Female Genital Mutilation: 200 million women and girls live with FGM -U.N.

[Draz]

What's your view on female genital mutilation? There are now 200 million women and young girls living with this practice being done to them. Their belief is that doing it at young ages, it'll prevent girls from messing around with boys.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/health/200-million-with-fgm/index.html


http://imageshack.com/a/img923/2002/UPp9cH.gif (https://imageshack.com/i/pnUPp9cHg)
http://imageshack.com/a/img921/1605/EquLqv.gif (https://imageshack.com/i/plEquLqvg)

NSFW: If you're interested in seeing some graphic pictures:

http://www.middle-east-info.org/league/somalia/fmgpictures.htm

[SugarHill]

religion is so retarded

[Akrazotile]

http://www.techinsider.io/africas-population-explosion-will-change-humanity-2015-8

techinsider-africas-population-explosion-will-change-humanity-2015-8



africa and the middle east. fastest growing places on the planet. sshhhhhhhh don't say anything about it tho, you might be called insensitive.

[Draz]

These females feel NO sexual pleasure whatsoever later on during their sexual life.

[Draz]

What's the point of that? I can't stomach to read those articles with the vision of an innocent vag getting destroyed by any means besides something natural.
The point is to remove pleasure. Pleasure and the lust to have sex at early ages and possibly throughout the entire life cycle of the female.

[fiddy]

These females feel NO sexual pleasure whatsoever later on during their sexual life.
Not a bad thing, she wont cheat :applause:

[Clifton]

What's your view on female genital mutilation? There are now 200 million women and young girls living with this practice being done to them. Their belief is that doing it at young ages, it'll prevent girls from messing around with boys.
The point is to make sex less pleasurable for women, isn't it?

If we're going to call it "genital mutilation," we're not going to have a worthwhile conversation about it. Most males in the US have "mutilated genitals" as well. We call it circumcision, and it makes sex much less pleasurable for us. Because of modern sanitation, it has no other function.

Why is it called "genital mutilation" when it's done to women? Or, the other side of the coin: why is it not called "genital mutilation" when it's done to men?

I have no intention on having my daughters' genitalia messed with. The nature of my inquiry is: Why do we do it at all? I'm considering not having my sons circumcised either. It seems unnatural.

But if you favor doing unnatural things for religious reasons, to make sex less appealing because you're afraid it will corrupt the souls of your kids and distract them from God, why not do it to both men and women?

[fiddy]

The point is to make sex less pleasurable for women, isn't it?

If we're going to call it "genital mutilation," we're not going to have a worthwhile conversation about it. Most males in the US have "mutilated genitals" as well. We call it circumcision, and it makes sex much less pleasurable for us. Because of modern sanitation, it has no other function.

Why is it called "genital mutilation" when it's done to women? Or, the other side of the coin: why is it not called "genital mutilation" when it's done to men?

I have no intention on having my daughters' genitalia messed with. The nature of my inquiry is: Why do we do it at all? I'm considering not having my sons circumcised either. It seems unnatural.

But if you favor doing unnatural things for religious reasons, to make sex less appealing because you're afraid it will corrupt the souls of your kids and distract them from God, why not do it to both men and women?

Its not a fair trade, mutilated women get no pleasure vs reduced pleasure for men. Both practices are barbaric and absolutely unnecessary

[Draz]

Didn't know this. I'm not circumcised. I wouldn't know if it's less pleasurable. Is this true? God DAM what a time to be alive.


Most males in the US have "mutilated genitals" as well. We call it circumcision, and it makes sex much less pleasurable for us.

[Clifton]

Also: Have we really thought through what it means to call this a human rights issue? Why is it? Why should the pleasure aspect of sex be something that is fought so hard over? Are we sure these other cultures don't have a pretty good point?

Again, I think it's good for sex to be pleasurable. but I have views on marriage and monogamy that most of you all probably don't. I think it should be pleasurable for wives to have sex with their husbands. If it's for anything else, I'm not on board. And I don't understand what is the ethical imperative to make sure men *or* women can have maximum pleasure be a major attraction to having sex with whomever they want.

[SugarHill]

Also: Have we really thought through what it means to call this a human rights issue? Why is it? Why should the pleasure aspect of sex be something that is fought so hard over? Are we sure these other cultures don't have a pretty good point?

Again, I think it's good for sex to be pleasurable. but I have views on marriage and monogamy that most of you all probably don't. I think it should be pleasurable for wives to have sex with their husbands. If it's for anything else, I'm not on board. And I don't understand what is the ethical imperative to make sure men *or* women can have maximum pleasure be a major attraction to having sex with whomever they want.

You understand the issue is more than "pleasure" right? FGM is done in poor areas and the procedure can have severe physical effects both short and longterm

[Draz]

Tbh. Sex is the only thing good that comes out of life. Regardless of how healthy, wealthy, well off you are in life, true happiness comes from sex. People lust for it as much as we do for man made valuable items like money, cars, clothes, houses, land, the list goes on.

