Thread: British Female Genital Mutilation, No Prosecutions

Barbaric, I saw a documentary about this years ago and it was horrific. Some young girl being held down while a toothless crone attacked her genitals with a rasor blade.

And any of you men out there that think that this mutilation is on par with male circumcision then you are fucking blinkered.

These girls are cut, sewn up and have a little hole to pee and menstruate out of. They are then sexually abused through the same little hole. The only time they are un sewn is when they give birth. And then sewn up again over and over again.

Sick sick sick sick ad nauseum.

Originally Posted by patsycat

Barbaric, I saw a documentary about this years ago and it was horrific. Some young girl being held down while a toothless crone attacked her genitals with a rasor blade.

And any of you men out there that think that this mutilation is on par with male circumcision then you are fucking blinkered.

These girls are cut, sewn up and have a little hole to pee and menstruate out of. They are then sexually abused through the same little hole. The only time they are un sewn is when they give birth. And then sewn up again over and over again.

Sick sick sick sick ad nauseum.

It's the price we pay for graciously allowing Islam to exist.

Originally Posted by Jools

Originally Posted by patsycat

Barbaric, I saw a documentary about this years ago and it was horrific. Some young girl being held down while a toothless crone attacked her genitals with a rasor blade.

And any of you men out there that think that this mutilation is on par with male circumcision then you are fucking blinkered.

These girls are cut, sewn up and have a little hole to pee and menstruate out of. They are then sexually abused through the same little hole. The only time they are un sewn is when they give birth. And then sewn up again over and over again.

Sick sick sick sick ad nauseum.

It's the price we pay for graciously allowing Islam to exist.

As stated above: Christians do it as well.

You would think women would refuse to carryout this practice.
You would think women would refuse to allow this to be done to their children.

Some will blame it on barbaric men and their power play over their women folk.

Women could stop this.

Personally I think both male and fem genital mutilation should be banned, but of course you'd have to allow exemptions on religious grounds- so we are right back where we started.

As far as FGM goes it is less traumatic than MGM actually, apart from a particularly horrible version mainly practised around the horn of Africa.

Look, ask some circumsized bloke about the trauma he suffered as an infant with no choice, and he'll likely tell you to go fuck yourself. So I think you can understand the same attitude applies with FGM.

female genital mutilation (FGM), a practice that serves as a social and cultural bonding exercise and, among those who are stitched up, to ensure that chastity can be proved to a future husband.
Even girls who suffer less extreme forms of FGM are unlikely to be promiscuous. One study among Egyptian women found 50% of women who had undergone FGM "endured" rather than enjoyed sex.
Cleanliness, neatness of appearance and the increased sexual pleasure for the man are all motivations for the practice. But the desire to conform to tradition is the most powerful motive.

The power of religion to ease the insecurity of small willied middle eastern men never ceases to sicken me.

Originally Posted by Dug

ping off the clit so the woman doesn't feel any pleasure.

FGM doesn't cut off the clit.
MGM reduces the sensitivity of the glans penis by some 65%. It's a friction thing, and the glans is the most sensitive part of the penis.

Get used to it- apparently with this reduced sensitivity you are less likely to suffer from premature ejaculation, albeit you never will and never can feel the sensations of the uncircumsized male.

Just one of those things.

I don't like either M/FGM, and neither would I take out an infants tonsils or appendix in anticipation of some future disorder. As for hygiene, soap and showers. These days they are widely available.

Personally I prefer people whole.

Originally Posted by Dug

Originally Posted by sabang

Personally I think both male and fem genital mutilation should be banned, but of course you'd have to allow exemptions on religious grounds- so we are right back where we started.

As far as FGM goes it is less traumatic than MGM actually, apart from a particularly horrible version mainly practised around the horn of Africa.

Look, ask some circumsized bloke about the trauma he suffered as an infant with no choice, and he'll likely tell you to go fuck yourself. So I think you can understand the same attitude applies with FGM.

i think a better comparison would be to ask a guy who's had his dick chpped off.
ping off the clit so the woman doesn't feel any pleasure.
Do you know why circumcision is done ?
it's a hygeine thing. Only excess skin that serves no purpose is removed.

