Sephiroth Crescent
Greatest Villian Ever
I wasn't claiming they were the crazy ones, thats why I put freakin quotes! Sheesh
Female genital mutilation
- Thread starter Erythritol
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I wasn't claiming they were the crazy ones, thats why I put freakin quotes! Sheesh
you miss a few points, most female circumcisions do not remove all that, most are of the more minor form where they just remove the clitoris (which has the same number of nerves as the male foreskin), the practice can be done in more hospital like settings and have almost no risk of infection (nothing is completely safe, it's estimated in the u.s. 100 boys die a year due to infections from being cut) but female genital cutting is done similar to the bris which is done at home and infants do die of that as well. Many women do choose to have this done, some even flying from america to africa to have it done.
I think it is evil as male circumcision, a huge human rights violation and sexually damaging. I know there will be people on here saying how dare I compare the two, well both remove the most sensitive parts, both damage sexual function, both are done without consent (although female circumcision usually waits till the victim is older and has some ability to say "no" granted peer pressure usually takes care of objections.
I find it incredibly hippo-critical for someone to be ok with one form of forced genital cutting but be against another.
Male circumcision doesn't remove the most sensitive part. The head has the highest concentration of nerve endings, not the foreskin.
There's a huge difference between clitoridectomy, which is a legitimate medical practice, and female genital mutilation. FGM in most cases causes the victim to suffer pain every single time they have sex, along with urinary tract obstructions and possibly infertility. The process itself is ridiculously traumatic and done for unnecessary reasons. It is often by untrained people, without anesthetic or sterilized medical instruments.
WRONG!!!
google sorrell's fine touch study, the parts removed via male genital mutilation (circumcision) are up to 4 TIMES more sensitive then the most sensitive parts left. FOUR TIMES!!!!!
and male circumcision does not? granted most men don't know it because they don't know the difference. The foreskin provides a sort of rolling bearing, without it lube is often needed (to say nothing of reduced pleasure from the lack of gliding). Male circumcision is often done without painkillers of any kind. you need to read "Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma" if you really think mean aren't being traumatized by genital cutting, it affects men a LOT more then you think.
I call b.s. on the infertility, none of the actual baby making parts are damaged, that is just a false claim.
as for being done by untrained people, well so is male genital cutting when it's done in africa, I'm sure you have seen the news stories coming out of africa about these deaths....they are reported fairly frequently
PipeDream92
Chocobo Breeder
Hmm, this is the first I'm hearing of this, pretty interesting. Uhm, personally I don't really know too much about the matter other than what you just said...it's really 50/50 for me, I can see the pro's and con's of it and it's really difficult to compare them.
However, I don't think that the world health organization (though I don't really know much about that either), should be preventing this. It is their own practice, if anything they should maybe just try to ensure that it is being done with sterile equipment and such. Personally, I think the only good reasons for performing this FGM would be to ensure that a woman who cannot support children does not conceive children (sure she could just not have sexual intercourse, but she may fall victim to rape). As for it simply being a cultural / religious tradition, I don't really understand that, but cultures and religions, imo, should be respected and preserved, as gross as this one may be.
However, I don't think that the world health organization (though I don't really know much about that either), should be preventing this. It is their own practice, if anything they should maybe just try to ensure that it is being done with sterile equipment and such. Personally, I think the only good reasons for performing this FGM would be to ensure that a woman who cannot support children does not conceive children (sure she could just not have sexual intercourse, but she may fall victim to rape). As for it simply being a cultural / religious tradition, I don't really understand that, but cultures and religions, imo, should be respected and preserved, as gross as this one may be.
.Dove
Candy Girl*
I knew about this for quite some time,saw it on a documentary on TV-and yet still,of course I find it Bad,un-cool,disgusting,awful,terrible etc.You name it.
I don't Agree with it at all and I think that;s just SO wrong.I don't care about the religion issue,that's just a Lame excuse to Do That.There is no excuse for such actions,and they are hiding behind the religion,faith and other stuff..
It's a very sad,painful and terrible process and I guess,no woman[or man,but women are in case here] Deserve to be done that and in Such manners.It's just wrong and despicable.
This is something I can't really stand.Not now,not ever.
