On Jan 10, 2004, at 8:57 PM, Anthere wrote:
I went to the article about clitoris for a tiny comparison, as a huge number of african girls are circonsized as well (some of them being french, as this is still practiced in secret among african immigrants). It is also practiced in other countries; A minority, just like masculine circoncized, but a relevant number anyway.
There are no pictures of circonsision in the article.
There should be (I think). Care to look for one? :)
And no picture in particular showing a natural clitoris with a label saying "un-circoncized clitoris".
What would you feel when seeing the pict of a perfectly classical (for us) clitoris, with the label being not "clitoris" but being "uncirconcized clitoris" ? Would it feel quite right ?
Would it ?
I understand your point, but I think it's a matter of context. If we show an "uncircumcised penis" (this all goes for "clitoris" too) next to a "penis", then yes, that is POV: one is implied to be "normal". If we show an "uncircumcised penis" next to a "circumcised penis" (as you did on [[circumcision]]) the implication is that the circumcised one had something done to it, namely a circumcision. That's not POV, that's fact, and it's also closer to your opinion.
But hey, a penis is a penis is a penis, folks.
The topic of female circonsision is only very shortly mentionned in two lines at the bottom of the article. And that's it. Not mentionned in the anatomy. Not additional link.
Now, I wonder what an african reading these two articles, one proeminently talking about a practice he does not really know about, and another hardly mentionning what is cultural norm to him, would think.
Your points here are truly valid. Let's fix the clitoris article.
Peter
--- Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity. --Harry Shearer, Le Show