We can't rob people (women) of natural pleasures. Their practically turned into objects, used for your own sexual desires, to maintain a household and bare children. In a humane perspective, this is looked down upon. And it should.

[Clifton]

Its not a fair trade, mutilated women get no pleasure vs reduced pleasure for men.
Fair enough. No, it's not a fair trade.

[Draz]

Can you imagine having sex with someone that has had their genitals mutilated? She's either dead silent during sex or pretending to be enjoying it. I don't know whats worst.

[Clifton]

Here is another side to the story. (I'm not for genital mutilation of women. But I find the idea interesting and worth exploring.)

Here is the father's point of view who wants to do this to his daughter:

"If my daughter is not able to receive pleasure from sex, she is much less likely to be taken advantage of by men. She is much more likely to be clear-headed in her choice of a mate, and is much more likely to end up in a high-functioning marriage based on personal compatibility rather than passive sexual dependency. I am giving her freedom from being a willing sex object for the gazillions of sex-crazed ne'er-do-wells who want to use her for pleasure. I am putting her on the fast track to maturity. Her chances of teenage or unwed pregnancy are basically zero now."

[Draz]

Here is another side to the story. (I'm not for genital mutilation of women. But I find the idea interesting and worth exploring.)

Here is the father's point of view who wants to do this to his daughter:

"If my daughter is not able to receive pleasure from sex, she is much less likely to be taken advantage of by men. She is much more likely to be clear-headed in her choice of a mate, and is much more likely to end up in a high-functioning marriage based on personal compatibility rather than passive sexual dependency. I am giving her freedom from being a willing sex object for the gazillions of sex-crazed ne'er-do-wells who want to use her for pleasure. I am putting her on the fast track to maturity. Her chances of teenage or unwed pregnancy are basically zero now."
What this does is not blind the daughter with lust or need for sex. It doesn't stop the females from experimenting neither does it stop men from wanting sex any less. It'll keep their head balance for priorities, but it robs them of natural rights to enjoy sexual intercourse or pleasures any living person or animal deserves. It also increases their want for sex to experiment with different partners and different methods to find ways that'll make up for it.

There's no win for it.

[Clifton]

Can you imagine having sex with someone that has had their genitals mutilated? She's either dead silent during sex or pretending to be enjoying it. I don't know whats worst.
It's hard to imagine. Also a good point.

But I find something puritanically intriguing about two people (probably married) getting together to have sex even though it ain't all that pleasurable. Why would they do this? Well, they wouldn't, unless it was to express intimate love or create a child. Which many people (most of them are dead, the rest religious) have said is the whole point of the sexual act...

I dunno.

I would like to talk to some of these women, because I'm curious what it's like. If the highly-sensitive sexual parts are gone, but you have an emotionally fulfilling marriage, is there still a kind of pleasure in sex? Of a deeper kind? Or is it just a pure loss?

I want to know what they think. When talking about women, you always want to know what they think. Cause it's hard for us to really, you know, get it. We talk and talk but we have no idea.

[Clifton]

What this does is not blind the daughter with lust or need for sex. It doesn't stop the females from experimenting neither does it stop men from wanting sex any less. It'll keep their head balance for priorities, but it robs them of natural rights to enjoy sexual intercourse or pleasures any living person or animal deserves. It also increases their want for sex to experiment with different partners and different methods to find ways that'll make up for it.

There's no win for it.
Yeah. I think I'm convinced by everything you've said so far.

[Draz]

This shit is serious. Thinking about it now, these girls don't even get turned on. They don't get wet. They don't have orgasms, and never will. Not even simple shit like getting kissed on the neck. I know for me, when girls kiss my neck that instantly turns me on. Imagine a girl hitting your weak spot and you don't get turned on. It's practically like having a limp dck forever. Everyone around you can have a boner, but you're forever limp.

[Clifton]

Didn't know this. I'm not circumcised. I wouldn't know if it's less pleasurable. Is this true? God DAM what a time to be alive.
This is just what I have heard. If anyone actually has knowledge about this matter, I'm happy to be corrected.

[Akrazotile]

The point is to make sex less pleasurable for women, isn't it?

If we're going to call it "genital mutilation," we're not going to have a worthwhile conversation about it. Most males in the US have "mutilated genitals" as well. We call it circumcision, and it makes sex much less pleasurable for us. Because of modern sanitation, it has no other function.

Why is it called "genital mutilation" when it's done to women? Or, the other side of the coin: why is it not called "genital mutilation" when it's done to men?

I have no intention on having my daughters' genitalia messed with. The nature of my inquiry is: Why do we do it at all? I'm considering not having my sons circumcised either. It seems unnatural.