I don't Agree with it at all and I think that;s just SO wrong.I don't care about the religion issue,that's just a Lame excuse to Do That.There is no excuse for such actions,and they are hiding behind the religion,faith and other stuff..
It's a very sad,painful and terrible process and I guess,no woman[or man,but women are in case here] Deserve to be done that and in Such manners.It's just wrong and despicable.
This is something I can't really stand.Not now,not ever.
"The glans and the corona of the penis are the most sensitive parts of the male genitalia. The glans of the penis is covered with a foreskin (prepuce) unless the man has been circumcised, in which case the foreskin has been surgically removed." Source
"Theglans: Also called the head of the penis, the glans contains a large number of nerve endings, making it the most sensitive part of the penis. The frenulum is the most sensitive area, the corona the second most sensitive area." Source
"The head of the penis is called the glans, and at the tip is the urethral opening (where both urine and semen come out). The glans is a highly sensitive area, with many nerve endings. The glans is often considered to be similar in function to the clitoris in the woman, and the tissue that the glans develops out of is the same tissue that the clitoris develops from. " Source
Jeep said:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7752-female-genital-mutilation-can-cause-infertility.html
http://www.bukisa.com/articles/62678_female-genital-mutilation-at-a-cause-of-infertility
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-07/l-fgm072705.php
If you're going to blame circumcision for the deaths of male infants, when the actual cause of death is septicemia or another secondary cause, then you have to blame FGM for the infection that causes damage to the Fallopian tubes, etc.
I really can't say anything more than what has already been stated, but I'm totally against an act like this. Not only does it cause huge pain during the operation and during sex, but it removes the parts of the female body that cause sex to be a pleasant experience. Considering that outside of their religion, it has only negative and crippling results, how is this any better than the human sacrifices of the past?
the marriage bed.com is hardly a source for understandign scientific things, the sorrell's study was done recently and even if there are more nerve endings there the sorrell's study proves that the ones on the foreskin are far more sensitive then the rest of the penis
from an american source likely goign by past medical beliefs, If you used a uk source there is no discussion about male circumcision removing the more sensitive parts, it's agreed that it does
three articles about the same story do not equal three different articles of proof
agree, if you are claiming circumcision reduces women's fertility then you have to agree that male circumcision is responsible for deaths, but the circumcision is not the primary cause of infertility, it is from subsequent infections often from the most extreme and least often performed types of female circumcision
of the past.....past.....what about male circumcision NOW!!!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Firstly, arguing that the origin of a source automatically invalidates the argument contained therein is fallacious.
Secondly, your Sorrell's study was conducted in California by doctors from that state as well as Michigan. So unless you're going to invalidate that as well, don't disparage a source just because it is American.
Jeep said:
Ibid for males, which is usually performed in a hospital or clinic.
I counted it because it was recent and impartial, there is a ton of old literature and beliefs still about the male genitals, heck my high school "health" book didn't even have the foreskin shown, it was just assumed to not be there, And a ton of people repeat the same drivel about it having no benefit etc when it clearly does, so there is a lot of bias and I don't trust any research that hasn't been done recently on the matter, heck if you dig down and look at some older studies comparing sensation between cut and intact penises they would measure the same parts on both ignoring the foreskin completely and assumed the glans was all they really needed to measure
Ibid?
the location is irrelevant, if female circ caught on over here it would be done in hospitals and likely be just as "safe" as male genital cutting is
... because it agreed with your premise. It's called confirmation bias.
Jeep said:
Same as above.
Alright WTH Im just gonna speak on both disputes on this thread
First off, 1 in 3 woman have to have some sort of major surgery in their lifetime, and half of them are due to something in that 'little area'. So I could really care less what crazy fad is going on with mutations and whatnot. Woman seem to have a great deal on their hands with that, obviously. You don't hear too much about a penis.
Second, circumcision stands on it's own. I shouldn't have to explain why its appropriate. If you want extra baggage goin on down there, than whatever.
You're causing more harm to yourself arguing about something that truly does not impact the body in any harmful way.
78 percent of America, just for starts, are circumcised. It's just a bunch of crap stirred up to start some religous debate.
