In the United States, it is estimated that 77% of all men are circumcised. (1) The practice is so common, it is not thought of as what it is: sexual body modification and also, adherence to religious custom.

Keep that in mind, we'll get back to that in a few paragraphs.

Now comes yet another anti-female and anti-sexual bill by yet another state in the southeastern United States, this time, the state of Georgia:

Local6: Georgia House Outlaws Genital Piercing For Women

ATLANTA -- Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for female genital mutilation.

The bill would make such mutilation punishable by two to 20 years in prison. It makes no exception for people who give consent to have the procedure performed on their daughters out of religious or cultural custom.

An amendment adopted without objection added "piercing" to the list of things that may not be done to female genitals. Even adult women would not be allowed to get the procedure. The bill eventually passed 160-0, with no debate.

Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.

"What? I've never seen such a thing," Heath said. "I, uh, I wouldn't approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to be doing."

The ban applies only to women, not men.

Slack-jawed, indeed. I wonder, and it is a fair question: has Bill Heath (pictured above) undergone a religiously oriented, sexual body-modification? Chances are better than three in four that indeed he has.

This bill was originally meant to stop female circumcision, the practice where some cultures remove the clitoris of a young woman. Many mistake this as a Muslim practice, and indeed it is not -- female circumcision is not mentioned anywhere in the Holy Qu'ran

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE (Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D.)

Although there is no reference to circumcision at all in the Qur'an, there is a well-established tradition of male circumcision in Islam as a "sunnah" act (i.e., one following the practice of the Prophet and his companions). There is no mandate at all for female circumcision, however. Although female circumcision is not mandated, one tradition of disputed authenticity permits (but does not encourage) the removal of a minuscule segment of skin from the female prepuce, provided no harm is done. Permitting such a ritual constitutes an act of tolerance by Islamic law for pre-Islamic practices, and may be overruled by the Islamic prohibition against harmful acts. Consider, for example, that Islamic law protects a woman's right to sexual enjoyment, as demonstrated by the fact that a woman has the right to divorce on the grounds that her husband does not provide sexual satisfaction. It follows that Islamic law prohibits clitorodectomy (partial or complete) or infibulation, or any genital mutilation which impairs the woman's ability to enjoy sexual relations.

In other words, not only is this clearly not a Muslim practice, it would also appear to this lay person that under Islamic law, it is not permitted and therefore forbidden.

So, where does the practice of "female circumcision" or as it should more properly be labelled, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) emenate?

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION In Africa, The Middle East & Far East

The justification for the operation appears to be largely grounded in a desire to terminate or reduce feelings of sexual arousal in women so that they will be much less likely to engage in pre-marital intercourse or adultery. The clitoris holds a massive number of nerve endings, and generates feelings of sexual arousal when stimulated.

Uncircumcised women in countries where FGM is normally performed have difficulty finding a marriage partner. Men typically prefer a circumcised wife because they are considered more likely to be faithful. Other claims in support of FGM are:

The clitoris is dangerous and must be removed for health reasons. Some believe that it is a poisonous organ, that can cause a man to sicken or die if contacted by a man's penis. Others believe that men can become impotent by contacting a clitoris, or that a baby will be hydrocephalic (born with excess cranial fluid) if its head contacts the clitoris during birth. Some believe that the milk of the mother will become poisonous if her clitoris touches the baby during childbirth.

Bad genital odors can only be eliminated by removing the clitoris and labia minora.

FGM prevents vaginal cancer.

An unmodified clitoris can lead to masturbation or lesbianism.

FGM prevents nervousness from developing in girls and women.

FGM prevents the face from turning yellow.

FGM makes a woman's face more beautiful.

If FGM is not done, older men may not be able to match their wives' sex drive and may have to resort to illegal stimulating drugs.

An intact clitoris generates sexual arousal in women which can cause neuroses if repressed.

These claims appear to have little support outside of countries where FGM is common.

To my thinking, this is a barbaric practice, and should not be allowed, as it limits the freedom and choice of a young woman. Perhaps the state of Georgia was right in outlawing this practice, unless the female is of majority age (over 18) and makes the choice for herself to undergo this rite. After all, the only thing in life that is truly yours, or at the very least should be, is your own body and you should have the right to do with it as you please. But, Bill Heath, a Republican intends to take that away from from all Georgian women. What's even more troubling is that the bill passed unanimously and without debate. Are there no women in the legislature of Georgia, and are there no lawmakes there who value a right to privacy and freedom from governmental intrusion into the peaceful choices made by it's citizens?

Apparently not. And that, in and of itself, is the most troubling of all.

Anyway, obviously, this has far-wider consequences than stopping children from having the genetalia mutilated. The law as passed by the Georgia House also bans woman over 18 from having their labia, clitoral hood, etc. pierced for cosmetic purposes. Over the past ten or so years, getting a clit ring has proven to be a very popular thing -- not only are they attractive to some, they also increase the sensitivity of the clitoris for a woman who has one. (read here for more on that.) Clearly, this is done for adornment and not as a form of FGM, which stopping was the intent of the law as it was originally written. Moreover, a person has to be 1) of majority and and 2) sign her consent to have a genital piercing performed. So, clearly, it is a CHOICE, nothing more.

But Bill Heath changed all of that. He's not seen a clit ring, or so he says (we all know that many politicians are often pathological liars, though I am not questioning Mr. Heath) but not only that, it should be illegal because he "wouldn't approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to be doing."

Bill, let me clue you in on something: if I had a penis, quite frankly, I couldn't imagine allowing someone to grab it and skin alive 1/4th of it.

But that doesn't mean that I disapprove of your having such a thing done, if you are in the group of 77% of American men who have had this procedure. Sounds painful, and quite frankly, barbaric. And, sir, may I point out to you that you probably had this done when you were an infant, which basically says that it was at the whim of your parents? How does this jibe with your amendment?

What we have here is another case of politicians limiting the sexual freedoms of women. Worse yet, all too often these politicians are men, and they are making decisions for women about how they (women) live with their bodies. And it simply does not make sense on any level, at least if you consider my statement that each individual is the owner of their own flesh to be true.

This brings to mind once again Atwood's book "The Handmaid's Tale." If you have never read it, you should. It seems that it is a forecast for the procession of the fusion of conservative religious politics into our daily way of life. In Atwood's United States of the future, the government has been replaced by a religious theocracy that believes in the literal truth of the Bible. Democracy and freedom have been replaced by fascism, and America is a fortress designed to keep the citizens in and away fro the rest of the world. Those in the country are required to live underneath laws based on intrepretations of blblical passages. And this, dear reader, is without any choice whatsoever. Those that rebel are executed. In other words, imagine the United States fused with a hyper-conservative theocracy a la Iran, with the control of Nazi Germany and the technology and means of Orwell's 1984 to enforce all of this.

Is this where we are headed in reality?

It certainly seems so, with the south (always the south, have you noticed) leading the way to limit female sexual expression. I find this troubling that during a time when American soldiers die every day trying to protect the United States from a group of religious fanatics that we are busily doing to ourselves exactly what they are trying to do to us.

That's why you should vote this fall if you are able. I will not tell you how or who to vote for, but it is more critical now than almost any other time in our history for all of our citizens to make our voices heard. That is (and this is meant for my female readers) unless you want men to decide how you should live with your body.

--- Credit Where It Is Due: Some of the ideas and information in my article originated with this article: Bill Heath: American Traitor. The words (except the quotes and italicized portions) are my own. Posted by tina at March 28, 2004 03:43 PM