somewhat reluctantly, i agree.
the ad creeps me out, and in a way that does not work to spotlight what is wrong w/ fgm. the wrongness of the ad overshadows the wrongness of the thing its protesting.

that said, my reluctance comes from the fact that 1) i'm grateful for seeing *any* attempt to raise the profile about this, and 2) it's not easy for me to say what the appropriate visual or message should be, or what a better one would be.

when we're campaigning to help cleft-palate victims, we show people with cleft palates. the parallel option here would not be any better than this doll-debacle.

so what *would* be a good visual? what combo if image and message would spotlight exactly what is so wrong about fgm, without distracting from the issue? i ask in all earnestness.

i agree Jessica. when i saw this ad i immediatly thought it was a lynx ad (i think the product is called axe in the states) because it had a blow up doll in it-which seems strange it being placed in an advertsiement trying to highlight a woman's issue rather than make fun of us.

female mutilation, like rape-is not about sex but ultimatly about exercising power over women. maybe someone should make an advert coming from that angle. i personally liked the rose adverts you featured a while back although i know not everyone did. i still think they are miles better than this ad as i felt they drew attention to thinking about what happens down there in a graphic and more illustrative way.

"Using a blowup doll to depict a woman who has undergone FGM is incredibly offensive - they're literally being portrayed as no longer human, just a sex toy."

I don't see how this is offensive because it's a direct reflection of reality. In Egypt for example: "...aesthetic reasons are sometimes cited for the operation, and this is occasionally said in other areas of Africa as well...women's external genitalia are ugly and must be removed to make her acceptable to a man."
(http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/first/hosken.html)
Other reasons for this operation are that women are unable to control their own sexuality and a popular notion in some communities is that uncircumcised women are akin to prostitutes.
The issue is overwhelmingly sexual and therefore I think that the imagery used makes a valid point about the reduction of women who have undergone FGM (in some societies) to childbearers and objects solely for male pleasure.
Also, when the topic of FGM comes up, most people automatically think of the loss of sexual sensation so I think this ad campaign- although it only focuses on one issue associated with the horrors of FGM- is effective in raising awareness for the cause and engaging people in discussion about the topic.

I agree with cav.

Furthermore, I think that the ad is MEANT to be borderline offensive – in the same way that the very idea of FGM is offensive.

While I understand the argument that it perhaps dehumanizes women who have undergone FGM, the point is to be shocking, and this is something that it certainly accomplishes.

And as cav said, it is an overwhelmingly sexual issue, and I think that it’s appropriate for them to deal with it on that level.

It’s not saying that women who have undergone FGM are no longer human; I believe that it’s more about exposing the ways that women are perceived in countries where FGM is practiced.

Hmm, I agree that the picture is abrasive, but I don't take offense to it. I think they are conscious of the ridiculous look of a blow up doll in that setting. They are saying the FGM practitioners are the ones reducing women to their body parts and that that is wrong. I don't think they are reducing women to their body parts.

For more information about FGM and to take action, you can also visit: Equality Now

Also, has anybody seen this: http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/shockvertising-against-mutilation

I like the ad b/c I think it reminds us that FGM is about objectification and dehumanization. The sad reality is that victims are not simply human beings who can't experience pleasure. These women are viewed as just blow-up dolls and that is why FGM was done to them in the first place.

This ad plays to the "shock" factor. It takes something that may be perceived as insulting or shocking to raise awareness about something that is extremely traumatic and often dangerous. Whether the ad is right or wrong...well, who is the audience for this ad?

Although I do agree that FGM is certainly a horrific practice that needs to be eradicated, I think how the message is put out needs to be edited.

I feel this Northwestern Law Journal article expresses a point that needs to be considered on how the campaign against FGM is conducted:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v6/n1/5/

The article expresses that we should consider cultural differences when trying to address the problem of FGM. I do not necessarily think we should default to cultural relativism, but I think that needs to be a consideration on how we go about addressing the issue of FGM.

I totally agree with cav et all, but I'll add my own phrasing to say the same thing.
These women are *already reduced to sex objects by their culture. The ad expresses that.

I wonder if any women who have experienced FGM were involved in making this ad campaign? That would be one of my first questions. I haven't studied the issue in-depth, but I know that many women who have experienced forms of genital cutting can still experience physical sexual pleasure. That doesn't make the circumcision--imposed on young girls without their free consent--right. But it does complicate the Western narrative that is in evidence in this ad campaign.

"Not only is the ad dehumanizing, it also suggests that FGM is all about sex"

Um, well, yeah. One of the larger motivators for FGM is control of female sexuality. If that doesn't say FGM is about sex, then I don't know what does.

While the ad is a bit ridiculous and I do think it's wrong to compare victims of FGM to blow up dolls, your argument leaves a bit to be desired.

The problem with the "female" blow up doll being linked to FGM would be the implication, which has not been founded, that those who "enjoy" a blow up doll, would agree with FGM. I do not believe any such link has been made.

Furthermore, it implies that men (or women) who "enjoy" blow up dolls, objectify women. That has not been proven either.

I'm sure that the those who support FGM also disapprove of doll "usage." They probably think of such activities as immoral among other things.

In any event, I would think that if the victims of FGM think of themselves as sexual objects then they would think of themselves as such regardless to whether their privates were mutilated or not which would be an entirely larger and probably more problematic issue.

The reason FGM is such a tragedy is that it is incredibly dangerous and ignorant of a woman's autonomy. Less feeling (because I can't imagine it takes away all feeling) during sex is a side effect. But this ad, and (surprising to me) many posters here, imply that it is all about sexual sensations.

So yes, I do think this ad is bad, and an ad that highlights the woman's lack of choice in the matter would be more effective and more reflective of what the main problem with FGM is.

A better ad would use imagery that implies the loss of independent decision-making, and might say something like, "Imagine being locked up for the rest of your life for the crime of being born," or something along those lines.

I find this ad frustrating because in my discussions with feminist who have either undergone FGM or are from nations where the practice is common, many are working to end the practice but are constantly frustrated by being portrayed as helpless and lacking any agency of their own. While that was likely not the intent of the blow-up doll comparison, I still think that is has that effect.

I just wish there would be an equal amount of outrage when it comes to male genital mutilation. Yes, it doesn't involve as much mutilation, but it still mutilates a person without even their consent. It still decreases sexual pleasure(though not as much). It still causes pain(though not as much). EVERYONE has the right to genital integrity regardless of gender. I think that's a very powerful message, and I think being against FGM while turning a blind eye to MGM is contradictory.

What AP said. I think this ad is atrocious and does little to further the cause of women, many who have undergone FGM, who combat what they see as a disciminatory practice against themselves and other women. Portraying them as blow-up dolls seems to be off the mark. I personally liked the campaign with the roses that were sewn shut.

Also, can we have one discussion about FGM without someone bringing up "male genital mutilation"? The fact of the matter is that what men undergo is in no way comparable to the subjugation of women who are forced to undergo a procedure that often results in infections, death, loss of sensation, etc.

How is MGM not comparable? It involves the permanent mutilation of the genitalia for cultural reasons. It can lead to death and infections. It does reduce sensation. It's not as much mutilation, but it still violates bodily integrity without consent. Why should men not have the protections as women?

annajcook and AP, yes and yes. I'm with you.

I really have a big problem with the argument that women who have undergone FGM have "already been reduced to sex objects" by their culture.

Liz, I also think that saying FGM is just about sex is pretty simplistic. Yes, part of FGM is about control over women's sexuality - but to reduce the issue to sex and vaginas isn't helpful to anyone.

