Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 178–185 | Cite as

The Effects of Female Genital Mutilation on the Onset of Sexual Activity and Marriage in Guinea

  • Ronan Van RossemEmail author
  • Anastasia J. Gage
Original Paper


Female genital mutilation (FGM) is almost universal in Guinea and practiced by all ethnic and religious groups and social classes, although the prevalence of the various types of FGM varies by socioeconomic group. A common explanation for FGM practices is that they contribute to the social control over female sexuality and enhance the marriageability of women. These claims were tested using the 1999 Guinea Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) (N = 6753). Event history techniques were used to examine the effect of type of FGM on the age at first sex and the age at first marriage and logistic regression for the effect of FGM on premarital sex. The results showed that the type of FGM had a significant zero-order effect on the age at first marriage and the prevalence of premarital sex, but not on the age at first sex. However, these effects became non-significant once controls for age, religion, ethnicity, education, residence, and wealth were added to the model. Variations in sexual behavior, therefore, were unrelated to type of FGM, but reflected differences in the social characteristics of the participants.


Female genital mutilation Onset of sexuality Marriage Premarital sex Guinea 


  1. Allison, P. D. (1984). Event history analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Almroth, L., Almroth-Berggren, V., Hassanein, O. M., El Hadi, N., Al-Said, S. S. E., Hasan, S. S. A., et al. (2001). A community based study on the change of practice of female genital mutilation in a Sudanese village. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 74, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, C. A., Gilson, G. J., Vill, M. D., & Curet, L. B. (1993). Female circumcision: Obstetric issues. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 169, 1616–1618.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Direction Nationale de la Statistique, & Macro International Inc. (2000a). Enquęte démographique et de santé, Guinée 1999. Calverton, MD: Direction Nationale de la Statistique & Macro International Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Direction Nationale de la Statistique, & Macro International Inc. (2000b). Guinea demographic and health survey 1999 [Data file]. Calverton, MD: Direction Nationale de la Statistique//Macro International Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Douglas, M. (2004). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Epstein, C. F. (2007). Great divides: The cultural, cognitive, and social bases of the global subordination of women. American Sociological Review, 72, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Filmer, D., & Pritchett, L. H. (1999). The effects of household wealth on educational attainment: Evidence from 35 countries. Population and Development Review, 25, 85–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gage, A. J., & Van Rossem, R. (2006). Attitudes toward the discontinuation of female genital cutting among men and women in Guinea. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 92, 92–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giddens, A. (1973). The class structure of advanced societies. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  11. Gruenbaum, E. (2001). The female circumcision controversy: An anthropological perspective. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gruenbaum, E. (2006). Sexuality issues in the movement to abolish female genital cutting in Sudan. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 20, 121–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hicks, E. K. (1993). Infibulation: Female mutilation in Islamic Northeastern Africa. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  14. James, S. M., & Robertson, C. C. (2002). Introduction: Reimaging transnational sisterhood. In S. M. James & C. C. Robertson (Eds.), Genital cutting and transnational sisterhood: Disputing U.S. polemics (pp. 5–16). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, S. D., Ehiri, J., & Anyanwu, E. (2004). Female genital mutilation in developing countries: An agenda for public health response. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 116, 144–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, S. H. (2007). Female genital mutilation. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Volume IV, F-HE (pp. 1653–1657). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Little, C. M. (2003). Female genital circumcision: Medical and cultural considerations. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 10, 30–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mackie, G. (2000). Female genital cutting: The beginning of the end. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.Google Scholar
  19. Magoha, G. A., & Magoha, O. B. (2000). Current global status of female genital mutilation: A review. East African Medical Journal, 77, 268–272.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mandara, M. U. (2004). Female genital mutilation in Nigeria. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 84, 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Missailidis, K., & Gebre-Medhin, M. (2000). Female genital mutilation in eastern Ethiopia. Lancet, 356, 137–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nordenstam, T. (1968). Sudanese ethics. New York: Africana.Google Scholar
  23. Rajadurai, H., & Igras, S. (2005). CARE’s experiences working with communities toward abandonment of female genital cutting (FGC). Atlanta, GA: CARE.Google Scholar
  24. Shaaban, L. M., & Harbison, S. (2005). Reaching the tipping point against female genital mutilation. Lancet, 366, 347–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shell-Duncan, B. (2001). The medicalization of female “circumcision”: Harm reduction or promotion of a dangerous practice? Social Science and Medicine, 52, 1013–1028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Toubia, N. F., & Sharief, E. H. (2003). Female genital mutilation: Have we made progress? International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 82, 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). (1997). The state of world population 1997. The right to choose: Reproductive rights and reproductive health. New York: United Nations Population Fund.Google Scholar
  28. Walley, C. J. (2002). Searching for “voices”: Feminism, anthropology, and the global debate over female genital operations. In S. M. James & C. C. Robertson (Eds.), Genital cutting and transnational sisterhood: Disputing U.S. polemics (pp. 17–53). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  29. World Health Organization (WHO). (1986). A traditional practice that threatens health––Female circumcision. WHO Chronicle, 40, 31–36.Google Scholar
  30. World Health Organization (WHO). (1999a). Female genital mutilation information kit. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  31. World Health Organization (WHO). (1999b). Female genital mutilation. Programmes to date: What works and what doesn’t. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  32. World Health Organization (WHO). (2000). Female genital mutilation (Fact sheet). Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  33. Yoder, P. S., Camara, P. O., & Soumaoro, B. (1999). Female genital cutting and coming of age in Guinea. Calverton, MD: Macro International Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Yoder, P. S., & Mahy, M. (2001). Female genital cutting in Guinea: Qualitative and quantitative research strategies (DHS Analytical studies). Calverton, MD: MEASURE DHS+.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vakgroep SociologieUniversiteit GentGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of International Health and DevelopmentTulane University, School of Public Health and Tropical MedicineNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations