Last week I posted about an organisation called ‘Clitoraid’ run by the Raelian organisation and supported by some sex positive practitioners. Their controversial ‘adopt a clitoris’ scheme to raise funds for a ‘pleasure hospital’ in Burkina Faso offering reconstructive surgery to women following FGM/C quickly attracted critical attention as requests to donate spread across twitter and the blogosphere.
Several practitioners and academics raised questions about the appropriateness of the scheme, the effectiveness of Clitoraid and drew attention to the uncomfortable issues raised by asking Westerners to adopt African women’s genitals. You can read about the background to Clitoraid and the questions asked about it here and I also talk about it (and other sexological issues) in this podcast with The Skeptic Zone.
There have been several developments over the past week. Firstly, Elizabeth from Sex in the Public Square discovered there are a number of hospitals in Burkina offering reconstructive surgery free of charge (although these institutions struggle through a lack of funds). This is contrary to the claims of Clitoraid who argue they are the only organisation offering such a service.
Moreover Matthew Greenall learned there had been opposition to the planned ‘Pleasure Hospital’ in Burkina Faso, but Clitoraid continued to work in spite of community opposition. And when this opposition was voiced online the Raelians threatened to sue the website hosting said discussions (see 14 April update). All of which is worrying if you consider what should work as good practice in international development.
The indomitable Wanjiru Kamau-Rutenberg continued to reflect on and questioning of Clitoraid. Her questioning of Good Vibrations involvement in donating vibrators and supporting Clitoraid led to the store formally withdrawing support for the organisation, with additional questioning from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Digital Journal noted Clitoraid had been asking for funds to build their pleasure hospital since 2006. It is still unclear how much money has been raised and how much progress has been made on the hospital. Requests to Clitoraid remain unanswered although colleagues working in Burkina are attempting to find out more.
The blogs linked to in this post and here pick up on some of those questions. Clitoraid has not responded to questions about the effectiveness of their practice nor about how communities have been consulted or involved.
Clitoraid’s information material suggests a successful venture, but bearing in mind in many developing countries (and the West for that matter) discussions of contraception, intimacy, reproductive health and issues like fistulas remain deeply taboo and stigmatised. On that basis we should question a venture that claims an unproblematic experience of restorative surgery and the use of vibrators. Not because pleasure focused initiatives cannot work, but that for them to work they need to do so in highly structured, reflective and supportive ways. More evidence is needed about Clitoraid’s work for us to make such a judgement.
While Good Vibrations pulled their support for the organisation, another supporter of Clitoraid, Betty Dodson, a champion of sex positivity, decided she would continue to back the organisation. In a statement via Clitoraid she explains why she supports the Raelians, her problems with other faiths (particularly Catholics and Muslims) and challenges her critics:
“I knew that a battery operated vibrator would be a great help for African women the same as they have helped my demographic of women. My business partner Carlin and I agreed that Good Vibrations would be a good choice to donate vibrators, so I contacted Carol Queen. In no time there was a shit storm on her end. An African American academic feminist teaching at San Francisco University objected to our interference in a culture that we supposedly know nothing about. Good Vibrations pulled out. The store depends upon the good will of a community that has its share of nit picking academic sex negative feminists. Since dodsonandross is a website we have all the freedom in the world to do and say what we choose. It’s called freedom of speech!”
This statement appears to focus specifically on Wanjiru Kamau-Rutenberg, who responded with a post repeating her concerns about Clitoraid and raising questions about how challenges to sex positive feminism may be rebutted.
It is worth noting rather than one person complaining about Clitoraid, questions about the organisation have been steadily growing for at least four years and currently a range of people of different genders, races, and political persuasions who have signed the petition and joined the Facebook group against Clitoraid. Critics have questioned why Betty Dodson has focused her response solely on one African person when numerous white practitioners (including myself) have also raised questions about Clitoraid (see links in this and previous post). Or why the focus of the response assumes anyone questioning Clitoraid is ‘sex negative’.
Because of the complex nature of cross cultural working we always need to be reflecting on practice through peer support and supervision. We do this to improve our skills and ensure we are working effectively and appropriately within communities.
Which is why it is worrying that Betty Dodson’s business partner Carlin Ross’ response to Wanjiru’s questioning of Clitoraid was to reply:
“I’m glad we’re having this discussion. Yes, no one will touch Betty because, at this point, she’s a legend. If you google her, her history is all there. She’s pretty amazing”.