These ads are literally saying that women who have undergone FGM are NO LONGER FULL WOMEN. They're fake, plastic, not human, incapable of feeling pleasure, emotion, etc. That's incredibly offensive and condescending.

boys/men who undergo circumcision under the same cultural vein as FGM, consent to do so as a means to attain manhood. I'm not sure I can make the same argument for the girls/women involved since I've heard stories of both consent(if not reluctant) and of being grabbed up by the head female of the family early in the morn.

Hey sorry to point out a technical gitch everyone, but somehow things got switched and my comment is actually the one about the ad denying agency, not the comment about MGM. I am a bit paranoid since this is my first post, and since I have never thought at all critically or intellectually about MGM , didn't want to create confusion. Thanks.

Lily said:
I just wish there would be an equal amount of outrage when it comes to male genital mutilation.
Why should men not have the protections as women?
Your mistake is making the assumption that we all think men don't deserve the same protection or that we aren't upset about male circumcision as well.

No, we are not discussing Western male genital mutilation here. That's because we are currently discussing female genital mutilation that happens in other nations. For you to come in huffing and puffing (just like someone always does in a FGM discussion) about how we ought to be thinking of the men too is ridiculous. It's like me going to a black rights group and complaining that they aren't pay enough attention to the plight of Asian women.

I agree with Jessica. Imagine if you were a woman who had been victimized by FGM - would you want to be portrayed like this? I doubt it. I know I wouldn't.

Lily. Yes, male circumcision is a violation of a child's bodily integrity. Yes, it can cause pain. Yes, it's done for cultural reasons. But FGM is several orders of magnitude more harmful to the victim. That's not an insignificant detail - and that's why there's so much more focus on FGM on feminist blogs.

Ideally, we would respect children's right to bodily integrity no matter what their gender. As Twisty says, Fuck Culture.

What NekkidNancy said. I'm not saying there shouldn't be outrage about MGM, but I'm sick of seeing another thread on women turn into a "what about the men?" discussion! We should stay on topic.

I agree that the ad goes too far, but I admire their attempt to describe the effects and purpose of FGM. I've spoken to some men who are confused about FGM because it is often described as circumcision. They think FGM is a much milder thing that it really is, because they and most of their friends have been circumsized and it doesn't interfere with their lives or ability to enjoy sex. When we fail to make the distinction between FGM and the male circumcision commonly performed in the US a huge number of people miss the point entirely. This can be avoided by 1) making publicity about FGM as clear as possible 2) not inviting the conflation of FGM and male circumcision by addressing them as if they are the same thing.
I am not suggesting that male circumcision is necessary or good, it is just not the same and not nearly as damaging, malicious or cruel as FGM. Not even close.

As a shock tactic, it works just the way it should: it makes people sit up and pay attention.

As for the implicit message, they should have a follow-up ad about the dignity of all people - men and WOMEN - that is being denied when people have unnecessary surgery forced upon them.

Actually, an ad about forced unneccesary heart surgery would be a good one!

I've spoken to some men who are confused about FGM because it is often described as circumcision. They think FGM is a much milder thing that it really is,

From what I understand, there are many shades of gray when it comes to female circumcision/genital mutilation. In some instances it's more of a ceremonial drawing of a drop of blood from the genitals. In others, it's the full on horror show of the cutting out of the clitoris and sewing of the vagina. It also involves procedures that are in between these extremes.

I wouldn't want any of it, personally, but it doesn't always involve the most gruesome extreme.

I think it's important to remember that FGM KILLS people, too! Infections, bleeding, god knows what else actually kills many of the women that have it done to them.

I don't really see anything wrong with the ad. Yes, I don't like the idea of women being reduced to just thier genitals, but I also believe that if this is an effective frame for communicating their mission, then they should go with it. If more people start listening to this discourse and learn about it because the FGM campaign is putting out ads of blow-up dolls, then so be it. While I think the fact that many women die is the more upsetting aspect of this issue, I do also think that we have all become fairly callused to campaigns that try to end "dying" (sad to say). The shock factor of a woman who can't feel is much greater and more disturbing.

ellestar,
Yes, those are important distinctions to make and doing so would go a long way toward raising understanding of the "horror show" that some women and girls experience. I think campaigns that provide more information (who does what and why) and less shock would serve the purpose better. After all, simply telling the truth is shocking enough in this case.