But if you favor doing unnatural things for religious reasons, to make sex less appealing because you're afraid it will corrupt the souls of your kids and distract them from God, why not do it to both men and women?


I think from a practical standpoint, circumcision is far less invasive than clitoris removal. Circumcision is just removal of a portion of skin. We also remove portions of hair from our face, and portions of nails from our toes, all of which grow naturally. Circumcision is also not done to coerce a pattern of behavior onto another person. It's done ostensibly as a sign of preserving group identity. Which I'm not saying is a convincing reason, but is again less invasive than permanently altering someone's natural range of sensation. I'm circumcised, and sex still feels damn good to me, so I can't imagine the difference in not being cut is anything but negligible.

Also, as has already been mentioned, the physical process of female alteration is far more dangerous than the process for males.

I definitely understand your points and perspective though. There's no real clear right or wrong for any of this. Just a matter of cultural and individual perspective.

[SugarHill]

This shit is serious. Thinking about it now, these girls don't even get turned on. They don't get wet. They don't have orgasms, and never will. Not even simple shit like getting kissed on the neck. I know for me, when girls kiss my neck that instantly turns me on. Imagine a girl hitting your weak spot and you don't get turned on. It's practically like having a limp dck forever. Everyone around you can have a boner, but you're forever limp.
They can still orgasm. At least a vast majority can

[Draz]

They can still orgasm. At least a vast majority can
Orgasms is as mental as it is physical. Hence, pre-ejaculating.

[KyrieTheFuture]

I'd probably be slightly less disgusted by it if real surgeons did it instead of witch doctors

[Dresta]

Here is another side to the story. (I'm not for genital mutilation of women. But I find the idea interesting and worth exploring.)

Here is the father's point of view who wants to do this to his daughter:

"If my daughter is not able to receive pleasure from sex, she is much less likely to be taken advantage of by men. She is much more likely to be clear-headed in her choice of a mate, and is much more likely to end up in a high-functioning marriage based on personal compatibility rather than passive sexual dependency. I am giving her freedom from being a willing sex object for the gazillions of sex-crazed ne'er-do-wells who want to use her for pleasure. I am putting her on the fast track to maturity. Her chances of teenage or unwed pregnancy are basically zero now."Although i think this is a defunct custom, one which the world would be better without, it has to be admitted: he has a point. The truth is that patriarchy pre-dates all civilization and civilized social order, nay, it is a necessary antecedent for all effective moral and social order; it is very much the cornerstone of our own civilization, even if we have decided to discard it (and look at the consequences: most 'women's rights' campaigners now want the state to take up the mantle of patriarchy and protect them from all the evils of the world, no matter how petty they may be). Feminists hack away at the roots of civilization so they can behave like beasts, and indulge themselves in licentious behaviour, with an endless litany of negative consequences resulting.

Remember, these are customs that survive from a time when it was normal for conquerers to execute all military-aged males and take all the women and children as spoils of war. Without the protection of patriarchy (and particularly of Christianity) women would have been far less free. It is very difficult for people born and raised in the very novel social structure of contemporary western nations to recognise all this, but it is historical fact.

Think how dangerous pregnancy used to be, for example, or how a woman's prospects in life could be totally obliterated by one lust-filled mistake.

I condemn the practice, but if you think about it, it is easy to understand why it exists; these places have not developed organically like the West: we foisted our material and medical advances onto them, and culturally, in many places, they've clearly not adjusted. These things take time to change.

[Draz]

If my daughter is not able to receive pleasure from sex this is heartbreaking

A high functioning marriage with pleasureless sex? The fvk is that?

This is basically saying I don't trust my daughter to be a human so I'm going to protect her
Whenever she ready I'm ready

[Dresta]

Also forgot: get an std back then, and you're f*cked. Not so simple. When most people didn't survive childhood, sexual pleasure was pretty low on the list of important things (as dictated by custom: the accumulated wisdom of the species).

It was our ancestors' ability to refrain from this kind of self-indulgence that has allowed us the liberty to give it free reign. I don't see the modern age making the same kind of sacrifices for posterity.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Also forgot: get an std back then, and you're f*cked. Not so simple. When most people didn't survive childhood, sexual pleasure was pretty low on the list of important things (as dictated by custom: the accumulated wisdom of the species).

It was our ancestors' ability to refrain from this kind of self-indulgence that has allowed us the liberty to give it free reign. I don't see the modern age making the same kind of sacrifices for posterity.
Are you implying our ancestors weren't promiscuous?

[Hawker]

I think from a practical standpoint, circumcision is far less invasive than clitoris removal. Circumcision is just removal of a portion of skin. We also remove portions of hair from our face, and portions of nails from our toes, all of which grow naturally. Circumcision is also not done to coerce a pattern of behavior onto another person. It's done ostensibly as a sign of preserving group identity. Which I'm not saying is a convincing reason, but is again less invasive than permanently altering someone's natural range of sensation. I'm circumcised, and sex still feels damn good to me, so I can't imagine the difference in not being cut is anything but negligible.

