I'm having issues finding a link to it right now, but I spent several weeks watching and analyzing a documentary where a woman (raised in the US) returned to Africa to get herself circumcised in the village where her mother was born. She actually expressed that her sex life (having had sex both before and after the experience) was not terribly impacted, given that the pleasure centers of the clitoris extend far deeper into the body than can be removed, and that she still found stimulation there to be pleasurable. The film ran at the University of Chicago for a few days two years ago, and I did fairly extensive academic research on the subject at both UofC and Miami University (Ohio). Most non-academic media does not speak to voluntary circumcision, particularly that which does not include what has come to be called "genital mutilation". The removal of the labia or clitoral hood is a great example of female circumcision that has little negative impact on the pleasure center of the clitoris.
More than that, I'm surprised there's no mention of the North African (Maruitania) practice of force feeding and binding women to the floor so that they will grow obese. Stretch marks are considered the highest marker of beauty in this culture, and the girls are chained to beds for weeks at a time without their consent. Where's the outrage over that treatment, not to mention the health problems that come from sudden, life long obesity? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3429903.stm)
I'm concerned you may not have read my entire comment. Female circumcision is not limited to clitoral removal. And I did caveat that I was speaking about situations where the ritual was performed voluntarily. I don't think that any body modification should be performed without the understanding and consent of the person who is being subjected to it. I was merely trying to point out that female circumcision, like tattoing, piercing, and all other body modifications, has to be taken in the context of consent, intent, and severity.
I find it really interesting that out of all of the body mods listed here, only the female circumcision one has any judgement attached to it. I did a lot of research on the subject while studying sexual anthropology, and the issue is far from one sided, particularly in modern settings where the ritual is observed by the choice of the woman being circumcised. There are also instances of labial removal, removal of the hood surrounding the clitoris (which many women report enhances sexual pleasure for them), as well as ritual breaking of the hymen, etc. Over all (again, in situations where the woman is intentionally making the choice to be circumcised) many women report that the removal of the outer portion of their clitoris has little to no impact on their libido or enjoyment of sex. I actually was enjoying the fact that the article had little to no Western-typical judgement attached to it...and was disappointed to read that one section.
More than that, I'm surprised there's no mention of the North African (Maruitania) practice of force feeding and binding women to the floor so that they will grow obese. Stretch marks are considered the highest marker of beauty in this culture, and the girls are chained to beds for weeks at a time without their consent. Where's the outrage over that treatment, not to mention the health problems that come from sudden, life long obesity? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3429903.stm)
I'm concerned you may not have read my entire comment. Female circumcision is not limited to clitoral removal. And I did caveat that I was speaking about situations where the ritual was performed voluntarily. I don't think that any body modification should be performed without the understanding and consent of the person who is being subjected to it. I was merely trying to point out that female circumcision, like tattoing, piercing, and all other body modifications, has to be taken in the context of consent, intent, and severity.