To those who don't like the ad: I agree that it could have been done better but it's still effective. We're talking about it, thus it has achieved its goal.

I'll admit to previous apathy on this matter. I thought that this abhorrent practice was almost nearly extinct.

As a blog with a significant following perhaps our host could turn this into a positive experience by seeking alternative submissions that could be used to spread this message in a more effective manner?

To those who don't like the ad: I agree that it could have been done better but it's still effective. We're talking about it, thus it has achieved its goal.

I'll admit to previous apathy on this matter. I thought that this abhorrent practice was almost nearly extinct.

As a blog with a significant following perhaps our host could turn this into a positive experience by seeking alternative submissions that could be used to spread this message in a more effective manner?

To those who don't like the ad: I agree that it could have been done better but it's still effective. We're talking about it, thus it has achieved its goal.

I'll admit to previous apathy on this matter. I thought that this abhorrent practice was almost nearly extinct.

As a blog with a significant following perhaps our host could turn this into a positive experience by seeking alternative submissions that could be used to spread this message in a more effective manner?

I'm from a country that has a huge saturation of female genital cutting; it is the norm. I used to be pissed off that Westerners who "didn't understand the culture" would rail against it and call it "mutilation," but I've thankfully seen how messed up this knee-jerk anti-colonialism is (and how pro-cutting forces hide behind the same anti-colonialist banner to defend this harmful practice, which angers me to no end--because shredding women's bodies is just SO revolutionary and sticking it to the Whiteman, right?).

Hmm, the blow-up doll. I understand JEssica's point about reducing women to their sexuality, and the negative message this sends to women who have undergone the cut. Although I also see the points on the other side--that this IS about sexuality to a large degree--my bigger concern is that the pro-cutting powers that be will jump on this ad campaign to support their justification.

i.e. "See how those Westerners are sex-obsessed and see sex in everything, even our most venerable customs?" Throw in the fact that the doll looks European and is posed in an ostensibly non-Western setting and headdress, and this just seems like a recipe for those f--ers to start braying about "Human rights campaigns: the West's new colonialsm."

And Lily, please refrain from non-sequiturs about male cutting. I speak as one whose closest friends were circumcised in terrifying initiation ceremonies at age 14+ -- the practice is terrible in its denial of agency, and I am all for abolishing the cutting of any minors, male or female. In fact, because most feminists will agree with me, and because we ARE discussing female cutting, your argument is an unfortunate strawperson that detracts from the issue at hand.

I agree with Jessica. I would be terribly hurt and pissed if I had undergone FGM and this is what people thought of me. Not only did this horrible FGM happen, but now because of it, people think I am like a rubber doll? No way.

Lily, if it's any consolation, I completely agree with you. When I first found out what male circumcision is, I started crying because I was horrified that something like that had happened to my little brother. And yes, there are baby boys who do die or have extreme complications from circumcision in this country - the problem is that most people aren't educated on the issue.

As feminists we should be against genital mutilation for BOTH genders. In this country little girls are legally protected from genital mutilation but boys are not. Obviously FGM is horrific and wrong, but MGM is as well. ALL genital mutilation is. I don't see how expressing concern for men is taking away from the concern we have for women, and I don't think Lily is going completely off-topic when the subject is genital mutilation.

I agree with biancamarisa. I find it difficult to agree with an "awareness campaign" that insults the supposed beneficiaries of the campaign.

My first response to this ad was to think man, that's so blatantly offensive and insensitive... it's got to be a test campaign or a student project

There are better ways of garnering shock than comparing women to sex toys--especially since this is a comparison that progressive women are continually trying to escape and abolish. The sewn up roses are a good example. Or how about a detailed list of what is involved in FGM? I think if the sign just got people to read as far along as "excises the clitoris", that would elicit plenty of shock, horror, and dismay.

In essence, they're trying to sum up the problem.

FGM is usually performed in communities where men have more power over women. They try to control women by taking away the ability to feel pleasure during sex, mainly to keep women from having affairs\bearing children from other men.

In fact the idea of having my vagina sewn shut because of a paranoid and mentally\emotionally insecure husband still gives me nightmares.

"Female circumcision" still is a hellish idea. Again, this variety is just as terrifying.

I can't stand the fact that as humans, we haven't progressed as far as we should. I guess some people cling to the sexist "Men always know best" ideal.

I, personally, don't think that the ad directs appropriate attention to FGM. Using an image of a blow-up doll actually seems to remove the human face from the issue in a negative way, to disassociate the image of a suffering human and replace it with something that most people are actually socially conditioned to be able to laugh at. Many people here may understand and appreciate where the ad was trying to go, but preaching to the choir doesn't help much. I feel that the agency should take this into account while trying to raise awareness of the situation.

I find it entirely appropriate that an ad campaign, addressed at a human rights violation whose very goal is to eliminate female sexual pleasure and reduce women to fuck-toys, would, well, depict those women as unable to experience sexual pleasure.

Horrific practises ought to inspire us to depict them as horrific. IMHO, it would be MORE offensive to portray those women as having the equivalent sexual response (not sexuality, mind you) of women who have not been mutilated. If women still experience sexual pleasure, it is not because they are extraordinary or wonderful, although that may be the case; it is because the procedure failed to fulfill its purpose.

"but I've thankfully seen how messed up this knee-jerk anti-colonialism is (and how pro-cutting forces hide behind the same anti-colonialist banner to defend this harmful practice, which angers me to no end--because shredding women's bodies is just SO revolutionary and sticking it to the Whiteman, right?)."

Yeah, sticking it to The Man seems to be the fashionable excuse for just about anything these days. >:(

"Although I also see the points on the other side--that this IS about sexuality to a large degree--my bigger concern is that the pro-cutting powers that be will jump on this ad campaign to support their justification.

"i.e. 'See how those Westerners are sex-obsessed and see sex in everything, even our most venerable customs?' Throw in the fact that the doll looks European and is posed in an ostensibly non-Western setting and headdress, and this just seems like a recipe for those f--ers to start braying about 'Human rights campaigns: the West's new colonialsm.'"

Seriously, thanks for the important reminder!

"FGM is usually performed in communities where men have more power over women. They try to control women by taking away the ability to feel pleasure during sex, mainly to keep women from having affairs\bearing children from other men."

OTOH, what about where men dominate and women mutilate even if their husbands tell them to leave the girls alone?

I got the impression that, in *those* cases, maybe it's part of chains of disadvantaged people who can't fight back taking out their frustration on even less advantaged people instead? Like when a husband powerless against his boss thinks "at least I have power over my woman," a wife powerless against her husband thinks "at least I have power over my girls," etc.

"I think if the sign just got people to read as far along as 'excises the clitoris', that would elicit plenty of shock, horror, and dismay."

...and some people who don't already know about the issue misreading "excises" as exercises or wondering what excise taxes have to do with genitals. Instead of preaching to the choir, how about using language like "cuts off the clitoris" instead?

OTOH, what about where men dominate and women mutilate even if their husbands tell them to leave the girls alone?

I got the impression that, in *those* cases, maybe it's part of chains of disadvantaged people who can't fight back taking out their frustration on even less advantaged people instead? Like when a husband powerless against his boss thinks "at least I have power over my woman," a wife powerless against her husband thinks "at least I have power over my girls," etc.

I think you're missing some of it, Mina. Been to high school? (I don't mean that to sound snitty.) The girls are often much, much worse than the boys in terms of enforcing rigid, anti-girl social norms: thou shalt date, not compete with the boys, not be a standout, compete to be pretty and girly and giggly, etc.

