Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!reed!ellen
From: ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Clitor(id)ectomy  (Re: Law and Christianity (sort of))
Message-ID: <1078@reed.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 17:21:08 EST
Article-I.D.: reed.1078
Posted: Tue Mar 12 17:21:08 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 04:03:45 EST
References: <156@osiris.UUCP> <205@rtech.ARPA> <1067@utastro.UUCP> <1269@ut-sally.UUCP> <1073@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Lines: 20

> At this point I think we do need references, or some knowledgeable netters.
> I think that there are various degrees of clitorectomy practiced.  Perhaps
> some of them, like male circumcision, do not affect sexual function.  Radical
> clitorectomy surely must.

Susan Griffin's work, and Mary Daly's, focus on clitoridectomy
as one form of female mutilation (along with footbinding,
hysterectomy, and witchburning).  As I recall, there are
differing degrees of mutilation, but all affect sexual function.
Some are more permanently damaging and others more
infection-prone (i.e. excise the clitoris, scrape the vulva raw,
sew up the wound with palm fiber and bind the legs together till
it heals -- or the girl dies from the infection...)  I find it
extremely difficult to believe that any clitoridectomy can *not*
affect sexual pleasure, or affect it positively, considering the
function of the clitoris itself.  I would recommend reading
Daly's book _Gyn/Ecology_ for more detail.

		-- Ellen