Also, as has already been mentioned, the physical process of female alteration is far more dangerous than the process for males.

I definitely understand your points and perspective though. There's no real clear right or wrong for any of this. Just a matter of cultural and individual perspective.

Pretty sure circumcision was done to prevent *********ion in boys.

Glad you say it's not a convincing reason though. Circumcision is pretty ****ed and is definitely genital mutilation. Gotta say this female mutilation is worse though.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Circumcision is (was) a hygiene issue not a cultural one

[Dresta]

Are you implying our ancestors weren't promiscuous?
Not really. We are naturally promiscuous animals, but promiscuity can be harmful and culturally enervating, which is why nearly all successful social orders have attempted to place fetters on these natural impulses, and why marriage and the family unit is very much the foundation of all civilization.

All great civilizations have placed some form of restraint on the sexual impulse, and have suffered decay once those restraints have become loosened. This Roman concept, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pudicitia

[QUOTE]Romans, both men and women, were expected to uphold the virtue of pudicitia, a complex ideal that was explored by many ancient writers, including Livy, Valerius Maximus, Cicero and Tacitus. Livy describes the legendary figure of Lucretia as the epitome of pudicitia. She is loyal to her husband and is modest, despite her incredible beauty. The story of Lucretia shows that the more virtuous a woman was, the more appealing she was to potential adulterers.

Pudicitia was not only a mental attribute but also physical; a person

[alenleomessi]

This is just what I have heard. If anyone actually has knowledge about this matter, I'm happy to be corrected.
well cant speak for everyone but ive been cumming for 10 years now and its great

[Draz]

well cant speak for everyone but ive been cumming for 10 years now and its great
Can you describe vividly these events

[KyrieTheFuture]

"virtue" has only ever mattered to the upper class in these societies though. Poor people loved to **** 1000 years ago just like today.

[TheMan]

You understand the issue is more than "pleasure" right? FGM is done in poor areas and the procedure can have severe physical effects both short and longterm
This

15% die from the procedure either by tetanus or septic shock

If I had daughters, no way would I ever consider doing that to them, to rob them of a pleasure all humans should enjoy. It's primitive, disgusting and barbaric. :mad: My boys are natural, I didn't consider mutilating them either and my wife wholeheartedly agreed.

[Akrazotile]

Circumcision is (was) a hygiene issue not a cultural one

Theres really not a lot of evidence for this claim to my knowledge.

The instruction shows up in the hebrew bible and thats why jews do it. Why god or his interpreters or the bibles authors etc., however you want to classify it put the instruction in there is still not clear to this day. It is definitely a cultural thing rather than a hygiene thing for jews. Same with other ancient cultures who practiced it. The motivations for its origins are not well understood.

There have been periods since then when some societies elected to do it for hygiene concerns but often it then turns into a cultural thing and most people end up just doing it to their own kids because it was done to them. I don't think it happens that often whereparents specifically read up on the research and decide it's important for hygiene reasons. The only reason you could do studies and research of hygiene comparisons is because some people were already doing it and others weren't. But historically it's done more for cultural continuity reasons than hygiene purposes.

[Draz]

Circumcision was also done to males to prevent stds and some bs. Sounds like crap to me, you're bound to catch it with or without. Also read stories of girls being strongly against men who aren't circumcised. I met one girl like that and she found out I wasn't when she asked, just behaved really creepy. I dropped the fck out of her

[TheMan]

Circumcision was also done to males to prevent stds and some bs. Sounds like crap to me, you're bound to catch it with or without. Also read stories of girls being strongly against men who aren't circumcised. I met one girl like that and she found out I wasn't when she asked, just behaved really creepy. I dropped the fck out of her
The funny thing is that uncut men to cut men ratio is about 80%-85% to 20%-15% worldwide. Basically outside the US, Isreal and Islamic countries, everyone else is uncut, so by far more women are used to uncut dudes than cut dudes.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=W4Cjaaj1V50

[poido123]

Islam.


Where taking joy out of people's lives is a right.

[Bandito]

Can you imagine having sex with someone that has had their genitals mutilated? She's either dead silent during sex or pretending to be enjoying it. I don't know whats worst.
Well..I wouldn't know better :lol

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Islam.


Where taking joy out of people's lives is a right.

Find it in the Quran Hadith Sharia or Sunnah.

Now.

Otherwise silence liar. There are campaigns against it in Africa FROM Muslims just as there were antiabolitionists Christians. It's a terrible practice.

Harming yourself is not part of the way. And it clearly states sexual pleasure in a marriage is good.

[Cactus-Sack]

It's much cleaner and looks much more attractive