So Dug, does that mean you would support females having their prepuce and labia minora (inner lips) excised? I mean, after all, it IS excess skin that serves NO MORE purpose than the foreskin. And it would make the vulva a cleaner place. I assume that is what you mean by hygiene. And not all versions of female "cutting" involve removal of some or all of the clitoris.

Dug, that idea of doing males for hygiene is just a load of crap. The cultures doing it to females have loads of excuses, too.

It is also just another example of the western world proclaiming that what they do is right, and what everyone else does is a matter for the west to judge.

Sabang is correct .. it should ALL be outlawed. If you as an adult want to get "cut", then go ahead. Your choice. And, by the way, even in the west some women are choosing to have labiaplasty (removal of most or some of the labia minora) for cosmetic reasons. That is their choice.

The provided link provides some comparison of the male-female procedures.

FGM vs MGM

So Sabang and Khang, what you are saying is that because the non muslim world permits circumcision we should alsow female genital mutilation.
Is that what you are saying?
Just so we're clear.

Can only speak for me- most (the vast majority) of FGM is more benign and less traumatic than MGM.

We can hardly decry that now can we, without being total hypocrites?

There is a more severe form that is abhorrent in the extreme.

Originally Posted by sabang

Personally I think both male and fem genital mutilation should be banned, but of course you'd have to allow exemptions on religious grounds- so we are right back where we started.

As far as FGM goes it is less traumatic than MGM actually, apart from a particularly horrible version mainly practised around the horn of Africa.

Pun intended?

Originally Posted by sabang

most (the vast majority) of FGM is more benign and less traumatic than MGM.

utter bullshit.

Sabang how can you say that the majority of FGM 'operations' are less traumatic than MGM? Have you even read experiences of girls that had this done?

Re clit removal... this is taken from the world health organisation's factsheet about FGM

Procedures

Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types.

• Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
• Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).
• Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
• Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

^ Sabang's a Muslim moron.

I took it as though Sabang meant it t- i- c.

Originally Posted by Dug

So Sabang and Khang, what you are saying is that because the non muslim world permits circumcision we should alsow female genital mutilation.
Is that what you are saying?
Just so we're clear.

No Dug, what I am saying is that both male genital MUTILATION and female genital MUTILATION are wrong, and should be immediately forbidden worldwide.

I am also saying that you that for YOU to attempt, by your foolish claims of "hygiene", to justify male genital MUTILATION is sheer hypocrisy, indicative of western, and specifically US, self-righteous mentality. Further, it is an affront to the entire medical community and anyone with a brain.

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU ?

I am also saying the, for the western world to condemn ALL forms of female genital MUTILATION while allowing and condoning male genital MUTILATION is sheer hypocrisy, indicative of western, and specifically US, self-righteous mentality.

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU ?

Is it so hard for you Americans just to leave your kids whole .. including your male kids ? If you cannot understand that, and if you cannot do that, you are no better than those Muslim shittes!

Hell, maybe you Christian fools are not any better .. after all, seems those Rags want to screw little girls and you perverts want to fcuk little boys. And you both want to chop up their sex organs. Ask any priest .............

The thought of you all sickens me ............

I am also saying that you that for YOU to attempt, by your foolish claims of "hygiene", to justify male genital MUTILATION is sheer hypocrisy

Khang,

My parents aren't religious, but I got the snip when I was 18 months old because of a non-retracting foreskin causing infection. My son had the same procedure at 7 for the same problem. It didn't traumatise him and it didn't traumatise me.

There most certainly are hygiene reasons for doing it.

What should be outlawed is doing it to stop people having fun.

Circumcised males also lower female risk of STDs and various cancers of the plumbing department.

So stop talking out of your arse.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I am also saying that you that for YOU to attempt, by your foolish claims of "hygiene", to justify male genital MUTILATION is sheer hypocrisy

Khang,

My parents aren't religious, but I got the snip when I was 18 months old because of a non-retracting foreskin causing infection. My son had the same procedure at 7 for the same problem. It didn't traumatise him and it didn't traumatise me.

There most certainly are hygiene reasons for doing it.

What should be outlawed is doing it to stop people having fun.

Circumcised males also lower female risk of STDs and various cancers of the plumbing department.

So stop talking out of your arse.

Cuda:

I am not at all religious. But my first daughter had to have a labial reduction at 12 months because of labial adhesion. It did not tramatize her.

There most certainly are reasons for doing "it".

What should be stopped is doing it to stop people from having fun. (Christians do not like amorous males.)

Circumcised females also lower their risk of HIV and various cancers of the vulva.

SO, STOP TALKING OUT OF YOUR ARSE !!

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I am also saying that you that for YOU to attempt, by your foolish claims of "hygiene", to justify male genital MUTILATION is sheer hypocrisy

Khang,

My parents aren't religious, but I got the snip when I was 18 months old because of a non-retracting foreskin causing infection. My son had the same procedure at 7 for the same problem. It didn't traumatise him and it didn't traumatise me.

There most certainly are hygiene reasons for doing it.

What should be outlawed is doing it to stop people having fun.

Circumcised males also lower female risk of STDs and various cancers of the plumbing department.

So stop talking out of your arse.

Further, what you are talking about is a MEDICAL reason for such a procedure. Having a male or female systematically "fixed" with no medical indication is the issue here.

It is apples and oranges. Like you, my daughter's issue was medically necessary. That has nothing to do with the arbitrary or religious cutting of the genitals.

Medically, there is no difference in the need for any sexual excisions. For you to even suggest such is utter bullshit.

My own daughter stands in testament to that.

Thank you for helping me make my point.

I was kindly accommodated in a mud hut, just east of Zalingie, Darfur, back in 85.

food was served, we ate.

Sulaman, my driver, provider and lifesaver. Bless you for ever mate.

Informed me that there could be some commotion in th course of the night.

Originally Posted by Dug

the non muslim world permits circumcision

The Muslim world does too.

Originally Posted by Dug

should also female genital mutilation

Yes, and no. The relatively benign practise of female circumcision should be permitted, just as male circumcision is. The hideous technique of infibulation, absolutely not.

As I've pointed out, the vast majority of FGM does not involve infibulation. And it is inbuilt to cultural practise and norms- just try telling a Jew that you want to ban male circumcision and see the response you get. Well you will get the same response from another culture that practices female circumcision- because they consider an uncircumsized females pudenda to be ugly, and dirty. Thats just the way it is.

As for the health and hygiene issues, there is absolutely no more such issue with female circumcision than there is with male. The 'Issue' is that in many of the cultures female circumcision is practised, it is done in unsanitary conditions using tribespeople that are anything but medically qualified.

So my take on it is that rather than blanketing the whole of 'FGM' in approbation, the West and it's agencies should focus on something that they can have an effect on- because they are not going to be able to stop female circumcision. Specifically infibulation- which is indeed barbaric.

Don't agree.

Female circumcision always involves 'vital' parts. Whether it's the clitoral hood, the inner or outer labia or the most extreme form, the complete removal of everything visible.

I wouldn't even think of it as circumcision, it's mutilation in all forms.

Male circumcision isn't only done on religious or medical grounds, lots of African tribes do it as a rite of passage to adulthood as well.

A piece of skin that serves nothing (even less than the tonsils or the appendix) is removed. It hurts for a week then it's over. Nobody is traumatized.

Khang is a dumb fucker, ignore him.

Originally Posted by Bower

You would think women would refuse to carryout this practice.
You would think women would refuse to allow this to be done to their children.

Some will blame it on barbaric men and their power play over their women folk.

Women could stop this.

You're right , women could stop this but then they face violence and even death from their own families in some cases.


How about we just let women represent themselves with a 51 % voice in govt. and I bet a lot of this shit would clear up quite quickly.
Is this a " feminazi " concept?

It ain't the religion, it's the politics and the religion is used to manifest the oppression .