I had assumed that anything which would be classed as body modification would be a choice made by the individual. But in the lecture on this subject, circumcision was mentioned, of which the male variety can be consenting, but is not always. The female variety, which is also called by the much more descriptive name of female genital mutilation (FGM), is usually performed on very young girls and therefore not consenting. This practice is often thought of as being a religious one. In fact it is more usually a way for those groups practising it to control womens' sexuality.
A few years ago I read a book, Desert Flower, by model Waris Dirie. In it she tells of her own horrific experience of FGM as a child, and how it affected her life. It is a moving and inspiring story, which I would recommend to anyone. Waris eventually set up a charitable foundation to help other victims of this terrible practise and to raise awareness of the issue.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm This website gives more detail about the social rather than religious basis for FGM
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6287926.stm Here Waris describes her ordeal when she was subjected to FGM as a child.
1 comment:
I agree that the only point at which body modification concerns me is when it is inflicted upon non-consenting individuals. The most diturbing thing about non-consenting individuals having their body modified by others is that, due to the uniquely physical nature of the modification, the process often has to be carried out on the individual when they are not even aware of it's happening (such as when they are still a child and cannot critically analyse the situations they are presented with). This, therefore, takes the act of force-unconsented modification of another individuals body one step further. It has to be considered, in my mind, an invasion of another's being without their consent and seems to fall into the same ethical territory as rape.
Post a Comment