This, in part, seems like a continuation of that theme. The men have provided the chains; women bind each other in them. In high school, the chains are physical attractiveness and submission (i.e. thou shalt not be threatening); in Muslim countries, they are lack of sexual satisfaction. Yes, it could be jealousy - why should those girls be able to experience that which they will never experience? - but I think a lot of it has to do with enforcing the social norms to maintain their own status. What would someone think of a woman who didn't allow her daughter to be cut?

Could it also be that it is such a horrible and traumatic thing that these women do not want to acknowledge that even their husbands, in whose name such atrocities are practised, do not condone it? That their husbands would prefer their genitals to be intact? That after having a clitoridectomy, they are less appealing to their husbands? After all, when the husbands beg to leave their daughters alone - IMHO, the father instinct at its finest - they are saying that their daughters are better off without this, and that any gratification it will bring to her future husband and thus to her marriage is negligible. That must be a second slap in the face, although it is a very powerful testament to the horrors of this practise.

Read Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery?" The whole thing reminds me of that.

Hmm, yes, why is it so off-topic to talk about male genital mutilation as well? Didn't male circumcision come about in America as ALSO a way to control men's sexuality? Male circumcision was a way, deemed by the Church, to put an end to masturbation...or something. Didn't I read that somewhere..? It's still a choice here, yet I still feel like some parents are suckered into snipping without knowing the facts first and it's just accepted as "just the way it is." I hate it when nobody thinks twice. I dunno but, there seems to me more pros than cons in remaining uncircumcised as a male. Oh gods, I'm sorry to derail. Mutilation of the nether regions is just a big big no-no, okay, no matter the sex, and I wish MGM were addressed more in this country instead of accepted as "that's the way it is and always will be and NYAHHH DON'T YOU DARE CHANGE IT!" Sigh...

I don't understand the "feel nothing" line that this group seems to use in many of their ads. (http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/shockvertising-against-mutilation)

I'm pretty sure that women can physically feel a lot of things post-clitoridectomy... including sex.

Also, the blow-up dolls with their open mouths ready to be penetrated don't make sense here.

Is the implication meant to be that all members of local society see women this way? That men in the culture see women this way, and we are to assume the male gaze? That the women see themselves this way? That an outsider sees the women this way?

In any case, how is this an empowering message?

Yay for Tostan: http://www.tostan.org/web/page/586/sectionid/547/pagelevel/3/interior.asp

I am of the mind that we are over-analyzing the ad itself and addressing the wrong issue.

I am 49 years old and have been lobbying against FGM since I was 18. I am glad to see that it is getting more attention. The image they use in the ad says to me that women are being dehumanized; that we exist for whatever purpose men deem for us and don't exist in our own right; that full ownership over our sexual pleasure and control over our own bodies is denied us and that men are the ones with the power.

I would ask those who are upset over the ad: is FGM the more important issue, or is the political correctness of the ad the more important issue?

I understand the means for delivering the message is important to a point. But this is the kind of issue that used to drive those of us in the "second wave" nuts and spoke of a certain elitism in the feminist community. You can bet the women in cultures where FGM is the norm aren't going to be analyzing the political correctness of the ad. They are going to be glad that the issue continues to be prominent in the media.

Is it my favorite ad ever? No. Does it say everything I would want it to say? No. But I am glad it is out there and I am grateful to those who put their energy into trying to raise awareness of the problem.

Just saw the note about "male genital mutilation" which is such a bastardization of the original term FGM that it would be laughable if someone didn't always hijack a conversation with this straw man argument. Some folks aren't willing to face the horror of what is done to girls in the name of controlling their sexuality without watering it down and comparing it to circumcism.

