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.
There are times when I seriously wonder if we are all living in the 21st century, or at the very least, if all of America is, well, America. I was raised to believe that this was a country where the rights of our citizens were prized, and that government's ability to meddle in our affairs was held in check by the legal system. Then I run across news items such as the one below that shatter those beliefs and make me realize that indeed, in some ways, parts of the good ole' USA is no better than the mullahs that run Iran or the apparatichik which ran the Soviet Union. Some people in Iran and Russia took it upon themselves to decide how everyone else should live, and apparently it happens here too. There are places in America that are not truly free and they do not live up fully to the ideals of the founders of this country, at least in my humble opinion. One such place is Mississippi:
Clarion Miss. Ledger: Justices uphold sex toys ban
The Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a state law that bans the sale of sex toys.
The justices also said the advertising of the sexual devices is not protected by the right to free speech. Such advertisements, the court said, promote an illegal transaction.
Adam and Eve and ZJ Gifts LLC, the Memphis-based owner of Christal's chain of adult stores, sued the state of Mississippi in 2001. The company claimed the law barring the sale of certain adult devices was unconstitutional.
Presiding Justice Bill Waller Jr., writing Thursday for the court, said state law provides that physicians and psychologists may prescribe sexual devices for their patients, and the patients may buy them from the physicians and psychologists.
"The novelty and gag gifts which the vendor plaintiffs sell have no medical purpose," Waller wrote.
Waller said there is no fundamental right of access to buy sexual devices.
Let's Think About This -- This IS America, Right?
This bothers me -- a lot. I question, first of all, what concern it is of anyone else's what I do with my body so long as I do not bring harm to others. And, I defy you to tell me exactly how masturbating in private brings such harm to anyone else.
Secondly, I wonder why it is considered immoral to masturbate with a toy. Sure, sure, quote me any religious text you like, and then I will point out that the United States was settled by Europeans originally because they were fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of implies freedom from, or so Margaret Atwood, the author of "The Handmaid's Tale" once wrote. And she is right -- the freedom of a thing has the definite implication that you are not required to adhere to that thing. In this case it is religion. After all, I am expressing my freedom of religion by not partaking in yours.
Third, and this is a subtle point, but were any women on the Supreme Court of the "great" state of Mississippi? This I truly wonder. Obviously, this decision is in regards to sexuality, and for that matter, women's sexuality because the largest users of sex toys are women. What about equal representation under the law?
Is This What's Coming -- Or Should I say, What's NOT Cumming?
Oh well. At least it is not here, where I live, but at the same time, I view this as a harbinger of what entrenched conservatism might bring us. I personally don't care how you vote, that's your choice, and I will make mine, but I do want you to consider that some people (on either end of our politics) think that they know better than you when it comes to how you choose to live. Like the justices of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, they are enemies of freedom, and they wish to control how you act, think, what you do, who with and when, all according to their adjudication of morality. Well, thanks, fellas,. but I can determine my own morality without your help.
I suppose you could sum up the thoughts I have towards the incredibly enlightened justices of the Mississippi Supreme Court: One, a battle cry in the Revolutionary era of the nascent United States was four simple words: "Don't Tread On Me."
The well-known and respected Village Voice columnist and author of several sexually oriented books, Tristan Taormino recently made an appearance at the Greensboro campus of the University of North Carolina. That's where her troubles began, as a professor at another school in the UNC system decided that her appearance was worth some political mileage, whereupon he took it upon himself to vent his moral outrage in the press and on the internet. Along the way, he pretty much libelled Taormino, making an argument with a number of factual errors.The UNC-Greensboro (UNCG) College Republicans recently invited me to their campus to speak on the topic of political correctness. Like all of my other speeches, I arrived about an hour early and thus had a chance to explore the UNCG campus. In fact, I was so early I had enough time to read the last two editions of their student newspaper, The Carolinian.
Like many college student newspapers, much of the writing focused on mundane subjects of little interest to those who have matured beyond their college years. And like many student papers, there was a lot of focus on sex. One column, written under the heading "Token Vagina" encouraged promiscuity while lamenting the need of some to keep track of the number of people with whom they have had sex. Another article presented a truly diverse perspective on sex by focusing solely on masturbation.
The article that really caught my attention was about anal sex. It told how Tristan Taormino, author of "The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women," recently spoke at the university. Taormino is a porn star and director who refers to herself as "the poster girl for anal sex." Her speech was co-sponsored by the Office of Student Life and the UNCG Wellness Center. That means that the North Carolina taxpayers actually paid to promote pornography and anal sex all in the name of "wellness" and "diversity."
Actually, according to Taormino, Adams is wrong on several counts. She says that she is indeed not a "porn star" and that the good taxpayers of North Carolina indeed did not pay for lecture. Instead, that was funded out of student fees, which are paid by the students of the school and not taxpayers.
Village Voice: Southern Discomfort (Taormino Column)
Let's get a few things straight. Calling me a porn star is like calling Michael Jordan a baseball legend. It's not only a gross, inaccurate exaggeration, but it devalues all the hard work actual adult performers do each and every day to create films that entertain and arouse people in a $10 billion-a-year industry. The average porn star's career spans 200 to 300 movies. I have appeared in exactly three: two videos based on my book The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women, and one independent erotic short film produced and directed by the publishers of Libido magazine. Yes, I am a pro-porn feminist. Yes, if a student asks me a question about pornography, including why I am involved in it, I will answer it, but I do not proselytize about nor recruit for the adult industry when I speak at college campuses. But even if I were a porn star, that would not make me unqualified or unfit: Real former and current porn stars including John Stagliano, Sharon Mitchell, Nina Hartley, Devinn Lane, Annie Sprinkle, Candida Royalle, Porsche Lynn, and others have spoken at top universities around the country.
Apparently, if you read the column, Adams is a little ticked off that his clearly political rantings at the university were not paid for by said school. Of course, he was up there to condemn "political-correctness" (among other things) which is really right-wing code for leftish thinking. I will say that I think that the right did have a point when some at universities tried to enforce their political ideals by claiming that theirs were the only politically correct ones (hence the term) and that those that disagreed with them certainly had "something wrong with them." And, ironically, those leading the charge against this are trying to enforce their own brand of fascist thinking on those that they consider the great unwashed -- the ones who do not ascribe to their political leanings. Sound familiar? Indeed. It would seem that Professor Adams was in Greensboro (about a four hour's drive) from his Wilmington campus in order to proceed to do exactly what he was there to protest.
In response to Gay Pride Week at UNC-G, the College Republican Club had this agenda to counter:
In the week after my speech, the CRs wrote me a letter indicating that are going to fight the efforts of the university to censor their views by proceeding with Morals Week. In fact, they sent me an overview of events they plan to host, which are centered around the following daily themes:
Monday: Morals Week Kickoff
Tuesday: American Pride Day
Wednesday: No Hump Day (Abstinence Day)
Thursday: Right to Life Day
Friday: Wrap Up (with a speech at the Student Union Auditorium by Mike Adams).
If the university refuses to fund any of these events, they will need support from the legal community. For that purpose, the CRs can be contacted at gop@uncg.edu .
The last sentence was from the above-linked column, where he clearly threatens his own employer with legal action if they do not comply with his legal demands. Or some other such tripe. In my experience, threatening those that you work for is not the best way to seek a raise or rise through the ranks. Time will tell all, but we have seen this before, all of us.
At any rate, I would be that this was the highlight of the school year for many a student. UNC-G is a middling campus in the UNC system, and is not exactly in a party or resort town. Can you imagine the conversations in dorms?
Student 1: "Done with your ECON yet?"
Student 2: "Yeah, what you wan to do?"
Student 1: "I don't know, let's go down and celebrate "No Hump Day!"
Student 2: "Boogity boogity! Let's GO!!!"
Right. Sure.
I'd like to give Professor Adams and the College Republicans some advice, if they are willing to listen: if you do not like a speaker, do not attend the lecture. Part of adult living is learning to allow viewpoints you do not agree with, and that's called being intelligent. However, if you must protest, don't draw attention to the event in the press -- it only makes you look foolish, because it creates a backlash. Especially when you pick a fight with a relatively well known and respected writer who has a world-wide stage. She will get the last word in, and more people will hear what she has to say than you ever will.
Maybe Professor Adams should go back to school and study some political science? Or, at the very least, some manners, and learn how to, as we say here in the south "to keep yo' damn mouth shut."
And, finally, my last bit of advice to Mike Adams: try looking up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary. They did a very nice job with your picture, don't you think?