female circumcision interview with man in favour

Pathetic lack of education - not all Muslims do it - and for those that do - their reasons are exactly the same it was introduced to the U.S. in the 40s (males only) - be careful who you decry as "stone age".
Many African tribes are also Muslim.

 

Ive had a copy of desert flower cant remember whether I read it or not before I sold it . Im not sure whether she was serious in the idea to end famale circumcision by castration of men but her saying that wouldnt make me worry to much about the world health organisations figures.

from reading what shel duncan wrote I wouldnt say she was free from bias, she seemed to see something good in circumcision.
and saying shes a free from bias "Western" academic seems to imply that the world health organisation and amnesty international are made up just of people from some banana republic.

I still would trust the world health organisations and amnesty internationals figures over miss duncan

 

not all muslims do it but quite a lot do, I dont think mr x was saying that all muslims do it just that the ones who do, do it to control female sexuality and this is a backward thing to do.

are you saying that the usa idea of circumcision to stop masturbation is a good idea or progressive

 

Yeah and you are sticking up for these butchers, who do this shit in unsanitary conditions which can lead to infection and all sorts of complications.
You wanna see pathetic find a mirror and look into it.
Perhaps I'll come around and cut the top of your dick off, then you may be in a position to say something about the subject you fucking idiot.

 

I don't understand. If they are doing it because women shouldn't have a sex drive what about the men? Males have a sex drive (even more so than women) so how come they don't do anything to them?

 

No Mr X states clearly that "the" Muslims do it for blah blah making no distinction as to how many Muslims do it - it's rather clear.

Circumcision is child abuse plain and simple in my view - I just vehemently reject the fallacious notion that male circumcision is any less barbarous and contrary to human interest than the female version.

 

Did I wound you sweetheart ? Where PRECISELY did I stick up for circumcision or those who seek to foister it upon others WITHOUT THEIR CHOICE ?

BEcause the Nazis did terrible things to the Jews does not give one the right to make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims because you like condemning people en masse from a viewpoint of ignorance - in that you are very like those who circumcise yourself.

Here's an idea - go read a little on a subject before you continue to post out of your ass.

 

They do circumcise males there (Kenya) - often at age 14 where the boy is held down by 3 men and circumcised without anaesthesia with flint knives...again please read a little...

 

So it is OK if only say 5% of Muslims do it?
So it would have been OK if only 5% of European Jews where murdered by the Nazis?
The fucking distinction between male circumcision (removal of part of the foreskin which I have had done when I was about 10 in a hospital under full anasthetic) and female circumcision (the part or whole removal of the clitoris) is so fucking huge, even a simpleton like you should be able to see it.
There is also research which indicates that the part removal of the male foreskin has hygiene benefits, these have been disputed and are not conclusive.
It is also believed that male circumscision makes the penis more sensitive, once again no conclusive evidence there.
However there are no known benefits arising from female circumcision, apart from the radical religious notion that it will stop feamles being unfaithful. Or the stone age traditional bullshit that the pain from circumcision will prepare a female for birth.

 

No you did not, it was you who posted that link about the women anthropologist who basically said that because it is part of their tradition it makes it alright. This seems to be your view. Correct?
Then you try to discredit a African women who has had the radical kind of circumcision done and is now trying to raise the attention of the world to this barbaric practise.
Then you attack me for stating that I can understand a stone age people doing this but a supposed more modern culture should have grown out of this practice. You spout some bullshit:
"Pathetic lack of education - not all Muslims do it - and for those that do - their reasons are exactly the same it was introduced to the U.S. in the 40s (males only) - be careful who you decry as "stone age".
Many African tribes are also Muslim."
which goes against the research of the world health organisation, oh sorry of course you know more than that bunch of pathetically educated idiots.
"The reasons given by families for having FGM performed include:

• psychosexual reasons: reduction or elimination of the sensitive tissue of the outer genitalia, particularly the clitoris, in order to attenuate sexual desire in the female, maintain chastity and virginity before marriage and fidelity during marriage, and increase male sexual pleasure;
• sociological reasons: identification with the cultural heritage, initiation of girls into womanhood, social integration and the maintenance of social cohesion;
• hygiene and aesthetic reasons: the external female genitalia are considered dirty and unsightly and are to be removed to promote hygiene and provide aesthetic appeal;
• myths: enhancement of fertility and promotion of child survival;
• religious reasons: Some Muslim communities, however, practise FGM in the belief that it is demanded by the Islamic faith. The practice, however, predates Islam."

