Discourses on sexual pleasure after genital modifications: the fallacy of genital determinism (a response to J. Steven Svoboda)

Abstract

This is a reply to:

Svoboda, J. Steven 2013. “Promoting genital autonomy by exploring commonalities between male, female, intersex, and cosmetic female genital cutting.” Global Discourse. 3 (2): 237–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2013.804757

Notes

^1. See e.g. Shweder (2002, 2013); Bell (2005); Darby and Svoboda (2007); Solomon and Noll (2007); DeLaet (2009); Fox and Thomson (2009); and Johnson (2010) for similar analyses.

^2. When terms such as ‘clitoridectomy’ and ‘amputation’ are used, what is referred to is cutting of the external structures of the clitoris. This organ, however, stretches far into the body (O’Connell et al. 2005).

^3. In a discussion where intersex surgery is juxtaposed with female circumcision, the American law scholars Nancy Ehrenreich and Mark Barr contend that ‘intersex genital surgeries are medically unnecessary, are far more complicated than African genital cutting, and often have equally, if not more, serious physical and psychological consequences for their recipients’ (2005, 74).

^4. It is instructive to have a closer look at the actual raw data in the studies used to support the conclusions about statistically significant increased risk. The two studies showing that ‘women with FGM/C experience significantly less sexual satisfaction’ are Alsibiani and Rouzi (2010) and Thabet and Thabet (2003), described by Berg et al. as follows: ‘the quality of the evidence was “very low”’ (Berg et al. 2010, 44). Alsibiani and Rouzi used the instrument Female Sexual Function Index and found that circumcised women scored 2.1 points lower on a scale of possible range from 2 to 36. Osinowo and Taiwo (2003), another study of ‘low quality’ and yet included in the meta-analysis, used another instrument (Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction) where circumcised women scored 17.5 points lower on a scale with a range between 56 and 280. Also included in the evidence presented by Berg et al. is a study (also ‘low quality’) showing that 69.5% of the circumcised women reported sexual problems, while only 63.7% of the uncircumcised did so. Figures like these are the strongest evidence presented of the alleged detrimental effects of female genital cutting on sexuality.

^5. Accessible from: http://www.who.int/publications/en/

^6. The hypothesis behind the figures, showing increased risk of pain and sexual frustration among female partners, goes something like this: ‘When a circumcised man moves in and out of a woman without “the gliding movement” caused by the foreskin, it can have a painful effect on the woman’s mucous membrane. This could explain the pain and the tendency towards dryness that some women with circumcised men experience’, says the Danish epidemiologist Morten Frisch in an interview (ScienceNordic 2011). Further, according to Frisch, the circumcised man has to work harder to reach an orgasm, due to the desensitised glans of the penis, and that can lead to a painful experience for the woman.

^7. For an ongoing debate on the pros and cons of male circumcision, including the issue of sexual pleasure, see Svoboda and Van Howe (2013); Frisch et al. (2013); and the AAP Task Force on Circumcision (2013, American Academy of Pediatrics).

^8. E.g. Obermeyer (2005); Berg et al. (2010).

^9. E.g. Gruenbaum (2006).

^10. E.g. Foldès et al. (2012).

^11. E.g. Krieger et al. (2008).

^12. E.g. Kim and Pang (2007).

^13. E.g. Evans (2011).

^14. Conferring with studies by Kinsey, showing the enormous variation in the US in the 1940s (among uncut women, if not men). A prominent in-group variation like this – among cut and uncut women alike – was also what was found in these studies (Berg et al. 2010).

^15. Obviously, another central organ is the brain. The prevalence of sleep orgasms (or nocturnal orgasms) in men and women – in absence of tactile genital stimulation – demonstrates that sexual pleasure is not exclusively a matter of genital tissue.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sara Johnsdotter

Sara Johnsdotter Ph.D. (Social Anthropology, Lund University, 2002) is Professor in Medical Anthropology at the Department of Health and Society, Malmö University. Her research is concerned with genital modifications, particularly female circumcision. Since 1997 she has worked closely with gynaecologist Dr. Birgitta Essén on issues of sexuality and reproductive health in a migration context.