|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on May 12, 2010 18:42:50 GMT -5
I would let the daughter decide for herself. Regardless of if it is for pleasure or not, I don't think that can be compared to that of a man being circumcised just because.... JUST CAUSE! LOL. Sexually a man can still function if he is circumcised, as we can too, but it will probably be much less enjoyable. One could argue that sex is primarily used for, well SHOULD be used primarily for reproduction, but that is not always the case. It shouldn't be sugar coated and treated like it is. Maybe I am just speaking from an American POV, but especially since many of these girls probably don't want this procedure, I do not think it should be forced upon them. We were given the option to lead our lives whichever way we'd like by God, so why not allow the girls the choice to do what they feel? Do you think Male Circumcision is enjoyable? I couldn't IMAGINE the pain endured by boys ages 12-15. I have watched many circumcisions of infants and it is claimed they don't feel any pain.... Their cry's say otherwise. I mean crying till their isn't any breath left in the lungs.... So make it plain and say it.. "I'm against female circumcision because I feel the clitoris is needed to enjoy sex" Go ahead we understand... its a legitimate argument. |
|
|
|
Post by missb08 on May 12, 2010 19:15:13 GMT -5
Yes, you're right. It's true. I'd said that we can still function sexually but it will be less enjoyable. But that is not the only reason I am against it. I am also against it because these little girls are forced into having this performed, whether they want to or not. And like a poster said earlier, it can affect their entire lives. Emotionally, physically, mentally. I remember on Top Model, one of the girls had had it done and here's a clip of her talking about it: jezebel.com/5047604/former-top-model-opens-up-about-female-genital-mutilation |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on May 12, 2010 19:20:47 GMT -5
Yes, you're right. It's true. I'd said that we can still function sexually but it will be less enjoyable. But that is not the only reason I am against it. I am also against it because these little girls are forced into having this performed, whether they want to or not. And like a poster said earlier, it can affect their entire lives. Emotionally, physically, mentally. I remember on Top Model, one of the girls had had it done and here's a clip of her talking about it: How you know they were forced? Just because some journalist found a few who spoke out against it? How much were they paid? I wonder how many infants if they could talk would give an informed consent for circumcision? I'm not buying. Just another instance of feminist jumping on a situation to push an agenda. The bigger picture is that the same forces who are behind this are the same ones who are erecting clinics running shabby clinical trials and killing babies all over the continent. The same ones who are purposely infecting the people. The same ones who when trying to help would rather bring drugs instead of building infrastructure for clean water when in mosy cases because of foreign industrialization the water supply becomes contaminated in the first place. Thats right lets blame those crazy Africans... umm hmm Yup they're the culprit. |
|
|
|
Post by missb08 on May 12, 2010 19:29:54 GMT -5
Thats right lets blame those crazy Africans... umm hmm Yup they're the culprit. Africans are not the only ones who participate in FGM. Call me a feminist if you want, VP, that's fine. But if those babies COULD talk, and they could consent, then fine. But at least allow them an option or a choice. Let them know the pros and cons of it. I am not saying they are totally wrong. I can see why they would find this acceptable. But, at least allow them an option. Not just throwing them into it and then when they have conditions or problems later in life, having them want to commit suicide or being depressed over something which they had no control. |
|
|
|
Post by LogAKAlly <3'n Keef on May 12, 2010 22:15:04 GMT -5
1. GOD put foreskin there to PROTECT a mans penis from the elements, foreskin is NOT the enemy - as VP said - poor hygiene is. 2. EVERY time you cut skin - you cut nerve endings and decrease sensation. When they remove the foreskin they remove about 20% of the nerve endings. We don't live in the dark ages anymore, these practices are NOT medically necessary they are simply TRADITION. In regards to whether it should be continues or stopped...well, there's that lil problem with "tolerance" huh??  |
|
|
|
Post by 123Diva on May 12, 2010 23:01:24 GMT -5
I don't even know where to start.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldmind1922 on May 13, 2010 2:44:53 GMT -5
This topic takes me back to an ugrad research project  . If the procedure were performed on infants, there would be a shift in point of view. In most cases the girl is about 6 years old. She is sometimes "taken" and "held down." Male circumcisions in the US cannot be compared to that. If this were changed to a medical procedure like the male circumcision, you'd lose the ritualistic value of it. Also operating on female genitalia is much more complicated than working on a male. While women can achieve organsms in other ways, there is a huge difference between a possible 20% decrease in sensation with men and removing total removal of the most sensitive nerve endings in the human body... period. In some cultures, more than the clitoris is removed... this would be equal to removing the penis or a significant portion thereof. When is the last time we heard that happen as part of a ritual? |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on May 13, 2010 4:16:30 GMT -5