So what you are saying is that the reason it was introdruced into the US was because it was demanded br the Islamic faith?
All you have achieved in this thread is to make yourself look like an idiot.

 

Excuse me but that's not what I meant. Don't imply that I'm stupid. What I was trying to say is that IF they do it to females for reasons on not having a sex drive what do they do about the males sex drive. Why is it okay for males to have a sex drive and not women?

I wasn't questioning why they don't circumcise males. The male version is like night and day compared to the female one. While I still don't feel that either is right, the female one is much worse because they are taking something that causes feeling away unlike a little piece of skin on the male which really doesn't make that much of a difference for the male during sex as he still can feel pleasure from it unlike the female.

 

Actually there is a believe that male circumcision increases sexual stimulation because there is less foreskin. However I have not found definitive proof of this.
The medical reason most often quoated is hygiene.
Of course there are also religious reasons.

 

That's right!, cut away a few thousand nerve endings and 'increase sexual stimulation.' Are you out of your mind? Keep looking for that difinitive proof, maybe try the third pebble from the left. Hygiene of course would be a 'medical' reason. for those who have not learned about the use of soap and water. In the US in the 19th century the medical reason, which convinced the doctors to begin the practice, was that without the foreskin the penis would become less sensitive and thus help to curb masturbation. Yeah, right! Certainly worked! Pardon my cynicism, but for pete's sake - as with the female practice, we're talking mutilation here! Everyone stop these barbaric practices on children. If adults want to cut off their heads, ok. But we're talking children!! BTY way Ms - male circumcision removes what would grow in an adult male to be seven square inches of protection, nerve endings and increades ease in intercourse. not a 'little bit.'

 

But that is not what you wrote is it (which is what my comment addressed)... please have the guts to admit you were full of shit.

Can you READ ? If so then you will likely realise that all circumcisions (even male) are not the same - some take place under duress , some use flint knives and stones , many involve death (both male and female).

Here's an example :

Upon physical examination of the other group, Ethiopian Jews, which resides now in Israel and performed female genital mutilation in Ethiopia, 63% of the women, who all claimed to have been circumcised, did not even have a scar! 20% had scars, in 7%, one square centimeter of the labia minora was removed from beneath the clitoris and only 10% demonstrated a real and severe form of female genital mutilation, total amputation of the clitoris.

[size=-1]Grisaru N, Letzer S, Belmaker RH.
Ritual Female Genital Surgery Among Ethiopian Jews.
Arch Sex Behav 1997;26:211-[/size]

Again bullshit - supposed "benefits" are a matter of perception - if one were to amputate all breasts from women in early puberty one would reasonably expect lower breast cancer rates - would this suggest that involuntary masectomy has some "benefits" ?
Please read here for the history of circumcision - as to how it came to be in the so called "non stone age" countries.
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/
I see you are in Adelaide - you may be particularly interested in how circumcision came to be employed there:

More specifically, I argue that this institutionalisation of male genital mutilation, eventually dignified under the euphemism "routine neonatal (or infant) circumcision", was a direct response to the nineteenth century’s search for a cure for the imaginary disease of spermatorrhoea, and its phobia about masturbation specifically, and that Australia inherited the medical wisdom on these matters from Britain and the US with very little local discussion and scarcely a murmur of dissent.

 

First up you didnt bother your arse to read the link - the woman anthropologist (professor actually) makes the points:

• female circumcision is a cause celebre in the West - entirely hypocritical considering the prevalence of male circumcision.
• female circumcision is not in every instance the deadly practice that Western media makes it out to be.
• the way in which it is viewed amongst many peoples who practice female circumcision is EXACTLY the same as that of Western peoples - they regard it as more or less benign - adding erroneously to ideas of hygiene , function etc. This last point proves your "stone age" argument fallacious.

