It does become a lot thornier when it is done at an older age like that. On the one hand, someone certainly has more ability to say “fuck this” than does an infant. But if they will be shunned by their community for refusing, and they don’t have the resources to just move to some other place where people don’t care, how much agency is that really? It becomes similar to the debate about wearing the hijab, except that it’s far less reversible of course.
I just want to say that 'Well, actually, these women can still have orgasms . . . " is now my gold standard for mansplaining. Observe:
-
It’s a distinction without a difference. Whether or not it is technically possible for a woman to have an orgasm after such a procedure, the existence of the procedure itself suggests that it’s not an environment where women are likely to get the sort of education or support that it would take to find the elusive, technically possible female orgasm. The relevant fact is that her capacity for normal sexual response has been dramatically and permanently distorted and reduced.
-
It’s lecturing women about the most intimate and private workings of their own bodies, sharing “special knowledge”, as if women don’t know perfectly well how women work
-
It has an element of victim blaming–they are complaining about nothing, they could have an orgasm if they’d just work at it/had the special knowledge.
-
It’s wrong. While their may be victims of some sorts of FGM that can reach orgasm, considering the extreme nature of the procedure, it’s certainly not true that they’d all be capable of orgasm if they just twisted their nipples enough.
-
It’s gross and kind of prurient: it’s talking about a person and a person’s body like it’s a computer game and here’s a cheat code. Sexuality is so nuanced: it’s one thing to say “Sexual experience isn’t binary, and it’s not true that woman who has been infibulation has had her capacity for sexual response entirely eliminated”. Now, I’d still have huge problems with that statement, but it’s not skeevy. It doesn’t feel like looking for a chance to use the phrase “nipple stimulation” in a sentence, or reduce the point of sexual response to “didja orgasm?”.
It was just a totally superfluous comment that didn’t advance the argument and left me, at least, feeling gross and insulted.
I forget how the subject came up but several of us guys were discussing circumcision at work one day. A cow-orker mentioned he was intact but his younger brother was cut. He explained their mother for some reason delayed the procedure until he was four and little brother two. LB was first and after hearing the noises emanating from that little room he vehemently refused to go there, raising such a fuss the adults relented. Mom never got around to doing later.
This is perfect.
It would be funny if this shit wasn’t just so common and depressing.
Reading comprehension. I capitalized just for ignorant fucks like you. In the case the OP is about, it is a very similar procedure.
Us? We? Aww, the loser living in his parents basement thinks he’s part of a tough club that isn’t going to stand for injustice on a message board. How adorable!
No, it’s not about FGM. It’s about a specific case. No one is changing it to be ABOUT male circumcision.
Speaking of hijacks, WOMEN, and white knights that feel heroic defending them, have stopped talking about the case in the OP and declared this thread is about FGM in general, and then HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT FGM!. What this thread has become has been a place to cry that men shouldn’t be allowed to talk about their pricks at all. Waaaaah! THAT IS NOT HOW ONE TALKS ABOUT FGM! I want to have a serious conversation about an important issue IN THE FUCKING PIT and the swinging cocks won’t let me! You don’t care about the issue. I’ve read enough of your posts on this message board. What you really care about has been said better by others in the Pit threads all about you.
Every instance of male circumcision being brought up, starting in post 6, has been relevant to the OP. What’s not relevant is all the bitching about men and their pricks.
Wow, you really are a douchebag.
Correct. There has been no good indication given that in this culture the reason for performing Type 1a FGM is to decrease sexuality. An online survey does not sway me; I would expect those that want a ritual to come to an end to lie or exaggerate. There is evidence in Hadith that it is to increase sexuality. That is NOT a claim from me that it does enhance sexuality. I do not doubt that some women of this culture are told that to decrease sexuality is the purpose. I have discussed what is permitted and disallowed in Islam with many Muslims and there is much ignorance as to why things are proscribed. What is standard among them is they do things because of tradition and because they believe it’s what their holy books tell them to do. If denying sexual pleasure were the goal, restricting cutting to Type 1a FGM wouldn’t make much sense.
What Hadith? Specifically.
I can’t find Hadith that specifically says it’s performed to increase sexuality, and there are others that are interpreted that it is done to moderate a woman’s behavior, but one quote from that page is the following:
“Do not go to the extreme in cutting; that is better for the woman and more liked by the husband.”
I can find those that interpret quotes like the above to mean increasing a woman’s pleasure is the intent. But it’s not the important part of my earlier post to focus on.
Do we know that? I thought the defendant said, “I just wiped away a tissue” and the prosecutor had a doctor who said “no, they cut and damaged her genitalia.” But I haven’t found any links here that say what, specifically, was done to that girl.
(Other than lie to her, hijack her, hold her down, and do something with no anesthesia and no sedation. Which is really nasty even if the actual cutting was minor. It matters that infants don’t remember it – people take drugs for nasty procedures for the sole purpose of not being stuck with the unpleasant memory.)
No. Because that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand. What matters is that, in his attempts to make FGM and male circumcision the same, he’s actually making FGM much less of a problem than it actually is.
While it’s fine if you personally object to circumcision and don’t want to do it to your child, it objectively causes no physical harm to the child. You can argue it’s an unnecessary surgery and that it carries risks that don’t need to be taken for very little if any physical benefit.
So, from a physical standpoint, male circumcision is no big deal. However, the same is not true of female genital mutilation. And we who actually care about facts and fighting ignorance will continue to call out those who try to equate the two.
As long as you guys want to use dishonest tactics to try and stop us from talking about FGM instead of male circumcision, we will be here to call you out. If you cared about FGM, you wouldn’t try to hijack the thread and control it to be about your topic instead.
Wiki islam, in English with no Arabic.
Fine. We take take the crappy shit citation page on its own basis.
None of that crappy page is about increasing womens pleasure, only one mention is about in fact limiting the damage of the operation.
so your going on about the practice being justified by the increasing of pleasure and mention Hadith, but even on a shitty wiki-islam page biased to supporting the idea via the doubtful hadiths and the assertions of support, there is zero mention of the idea and in fact it is about control and honor.
Idiot donkey.
So should it be a much lesser crime to abuse an infant, or an elderly person with dementia? How about to use a date-rape drug known to cause amnesia on a young woman? :dubious:
Whoa. :eek:
:smack: This is literally the opposite of being objectively true. Just, wow.
There are also people with traumatic brain injuries that prevent them from forming new long term memories. But they can still remember past memories, and still engage in (brief) conversations. Would it be acceptable to tie down an adult with anterograde amnesia to a circumstraint, and cut off part of his penis with no anesthesia? He could verbally protest “NO PLEASE DON’T DO THIS! OH MY FUCKING GOD WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?!?!” But it’s cool, right? He won’t remember it. His caregivers have absolute authority over him, just like parents have over newborn babies.
I think posters like SlackerInc and Blalron ought to go off and play with their tiny little dicks and leave the rest of us alone.
No, Blalron was saying that infibulation is NBD because the women can still have orgasms.
Don’t step into any puddles, you might drown.
:smack: No, and it’s idiotic that you would interpret it this way. Do you generally have trouble understanding sarcasm?
It was an offensive joke. Do you usually have trouble understanding when “sarcasm” goes too far?
I don’t think he meant it as a joke. I think he meant it as a pedantic correction.