Revoking/denying citizenship as suggested in the article is a bit extreme IMO. There are cultural practices within the US that are questionable, yet we don't exile people. Like others have said, cutting a portion of the hood is less offensive (for lack of a better term) than total removal of the clitoris or removal of the clitoris and labia. Personally, this decision should be made by the child, male or female starting at age 11 or 12.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on May 13, 2010 7:56:22 GMT -5
This topic takes me back to an ugrad research project . If the procedure were performed on infants, there would be a shift in point of view. In most cases the girl is about 6 years old. She is sometimes "taken" and "held down." Male circumcisions in the US cannot be compared to that. If this were changed to a medical procedure like the male circumcision, you'd lose the ritualistic value of it. Also operating on female genitalia is much more complicated than working on a male. While women can achieve organsms in other ways, there is a huge difference between a possible 20% decrease in sensation with men and removing total removal of the most sensitive nerve endings in the human body... period. In some cultures, more than the clitoris is removed... this would be equal to removing the penis or a significant portion thereof. When is the last time we heard that happen as part of a ritual? Read the whole thread. Male circumcisions in Africa are ritual just as female. Male circumcisions happen and the boys are also held down. You can spin it however you want to do it. Our pledge process comes from this. You can look on the walls in Kemet and see it done there too.. The difference is for the women they would make the girls drink a tea made from the lotus flower and after the narcotic affect set in then they would do it. Males had their circumcisions done standing up no anesthesia. I would ask that you look into what else is happening in these countries to make this one topic stand out. Is it a problem or a ploy in an attempt to isolate a country who doesn't allow foreign interest to rape the natural resources there. Whats next on the agenda? I mean they are killing our people right now for practicing their traditional religions. |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on May 13, 2010 10:01:10 GMT -5
Even if the male children are held down (which given the age in some of these countries, they probably are)... I'm not understanding how this article is revelant to the BGLO process. Okay so the process is influenced by these traditions, what does that have to do with whether or not these rituals should continue or people should be denied citizenship?
|
|
|
|
Post by LogAKAlly <3'n Keef on May 13, 2010 11:56:50 GMT -5
Why are we trying to compare who is getting screwed over the worst??
Seriously, what difference does it make?
At the end of the day, EACH individual has their own threshold - none of us are in the position to measure their pain.
A divorce might not make a difference to one child, yet it can lead another child to suicide.
It's not a male or female issue - it's a HUMAN issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on May 13, 2010 15:45:29 GMT -5
Even if the male children are held down (which given the age in some of these countries, they probably are)... I'm not understanding how this article is revelant to the BGLO process. Okay so the process is influenced by these traditions, what does that have to do with whether or not these rituals should continue or people should be denied citizenship? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. The circumcision rites boys and girls are rites of passage into man/womanhood. Now every African tribe doesn't partake in the rite but usually you'll find that these are splinters off of a earlier tribe who does. People around the world do many different rites and if its a problem then it needs to be dealt with internally. Furthermore lets make it plain with whats the alternative for what we do vs what they want to do. Jew's are seen as the benchmark in the anglo saxon world for circumcision rites. Wanna see how the orthodox Jew has bastardized our traditions?   Yeah so for now on VP will be giving yall very plain sammiches. No mayo no mustard just two pieces of bread. Jews STILL do this right now today. Sucking infants penises. Catholics STILL fucking little boys. Where is the equal outrage? Why is it when fingers are pointed at our people its cool but then when we point to others wickedness then its "Well what does that have to do with it?" It has EVERYTHING to do with it when the nasty wicked mofo are the judges. damn that. Let them people be. Wake Up |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on May 13, 2010 16:05:19 GMT -5
VP---see my comment about 92% of the population again. Then you will understand why one would think a topic about female genital cutting has something to do with boys/men.
hmmn.....
|
|
. If the procedure were performed on infants, there would be a shift in point of view. In most cases the girl is about 6 years old. She is sometimes "taken" and "held down." Male circumcisions in the US cannot be compared to that. If this were changed to a medical procedure like the male circumcision, you'd lose the ritualistic value of it. 