First off, 1 in 3 woman have to have some sort of major surgery in their lifetime, and half of them are due to something in that 'little area'. So I could really care less what crazy fad is going on with mutations and whatnot. Woman seem to have a great deal on their hands with that, obviously. You don't hear too much about a penis.
Second, circumcision stands on it's own. I shouldn't have to explain why its appropriate. If you want extra baggage goin on down there, than whatever.
You're causing more harm to yourself arguing about something that truly does not impact the body in any harmful way.
78 percent of America, just for starts, are circumcised. It's just a bunch of crap stirred up to start some religous debate.
no, it doesn't
1.) it's not extra baggage, it's a very beneficial part of the male body that adds the gliding sensation as well as contains the most sensitive nerves as proven by the sorrell study. Circumcision rates are dropping fast as people now have access to the information about how harmful it is. It is a procedure that became popular in america specifically for the harm it did as it was thought to reduce masturbation by removing the sensitive parts. Now it's just an easy profit maker for hospitals. To suggest that a natural and very functional part of the body is extra tells me A.) that you no longer have one B.) that you don't want to consider yourself as being harmed or not allowed to have everything you should have
I think it's a disgusting and shameful act woman are forced into. Even in cultures where it happens a lot, it's still belittling to the woman. The whole point in doing this is so the women won't be "tempted" into masturbating or enjoying sex. But ya don't see the men choppin' off their willies, do ya?
It's a sad excuse for men-who are terrified of vaginas and what woman are capable of-so they can take as much away from the woman as possible, even what God gave them by birth--their body.
The people and the cultures that do this are scared of woman, God knows why, but they are--and these sad men(not all, just the men that do this) think they can fix their own inner problems by mutilating a woman in every way possible.
I hate hearing of stories where girls in the middle east are forced to have their genitals cut up with unsterilized glass at the age of 9 just so they can't feel pleasure. It's disgusting in every way possible, and just the thought of it makes my skin crawl.
It's a sad excuse for men-who are terrified of vaginas and what woman are capable of-so they can take as much away from the woman as possible, even what God gave them by birth--their body.
The people and the cultures that do this are scared of woman, God knows why, but they are--and these sad men(not all, just the men that do this) think they can fix their own inner problems by mutilating a woman in every way possible.
I hate hearing of stories where girls in the middle east are forced to have their genitals cut up with unsterilized glass at the age of 9 just so they can't feel pleasure. It's disgusting in every way possible, and just the thought of it makes my skin crawl.
This.
It's when it's done for reasons that essentially equate to men trying to subjugate women by making it so they simply exist for the purposes of breeding that really bothers me. It makes women in these societies second-class citizens, sub-human, and perpetuates the fallacy of treating women as property. They are trying to remove the sexuality of their women, and denying basic human instincts. It's a frightening mindset.
you have a skewed view of this procedure, I read about this group that went to research what these horrible men were forcing on these women.... and what they found was that it was generally WOMEN that were forcing it on women and that men didn't really care too much. AND MALE CIRCUMCISION HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, both male and female circumcision remove the most sensitive parts
what about male circumcision, is it a ploy by women to take away from men FROM THEIR BODY????????
These culures do this to men too, AGAIN they mutilate men's genitals too
[/quote]and men are cut in unclean rituals as well, looks at the news, boys die ALL THE TIME over there due to the ritual
They haven't proved anything, it's just theoretical crap to attack people who are thought to be trying to 'conform' others. Circumcision is a practice that's been going on for 1000's of years and nobody has been affected by it. It's just that simple_ and no form of debate is going to change that.
Yes, exactly.
Um, okay... If a man decides it whatever, it doesn't matter. Because they asked for it. But, I'd hate to break it to you but the VAST majority of women when this happens it's against their will and around the age of 9-13. Do you honestly think a young girl like that could determine whether or not she wants something like that?
Nobodies been affected by it? The woman with their cut up vaginas would like to have a word with you.
I was talking about male circumcision, for one. Two, I never said I agreed with the whole female mutilation// That can ACTUALLY harm someone.
Jesus Christ, somebody give me a real reason to reply to these type of posts_
Jesus Christ, somebody give me a real reason to reply to these type of posts_