Clearly the issue of FGM/C and the whole Clitoraid/’Adopt a Clitoris’ campaign has been highly emotive. Within this situation I would not doubt the sincerity of Good Vibrations or Betty Dodson. Indeed, myself and others have been at pains to consistently acknowledge the work done by Good Vibrations and Betty Dodson and their established reputation within the sex positive movement. However, part of international practice means thinking carefully about any feedback or criticism. Nobody, no matter what their status, should be above this process.
Indeed Cory Silverberg has approached this case in his usual thoughtful manner by asking us to think about how being well intentioned, though admirable, is not always enough when it comes to sex positive working.
Sadly the ongoing discussions about Clitoraid have led to bad feeling and distress among those involved. It seems in places there have been well intentioned people caught up in a situation that seems to have spiralled out of control and responses to manage it have led to further criticisms and upset. It would be a shame if we continued to focus on this issue in a personal manner, allowing grudges and resentment to build.
I would like to hope we can continue to refocus our attention on Clitoraid and the work it is doing. We need answers about what is being undertaken, how much cash has been collected, and what has it been used for. Has it really benefitted a community?
The good news is many people have suggested other organisations tackling FGM/C that might benefit from donations and these have been passed on to Good Vibrations. I sincerely hope any reputable charity offered money from them does accept it (sadly all too often charities won’t accept donations from sex positive organisations, as discussed in Elizabeth’s post, linked above).
The profile of FGM/C has been raised, introducing people who were unaware of the practice to it and increasing opposition and activism. This is a positive step forward.
We also now have a far better record of Clitoraid for other people to look to. We have discovered lone voices asking questions as far back as 2007 but with a more centralised record of criticisms it may help anyone who is now asked to donate decide what to do.
And although though none of the quesitoning of Clitoraid has been easy (and nor is it resolved) we have a very good example of questions to ask and how to undertake due diligence in checking organisations to collaborate with on international projects. For anyone working cross culturally in health, development and education this is undoubtedly a useful, albeit upsetting, case to study.
Catching up on Clitoraid
Last week I posted about an organisation called ‘Clitoraid’ run by the Raelian organisation and supported by some sex positive practitioners. Their controversial ‘adopt a clitoris’ scheme to raise funds for a ‘pleasure hospital’ in Burkina Faso offering reconstructive surgery to women following FGM/C quickly attracted critical attention as requests to donate spread across twitter and the blogosphere.
Several practitioners and academics raised questions about the appropriateness of the scheme, the effectiveness of Clitoraid and drew attention to the uncomfortable issues raised by asking Westerners to adopt African women’s genitals. You can read about the background to Clitoraid and the questions asked about it here and I also talk about it (and other sexological issues) in this podcast with The Skeptic Zone.
There have been several developments over the past week. Firstly, Elizabeth from Sex in the Public Square discovered there are a number of hospitals in Burkina offering reconstructive surgery free of charge (although these institutions struggle through a lack of funds). This is contrary to the claims of Clitoraid who argue they are the only organisation offering such a service.
Moreover Matthew Greenall learned there had been opposition to the planned ‘Pleasure Hospital’ in Burkina Faso, but Clitoraid continued to work in spite of community opposition. And when this opposition was voiced online the Raelians threatened to sue the website hosting said discussions (see 14 April update). All of which is worrying if you consider what should work as good practice in international development.
The indomitable Wanjiru Kamau-Rutenberg continued to reflect on and questioning of Clitoraid. Her questioning of Good Vibrations involvement in donating vibrators and supporting Clitoraid led to the store formally withdrawing support for the organisation, with additional questioning from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Digital Journal noted Clitoraid had been asking for funds to build their pleasure hospital since 2006. It is still unclear how much money has been raised and how much progress has been made on the hospital. Requests to Clitoraid remain unanswered although colleagues working in Burkina are attempting to find out more.
The blogs linked to in this post and here pick up on some of those questions. Clitoraid has not responded to questions about the effectiveness of their practice nor about how communities have been consulted or involved.