For the record: female genital mutilation is not equivalent to circumcising a man. It's just not the same! Mutilation is a strong word and is the correct one for female genital infibulation. The procedure is not the same nor is the outcome the same when a man is circumcised. Let's not get confused here.

Male circumcision was a way, deemed by the Church, to put an end to masturbation...or something.
"Or something" is the accurate portion.

It does not put an end to masturbation, nor was that the point of it; such attempts were introduced in the 19th century, many millenia after the practise itself came into being.

It is a cleanliness issue, much as the kosher restrictions upon eating certain meats. Circumcised men, in case you missed it, are less likely to spread STDs. Women who are exposed to FGM, on the other hand, have horrible infections from the practise and increase their risk of STDs.

Oddly, it has been suggested that circumcision was introduced as a way to increase male sexual pleasure. Without it, many men experienced problems during or after sexual intercourse, when the foreskin would become irritated, inflammed, and perhaps infected. The solution was apparently quite simple: remove the foreskin. Once that was determined to be effectual, people began routinely removing the foreskin to prevent such sexual dysfunctions.

So I wrote an entire comment and it was wonderful (IMHO) but it failed, so here is a cliffnotes version: (edit - this turned out to be even longer than last time)

I find this ad completely offensive, dehumanizing, and wholly ineffective.

- I have a hard time agreeing that it makes sense to combat the elimination of female sexual pleasure with a (socially understood) humorous depiction of these women as unfeeling (physically and emotionally), incapable, lifeless "fuck-toys". I have never felt one iota of sympathy for blow-up dolls and I certainly don't expect to start anytime soon. As many have said already, it also completely removes any agency or strength from the hands of the women that live through this AND fight against it. And if women who work hard against injustice are nothing but sex dolls, what does that mean for the rest?

- the comparison of FGM committers and users of blow-up dolls is ridiculous - sex doll use is hardly immoral and is embarrassing at its worst. About as embarrassing as being a male who isn't circumcised (har har sitcom humor!)

- we're comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation? Okay. Let's consider cultural purposes for each. Male circumcision is done because circumcised penises are considered "normal" and attractive to women. FGM is committed in order to control women who, if left with sexual desire or urges of any kind are detrimental to the purity of their culture/family and their own chastity, which is oh so important. Other reasons? "the clitoris and the labia as male parts on a female body, thus removal of these parts enhances the femininity of the girl"; "if the clitoris touches a man's penis the man will die"; "An unmodified clitoris can lead to masturbation or lesbianism." and other such ridiculousness.

- I seriously thought this ad was for Axe body spray when I first scrolled over it. No joke. That can't be good for business when you're trying to prevent men from believing they have control over women's bodies.

- Thank you to Okra for coming forward with her comment - I found it really helpful in this discussion to have input from someone who lives in a culture that includes FGM.

One more thing. Someone mentioned that they felt this was an effective ad because "look, we're all talking about it." Now, I'm no marketing expert or nothin, but I can't see a (mostly?) feminist community reading a feminist blog being exactly the cross-section of society most focus groups need to come to any sort of conclusion on the efficacy of advertisements. We're here to read about and discuss just these issues, and we were presented with an argument and open invitation to respond to said argument. Many of us are already aware of said issues and their common depictions. The fact that we can all sit at our computer screens and debate this is no surprise, and is just as fueled by the image's potency as its ineffectiveness.

Had I passed this in the street, I would have crinkled my nose in disgust (thinking it was an AXE ad) and probably kept walking without really connecting with the imagery or giving it any thought, or even reading the miniscule type on the razor.

"- we're comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation? Okay. Let's consider cultural purposes for each. Male circumcision is done because circumcised penises are considered 'normal' and attractive to women. FGM is committed in order to control women who, if left with sexual desire or urges of any kind are detrimental to the purity of their culture/family and their own chastity, which is oh so important. Other reasons? 'the clitoris and the labia as male parts on a female body, thus removal of these parts enhances the femininity of the girl'; 'if the clitoris touches a man's penis the man will die'; 'An unmodified clitoris can lead to masturbation or lesbianism.' and other such ridiculousness."

Don't forget that sometimes communities do these to their kids because "boys need circumcision to become men" and "girls need 'circumcision' [that's what the people doing it call it] to be women," no matter what the original motivations of their ancestors who set these standards for adulthood were.

Which leaves me wondering, how do the people calling for anti-HIV efforts to promote condoms less and promote male circumcision more (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7391768.stm - it reminds me of how I heard that other STDs can leave sores in a condom-hating man's foreskin and more easily let HIV through, ero condom-hating men shouldn't have foreskins) expect to promote male circumcision and discourage female "circumcision" at the same time? Or do they not care about how FGM increases a girl's or woman's odds of becoming HIV+ (see http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/brady1/ )?

Sorry about the typo. That should be "ergo," not "ero."

I have a question for those posting: my inclincation is that if a well-meaning group put out ads designed to raise awareness about rape, but many if not most rape victims found them dehumanzing, the ads would probably be pretty poorly receieved by the readers of this blog, no-matter how attention grabbing they were. Do others disagree with this? And if people do agree that that would likely be the case, what is the distinction?

I have a hard time swallowing statements that FGM is about sex. It's like statements that rape is about sex. Neither is about sex, they are about power and control over someone else's body/sexuality. If it were about sex, women would be offered the choice, without any attempts to convince them one way or the other, to undergo FGM. While reasons stated for each case vary, FGM is about making the female body more culturally pleasing to potential mates and ensuring that females are less likely to seek sexual pleasure outside of marriage. It has little to nothing to do with enabling the woman to enjoy her own sexuality or give her any agency over her own body, therefore it's not about sex.

I would ask those who are upset over the ad: is FGM the more important issue, or is the political correctness of the ad the more important issue?

It's both. IMO, to bring attention to FGM, an ad should be three things:

--Accurate
--Dramatic
--Respectful to the victims.

This ad is inaccurate (women can still feel after FGM and are still real, breathing human beings; FGM is about more than simply sex). It's not really that dramatic-- we're too used to seeing blow-up-dolls as comedic devices. And it's not respectful to the victims-- not even close.

It's not enough to just have good intentions; you have to be effective, too. For me, the razor blade at the corner was the most effective element of the ad-- what if they'd just focused on that? "She's fourteen, and she's just about to undergo major surgery."

Circumcised men are not cleaner. A man's cleanliness has to do with hygiene, not whether he has a foreskin. Circumcision also does not prevent STDs. That is what condoms and STD testing are for. Circumcision was introduced in this country to prevent masturbation. When that didn't pan out, it was given a bunch of bizare purposes from preventing virtually non-existent cancers(penile) to UTIs(which are extremely rare in all men). That facts are now that no medical association in the industrialized world recommends it be done routinely, and 82% of the world's men are uncut. The USA is the only country partially blind to this procedures stupidity, barbarity, and debitilating effects(Read "Sex as Nature Intended It".).

I think the ad is not altogether sucessful...but perhaps the creators of it fancied themselves taking a 'softly softly' approach. Ever tried to discuss female circumcision with males who are unfamilar or uncomfortable with hearing about it?

I once found myself in this situation, where the men were saying 'oh, it's no different from male circumcision, why do women make such a big deal of it!' They couldn't deal with how horrific it can be (usually is).

Mad with rage, but wanting to appear calm and collected, I took off my shirt and announced that doing so was a traditional form of protest among AFrican women (I had read somewhere). Later that evening, infuriated that I had taken such a stance, my partner at the time hit me. Shocker.

Very powerful, that boobs as protest thing...but slightly dangerous in some situations.

Okra,

Great insight until the last paragraph. This thread is discussing the particulars around the use of that doll in an advertisement about genital mutilation. You mention how it's white & western, and Lily basically mentions that it's also female. Her comments are no more of a non sequitor than yours.