Did you read the book ? She left at least one man to die - she lied consistently and admitted to such to remain illegally in Britain - she has persistently demonstrated loyalty to only one thing and admits wholeheartedly her devotion to her main cause - herself. There are many fine people involved in the prevention of torture of people - of which circumcision is a form - she is not one of them.

No I attack you for your arrogance in calling them stone-age. What gives an obviously uneducated (on this topic) individual such as yourself such a right ?

All of the reasons you mention above you will find touted as arguments for introduction in the U.S. amongst other cultures - just educate yourself willya?

Good God man - catch a good hold of yourself - you're getting boring - that is not what I said at all - go read the articles then come back.

 

I'm not implying anyone is stupid , I'm implying that a lot of people on this thread are uninformed - control of sex drive in males was one of the primary reasons for introduction of circumcision of the male in your country. Were you aware of this? If not please read the following:

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=40

Here's a little excerpt which will undoubtedly whet your appetite for the topic:

Uh they DO circumcise males - that was my point. And no you are fully wrong and sexist in your appraisal of male vs. female circumcision:

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=59

Classification (females)

Type 1: Excision of the prepuce with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris

Type 2: Excision of the clitoris together with partial or total excision of the labia minora

Type 3: Excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening (infibulation)

Type 4: Unclassified (but may include):

• pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or labia;
• stretching of the clitoris and/or labia;
• cauterization by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue;
• introcision;
• scraping (angurya cuts) or cutting (gishri cuts) of the vagina or surrounding tissue;
• introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina;
• any other procedure that falls under the definition of female genital mutilation given above.

There are mainly four forms of male circumcision:

Type 1: This type consists of cutting away in part or in totality the skin of the penis that extends beyond the glans. This skin is called foreskin or prepuce.

Type 2: This type is practiced mainly by the Jews. The circumciser takes firm grip of the foreskin with his left hand. Having determined the amount to be removed, he clamps a shield on it to protect the glans from injury. The knife is then taken in the right hand and the foreskin is amputated with one sweep along the shield. This part of the operation is called the milah. It reveals the mucous membrane (inner lining of the foreskin), the edge of which is then grasped firmly between the thumbnail and index finger of each hand and is torn down the centre as far as the corona.
This second part of the operation is called periah. It is traditionally performed by the circumciser with his sharpened fingernails.


Type 3: This type involves completely peeling the skin of the penis and sometimes the skin of the scrotum and pubis. It existed (and probably continues to exist) among some tribes of South Arabia. Jacques Lantier describes a similar practice in black Africa, in the Namshi tribe.

Type 4: This type consists in a slitting open of the urinary tube from the scrotum to the glans, creating in this way an opening that looks like the female vagina. Called subincision, this type of circumcision is still performed by the Australian aborigines.

 

PRecisely my point my man.

 

Just to finish up on this subject, basically my position is that any sort of female circumcision is barbaric. I can understand "less developed" cultures doing this but am at a loss when more advanced cultures do this for very dupious reasons.
In regards to the partial removal of the male foreskin, probably a unecessary procedure (unless in some rare instances where the foreskin is so tight that pulling it back over the head hurts) but nowhere in the same class as the female circumcision.
If I could be bothered I would post a poll to ask the chicks wether they prefer a circumcised or uncircumcised dick but I can't be fucked and has probably already been covered anyway.

 

I have been thinking about what people have said about male circumcision and have come to the conclusion that if I was uncircumcised I may well be suffering from pre-premature ejaculation. Just call me Mr Suzuki or two stroke for short
However yes I would have to agree that circumcision without consent is a negative thing. If an adult wants to have it done, fair enough but is it right for a parent/religious organisation to make this decision?
Just so you know we are not planning on circumcising any of our children.

 

Allll, X, the wisdom of the ages and the fairness of 'adult decision,' have prevailed. May be that all this hassel of a thread was worth it. Whatever the reason for your decision, your children have blessedly understanding parents - the gods greatest gift to any next generation!