Mr Spinkles
Mr
Eugene I commend your evidence-based approach. However, I am confused because a cursory look at the study you cited seems to show that it is downplaying its own data. The conclusion in the abstract is: "Concerning sexuality, most of the existing studies suffer from conceptual and methodological shortcomings, and the available evidence does not support the hypotheses that [female] circumcision destroys sexual function or precludes enjoyment of sexual relations." But what about all the problems and the forms of reduction of sexual function and enjoyment which appears in the data in Table 1 of this study? For example, of women who were circumcised, 42 percent reported "no sexual desire" and 43 percent reported "no orgasm", whereas only 16 percent and 18 percent of uncircumcised women reported these sexual dysfunctions, respectively. No, technically the operation didn't "destroy" or "preclude" all enjoyment in every case, as concluded by the author of the study, but the data nevertheless seem pretty significant (especially if you were one of the unlucky ones left without desire or orgasm). Why does the the study downplay its own data?
Secondly, the website hosting the link to the study you cited has this to say:
Long term consequences:
These include anemia, the formation of cysts and abscesses, keloid scar formation, damage to the urethra resulting in urinary incontinence, dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse) and sexual dysfunction, hypersensitivity of the genital area. Infibulation can cause severe scar formation, difficulty in urinating, menstrual disorders, recurrent bladder and urinary tract infection, fistulae, prolonged and obstructed labour (sometimes resulting in fetal death and vesico-vaginal fistulae and/or vesico-rectal fistulae), and infertility (as a consequence of earlier infections). Cutting of the scar tissue is sometimes necessary to facilitate sexual intercourse and/or childbirth. Almost complete vaginal obstruction may occur, resulting in accumulation of menstrual flow in the vagina and uterus. During childbirth the risk of hemorrhage and infection is greatly increased.
These include anemia, the formation of cysts and abscesses, keloid scar formation, damage to the urethra resulting in urinary incontinence, dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse) and sexual dysfunction, hypersensitivity of the genital area. Infibulation can cause severe scar formation, difficulty in urinating, menstrual disorders, recurrent bladder and urinary tract infection, fistulae, prolonged and obstructed labour (sometimes resulting in fetal death and vesico-vaginal fistulae and/or vesico-rectal fistulae), and infertility (as a consequence of earlier infections). Cutting of the scar tissue is sometimes necessary to facilitate sexual intercourse and/or childbirth. Almost complete vaginal obstruction may occur, resulting in accumulation of menstrual flow in the vagina and uterus. During childbirth the risk of hemorrhage and infection is greatly increased.
It seems like the meta-analysis you cited by that one author is swimming against the current of most other studies, which find all sorts of harmful effects of female circumcision, including reduced sexual function and enjoyment. Can you talk about these apparent disagreements among experts?
Last edited: