AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
I am troubled by Dr. Nawal M. Nour's comments ("Female Genital Cutting," Guest Editorial, July 1, 2005, p. 6).
She objects to the term "mutilation" to describe the practice of cutting away parts of the female genitalia as is still being done in some cultures. This horrific procedure makes women "acceptable" for marriage. Apparently, in these parts of the world it is considered reasonable to eliminate their sexual pleasure, and thus make women less likely to stray from their partners.
Dr. Nour seems to have a problem with the term "mutilation" because it "lacks neutrality." This suggests that we should be neutral as to whether this practice is good or bad. Does she really believe that we should refrain from being judgmental about this practice? As she concludes by hoping for its eventual eradication, she must clearly feel that it is a bad practice. Why not call it what it is: mutilation? One hopes there are occasions in life where "neutrality" can and should be abandoned, and a true evil be described as such. I doubt if much progress will be made in eliminating this barbarity so long as we insist upon tiptoeing around the need to refer to female genital mutilation in the appropriate terms.
David Priver, M.D.
San Diego
Dr. Nour replies:
Dr. Priver raises a controversial issue that has long been debated among politicians, nongovernmental organizations, and women who have undergone female genital cutting.