If there is only one subject-Female Genital Mutilation-then so called “double standards” cannot apply, can they? What you are looking for is a thread just titled “Genital Mutilation”. If you can’t find it, go start it.
Once again, this is not a generic FGM thread. It’s regarding a specific case and the legal issue behind it. That a very similar procedure (in THIS case) is legal and widely accepted is totally relevant. The OP’s first two sentences are “Religious freedom my ass. I hope this doctor gets jailtime.”
I’m sure you and/or others have reported the “dick” posts that have your ire up. Looks like the mods disagree with you. So, how about YOU go start a general FGM thread and STFU?
Do you have any idea what infibulation actually entails?
TL;DR – the entire clitoris, hood and all, is lopped off, as is the labia, and whatever’s left is sewn together, with just a small opening to allow urination and menstruation.
Quite honestly, pleasure from sex is a woman’s least concern here – excruciating pain is the norm. Feeling nothing would actually be a benefit in this kind of situation.
And that doesn’t even begin to describe the dangers involved with pregnancy and childbirth, not to mention infections, cysts, scarring, tissue damage, possible gangrene etc – that she’ll have to worry about through the rest of her life.
Besides, this idea that women have different “types” of orgasms has been discredited long ago. I don’t know any woman who can do so soly by breast stimulation, and the existance of the g-spot is largely anecdotal. (Possibly even a myth)
Most women do NOT experience orgasms via internal stimulation alone, and have often felt like there was something wrong with them when they didn’t. (At least, when they talked to people like YOU)
You motherfucking selfish, stupid, little bastard. Go fuck yourself with a broken piece of glass.
If I may add to the bolded part a bit. This is done so the man is guaranteed a virgin. He then gets to rip that small opening to shreds with his dick. Oh, my, I hope he hasn’t lost any sensitivity in his glans because, of course, that’s what’s important in any discussion of FGM. /sarcasm
:smack: You and a bunch of others are either blithering idiots or are willfully misreading the very clear intent of what Blalron pisted. Maybe a little of both.
Wrong. Among American gentiles, it became prevalent precisely to curb male masturbation. Then it just became a blind tradition to match fathers and sons, as FGM has become for mothers and daughters.
Blalron basically waived aside the severe horror that is infibulation, with his (false) assertions that “well, she can still enjoy sex!” SOMEONE’s a blithering idiot here, but I don’t think it’s Czarcasm.
Um, no FGM is still done for the sake of controlling women sexually, and unless they were planning on being eunuchs to the Chinese Empress, those men never had their dicks completely chopped off with rusty razor blades!
Of course, if they did have their dicks cut off with rusty razor blades, I’m sure they would still enjoy nipple and prostate stimulation, so no harm, no foul, right?
The following is in the OP. It is a snippet of the linked to article:
More regarding India’s Dawoodi Bohra community:
There is no indication that the reason this sect of Muslims is performing this procedure is to control women sexually. In post 84 I posted regarding how the intent may have been to enhance a woman’s pleasure.
No. FGM and male circumcision are not “a very similar procedure.” We’ve covered this over and over, and continuing to lie about this does not help you.
This is the goddamned fucking Pit. Of course the mods aren’t going to stop you. That doesn’t mean that what you are doing is not a fucking hijack. It just means it’s up to us to tell you off.
You are hijacking this thread. The OP, from the title on, is about FGM. It is not about your penis and your psychological-only feelings of inadequacy. Stop being a selfish prick and let us discuss this.
If you want a thread on how horrible male circumcision is, open one. Continue in this thread, and we’ll just treat you like the selfish, misogynistic bastards you are.
Instead of being hypocritical with thread purity in the pit, because you clowns sure don’t afford anyone else any respect, how about you start a new thread where hijacks are moderated more forcefully? How hard can that be?
And if young boys having sex with Catholic priests was considered by society to be a wholesome, normal step in boys’ development to adulthood, many would likely have a different outlook on the practice.
Oooh, this is fun! Do, uhh, let’s see, “Child porn” next!
You lose all credibility with this. It’s now the 22nd time you’ve destroyed your credibility in this thread alone.
And I’ve never liked this saying. I believe that it is indicative of an independent strong, robust state of health to be able to fully adapt, become well-adjusted, to a profoundly sick society. We sometimes cannot control where we are, we only have control over ourselves. Humans are the ultimate ‘adapters’. Adjusting to adverse, even decaying conditions, successfully, is what we do.
Well why don’t you start helping him out to get BETTER at his persuasive skills. He’d learn from the best, ehh?
Hey. Don’t even joke about my Junk. Shit’s totally cereal.
Well! That escalated quickly
Just because the two practices are intrinsically linked doesn’t mean a thoughtful conversation can’t take place concerning the the ‘highest priority’ and ‘most damaging’ of those two, admittedly linked, practices. I feel like the complaints are that such a conversation has not seemed possible heretofore.
Has Blalron ever said or intimated that male circumcision is something that can be “waived (sic) aside” because most circumcised men can enjoy sex?
I haven’t read as many of his posts as you guys have, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say the answer is “no”, and in fact very much to the contrary.
Which means that he was, as any thinking person would know, NOT saying infibulation was NBD. He was pointing out that you can’t say male circumcision is NBD with the justification “circumcised men can still enjoy sex, but infibulated women cannot”. So his point was to hold up this justification as fundamentally hollow to show that an FGM apologist could make the same lame defense.
It really boggles my mind that so many of you missed this very obvious rhetorical device. Jesus, get a fucking clue, people! :dubious:
That’s strange, because all that I’ve thought or written about this practice, as it pertains to the OP case and the Dawoodi Bohra, can be supported by your cite. Everything - the deception, the ritualized pain and trauma, the culture of silence and all of the lies surrounding the procedures, it’s all in there.
So you found this story about people resisting the practice and its imposed silence, and putting up a good fight about it in India, even noting that they have been told the reason is to decrease sexual arousal…and decided to quote the self-appointed defenders of the practice, here, and pronounce that “there is no indication that the reason this sect of Muslims is performing this procedure is to control women sexually.”
I dunno, maybe read it again? One indication or another might jump out at you.
