.google.
I found figures much, much higher than 15%.
We apologize for the inconvenience... - United States Department of State
Practice:
Type I (commonly referred to as clitoridectomy), Type II (commonly referred to as excision) and Type III (commonly referred to as infibulation) are the forms of female genital mutilation (FGM) or female genital cutting (FGC) practiced to varying degrees in Kenya. Type I and Type II are the most common. Type III is found in the far eastern areas bordering Somalia. Studies indicate it is practiced mostly in rural areas, especially among those that have lower educational levels and/or subscribe to non-Christian faiths. It is, however, also practiced by some Christians and was practiced by Ethiopian Jews, who now live in Israel.
Types I and II are most common.
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
A clitoridectomy removes the entire clitoris and some or all of the surrounding tissue; this procedure occurs in approximately 80% of cases. The most extreme form of genital mutilation is excision and infibulation, in which the clitoris and all of the surround tissue are cut away and the remaining skin is sewn together. Only a small opening is left for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. Infibulation accounts for approximately 15% of FGM procedures.
And there's that 15%! again!
Funny. It has nothing to do with the # of women who have had their clits hacked off.
The clitoris (its removal and its role in orgasm) is what we are discussing.
Bell writes:
Moreover, the short-term health effects can be minimized through the use of trained surgeons, sterile equipment, and anesthetics (i.e., the transfer of surgery to a medical setting).
That remains to be seen, now, doesn't it? As no MD will perform the operation. Seeing as how they took that silly oath and all.
Bell writes:
Obermeyer (1999:95) concurs, pointing out that while studies that systematically investigate the effects of genital cutting on female sexuality are rare, the available evidence raises important questions about whether the link between an intact clitoris and orgasm represents an indisputable physiological reality...
There's no question that SOME women retain the ability to climax. After all, most of the physiological structure that is the clit is buried deep in a woman's pelvis. (The 2 spongy bodies responsible for a penile erection--they are in the shaft--are analogous to 2 spongy bodies of the clit that are inside a woman--they are parallel to the anterior vaginal wall).
The fact remains:
The MAJORITY of mutilated women have little to no sexual response.
The MAJORITY of mutilated women suffer adverse health consequences.
You have presented NO evidence that the MAJORITY of the scientific research supports these conclusions.
So.
The only question on the table is this:
Does a woman have the human right to bodily integrity?
(For clarification: throughout this post, by "sexual response" I mean orgasm.)
™ Version 4.2
