Originally posted by NyxieSo you would be quite happy to circumcise a young girl - becuause her future sexual partners prefer the look of mutilated genitals - as long as it is not "done to the extreme"?
That's an exageration.
Female circumcision if done to the extreme as in some muslim countries, can make it almost impossible for the female to achieve orgasm, and leaves her open to more infection. I don't think male circumcision does this.
1 edit
This is a weird thread.
A couple of weird notes. I have only a single case that I can spout of from experience, but:
1 - I have never seen an uncircumsized man in an aroused state that was "hooded". It unhoods real quick. Ahem....
2 - What the f(&c am I doing in this thread!
3 - All religious mutilation seems a bit silly. But then all religion seems a bunch silly. What is an act of mutilation or two between friends and zealots?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'd ask what you were doing looking at all this, but I have a feeling I'd regret it...
A couple of weird notes. I have only a single case that I can spout of from experience, but:
1 - I have never seen an uncircumsized man in an aroused state that was "hooded". It unhoods real quick. Ahem....
Originally posted by steerpikeIt's not that they prefer the look of mutilated genitals. It's a display of ownership. A man prefers a woman who is devoid of sexual stimulation because she will be less likely to desire another man, less likely to stray from her husband. It is the mans privelage to remove the stitches sewing her closed to all others and if the husband so chooses can sew her back up once "finished" with his bride. It's a complete and totall power trip on the part of these men. The Mothers allow this to happen to their daughters because it is la ess painfull experience than having no husband to look after you. Personally this makes me sick. I thank God I have the rights and freedoms to be more than some mans mutilated property. These are old rituals and old beliefs that need to be challenged by the new world.
So you would be quite happy to circumcise a young girl - becuause her future sexual partners prefer the look of mutilated genitals - as long as it is not "done to the extreme"?
2 edits
Originally posted by steerpikeI don't think she said that. Did she?
So you would be happy for someone to take a knife to the genitals of a baby boy - but not to a baby girl?
Personally, I find it disgusting genital mutilation is carried out in the name of religion.
I think you are just projecting your hate of women.
But what do I know? Only what I notice?
BTW
Are you out of prison yet? What are you in for? You never have dared to tell us. Have you? Anything to do with Women?
It's that idiot savant thing. I know what you are piker.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIf mutilating a womans genitals is evidence of hate of woman, why is mutilating a boys genitals acceptable?
I don't think she said that. Did she?
I think you are just projecting your hate of women.
But what do I know? Only what I notice?
BTW
Are you out of prison yet? What are you in for? You never have dared to tell us. Have you? Anything to do with Women?
It's that idiot savant thing. I know what you are piker.
I find them both abhorrent and evidence of backwardness and superstition.
Originally posted by mokkoExactly the same arguments are advanced for female and male circumcision. It is our custom, it is our religion, it is cleaner, it looks better, it prevents inappropriate sexual feelings.
It's not that they prefer the look of mutilated genitals. It's a display of ownership. A man prefers a woman who is devoid of sexual stimulation because she will be less likely to desire another man, less likely to stray from her husband. It is the mans privelage to remove the stitches sewing her closed to all others and if the husband so chooses can sew her ...[text shortened]... ed property. These are old rituals and old beliefs that need to be challenged by the new world.
You can't logically defend male circumcision while calling female circumcision backward and an abuse of power. Both are wrong.
Originally posted by steerpikeOk.
If mutilating a womans genitals is evidence of hate of woman, why is mutilating a boys genitals acceptable?
I find them both abhorrent and evidence of backwardness and superstition.
Why do you defend "boys" skins and attack "girls"? Or have I mis-interpreted you again?