Clitoraid’s information material suggests a successful venture, but bearing in mind in many developing countries (and the West for that matter) discussions of contraception, intimacy, reproductive health and issues like fistulas remain deeply taboo and stigmatised. On that basis we should question a venture that claims an unproblematic experience of restorative surgery and the use of vibrators. Not because pleasure focused initiatives cannot work, but that for them to work they need to do so in highly structured, reflective and supportive ways. More evidence is needed about Clitoraid’s work for us to make such a judgement.
While Good Vibrations pulled their support for the organisation, another supporter of Clitoraid, Betty Dodson, a champion of sex positivity, decided she would continue to back the organisation. In a statement via Clitoraid she explains why she supports the Raelians, her problems with other faiths (particularly Catholics and Muslims) and challenges her critics:
“I knew that a battery operated vibrator would be a great help for African women the same as they have helped my demographic of women. My business partner Carlin and I agreed that Good Vibrations would be a good choice to donate vibrators, so I contacted Carol Queen. In no time there was a shit storm on her end. An African American academic feminist teaching at San Francisco University objected to our interference in a culture that we supposedly know nothing about. Good Vibrations pulled out. The store depends upon the good will of a community that has its share of nit picking academic sex negative feminists. Since dodsonandross is a website we have all the freedom in the world to do and say what we choose. It’s called freedom of speech!”
This statement appears to focus specifically on Wanjiru Kamau-Rutenberg, who responded with a post repeating her concerns about Clitoraid and raising questions about how challenges to sex positive feminism may be rebutted.
It is worth noting rather than one person complaining about Clitoraid, questions about the organisation have been steadily growing for at least four years and currently a range of people of different genders, races, and political persuasions who have signed the petition and joined the Facebook group against Clitoraid. Critics have questioned why Betty Dodson has focused her response solely on one African person when numerous white practitioners (including myself) have also raised questions about Clitoraid (see links in this and previous post). Or why the focus of the response assumes anyone questioning Clitoraid is ‘sex negative’.
Because of the complex nature of cross cultural working we always need to be reflecting on practice through peer support and supervision. We do this to improve our skills and ensure we are working effectively and appropriately within communities.
Which is why it is worrying that Betty Dodson’s business partner Carlin Ross’ response to Wanjiru’s questioning of Clitoraid was to reply:
“I’m glad we’re having this discussion. Yes, no one will touch Betty because, at this point, she’s a legend. If you google her, her history is all there. She’s pretty amazing”.
Clearly the issue of FGM/C and the whole Clitoraid/’Adopt a Clitoris’ campaign has been highly emotive. Within this situation I would not doubt the sincerity of Good Vibrations or Betty Dodson. Indeed, myself and others have been at pains to consistently acknowledge the work done by Good Vibrations and Betty Dodson and their established reputation within the sex positive movement. However, part of international practice means thinking carefully about any feedback or criticism. Nobody, no matter what their status, should be above this process.
Indeed Cory Silverberg has approached this case in his usual thoughtful manner by asking us to think about how being well intentioned, though admirable, is not always enough when it comes to sex positive working.
Sadly the ongoing discussions about Clitoraid have led to bad feeling and distress among those involved. It seems in places there have been well intentioned people caught up in a situation that seems to have spiralled out of control and responses to manage it have led to further criticisms and upset. It would be a shame if we continued to focus on this issue in a personal manner, allowing grudges and resentment to build.
I would like to hope we can continue to refocus our attention on Clitoraid and the work it is doing. We need answers about what is being undertaken, how much cash has been collected, and what has it been used for. Has it really benefitted a community?
The good news is many people have suggested other organisations tackling FGM/C that might benefit from donations and these have been passed on to Good Vibrations. I sincerely hope any reputable charity offered money from them does accept it (sadly all too often charities won’t accept donations from sex positive organisations, as discussed in Elizabeth’s post, linked above).
The profile of FGM/C has been raised, introducing people who were unaware of the practice to it and increasing opposition and activism. This is a positive step forward.
We also now have a far better record of Clitoraid for other people to look to. We have discovered lone voices asking questions as far back as 2007 but with a more centralised record of criticisms it may help anyone who is now asked to donate decide what to do.
And although though none of the quesitoning of Clitoraid has been easy (and nor is it resolved) we have a very good example of questions to ask and how to undertake due diligence in checking organisations to collaborate with on international projects. For anyone working cross culturally in health, development and education this is undoubtedly a useful, albeit upsetting, case to study.
Catching up on ClitoraidRelated posts