What...the...fuck (female circumcision)

[Maguspk]

Uncircumsized dicks look funny lol.

[Ivve]

Uncircumsized dicks look funny lol.

All dicks look funny. Uncircumsized or not, if you ever whip out your piece and think your ladyfriend isn't laughing on the inside, think again.

[Priran]

Are you joking? There's not even a comparison between the two, to any degree. Yes, there are some places where just the clitoral hood is removed. However, it is much more prevalent to remove the entire clitoris and much of the labia. It is common practice to stitch the entire fucking vagina shut, leaving on a teeny-tiny hole for urination, menstruation, and getting fucked. It is common practice to put skin-burning, corrosive materials into the vagina in the interest of tightening it. Don't let the name fool you; "female circumcision" is a very PC, sweet name that's given to female gential mutilation (FGM), or female genital cutting (FGC). It is, plain and simple, torture.

Perhaps if they lopped off the entire head of the dick and took the balls too, it might be comparable.

Are you fucking stupid?

Circumcision is done, when it all comes down to it, to encourage people to be more sexually "normal". Controlling the stimulation a woman recieves by removing her clitoris and doing the same to a man by removing his foreskin are no fucking different, at all, except that male circumcision is done to a baby who can't tell you "fucking christ this is some bullshit" or even fucking remember it when he grows up and therefore no one is offended, and female circumcision is done to a teenager who makes a shitload of noise and can tell people that it really fucking hurt.

[Ivve]

Are you joking? There's not even a comparison between the two, to any degree. Yes, there are some places where just the clitoral hood is removed. However, it is much more prevalent to remove the entire clitoris and much of the labia. It is common practice to stitch the entire fucking vagina shut, leaving on a teeny-tiny hole for urination, menstruation, and getting fucked. It is common practice to put skin-burning, corrosive materials into the vagina in the interest of tightening it. Don't let the name fool you; "female circumcision" is a very PC, sweet name that's given to female gential mutilation (FGM), or female genital cutting (FGC). It is, plain and simple, torture.

Perhaps if they lopped off the entire head of the dick and took the balls too, it might be comparable.

Are you fucking stupid?

Circumcision is done, when it all comes down to it, to encourage people to be more sexually "normal". Controlling the stimulation a woman recieves by removing her clitoris and doing the same to a man by removing his foreskin are no fucking different, at all, except that male circumcision is done to a baby who can't tell you "fucking christ this is some bullshit" or even fucking remember it when he grows up and therefore no one is offended, and female circumcision is done to a teenager who makes a shitload of noise and can tell people that it really fucking hurt.

Way to preach to the choir.

For the record, I don't support male circumcision either.

You don't "control" the stimulation a woman receives by removing her clitoris, you eliminate the majority of sexual pleasure completely. Last time I checked, a circumcized penis still works and still provides pleasure. Often, women who have suffered FGM are unable to have orgasms at all. Regardless, I don't support male circumcision either, but you'd have to be ridiculous to imply that they are the same level of fucked-up-ness. I've never heard of anyone dying from having their foreskin removed. There are many health complications outside of sexual dysfunction for victims of FGM. Educate yourself a little bit.

[Priran]

Wow, so circumcision severs the nerves inside the vagina? Crazy Africans.

And if people were circumcised with rocks and sticks or whatever they use in Shitfuckitania, they'd probably run a high risk of dying too.

[Ivve]

Wow, so circumcision severs the nerves inside the vagina? Crazy Africans.

You obviously have no idea how a vagina works.

[Priran]

Wow, so circumcision severs the nerves inside the vagina? Crazy Africans.

You obviously have no idea how a vagina works.

The concentration of the nerve endings that lie close to the entrance of a woman's vagina can provide pleasurable sensation during sexual activity, when stimulated in a way that the particular woman enjoys. During sexual arousal and particularly stimulation of the clitoris, the walls of the vagina self-lubricate, reducing friction during sexual activity.

An erogenous zone referred to commonly as the G-spot is located at the anterior wall of the vagina, about five centimeters in from the entrance. Some women experience intense pleasure if the G-spot is stimulated appropriately during sexual activity. A G-Spot orgasm may be responsible for female ejaculation, leading some doctors and researchers to believe that G-spot pleasure comes from the Skene's glands, a female homologue of the prostate, rather than any particular spot on the vaginal wall. Some researchers deny the existence of the G-spot.

Obviously, all of that goes to shit the second someone lops off your clit.

[Ivve]

Wow, so circumcision severs the nerves inside the vagina? Crazy Africans.

You obviously have no idea how a vagina works.

The concentration of the nerve endings that lie close to the entrance of a woman's vagina can provide pleasurable sensation during sexual activity, when stimulated in a way that the particular woman enjoys. During sexual arousal and particularly stimulation of the clitoris, the walls of the vagina self-lubricate, reducing friction during sexual activity.

An erogenous zone referred to commonly as the G-spot is located at the anterior wall of the vagina, about five centimeters in from the entrance. Some women experience intense pleasure if the G-spot is stimulated appropriately during sexual activity. A G-Spot orgasm may be responsible for female ejaculation, leading some doctors and researchers to believe that G-spot pleasure comes from the Skene's glands, a female homologue of the prostate, rather than any particular spot on the vaginal wall. Some researchers deny the existence of the G-spot.

Obviously, all of that goes to shit the second someone lops off your clit.

And that would be just awesome and shit, you know, if one of the practices that goes hand-in-hand with this were not introducing substances into the vagina that burn the skin, create scar tissue, and kill the nerve endings inside. Seriously, you need to educate yourself about FGM before you talk about it like it's nothing. The whole purpose is to eliminate sexual pleasure or make sexual intercourse painful for the woman in order to ensure chastity before marriage and fidelity during marriage. Also to alter the vagina to increase the sexual pleasure for men. Read this:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

P.S. As someone who has a vagina, I feel just a little bit more qualified to talk about it. Few women can achieve orgasm through internal stimulation alone.

[Maguspk]

Uncircumsized dicks look funny lol.

All dicks look funny. Uncircumsized or not, if you ever whip out your piece and think your ladyfriend isn't laughing on the inside, think again.

I think Vaginas look more weird. But I mean, uncircumsized dicks just look stupid, circumsized dicks at least look normal.

[archibaldcrane]

Wow, so circumcision severs the nerves inside the vagina? Crazy Africans.

Are you seriously going to persist with your comparisons of removing a man's foreskin to the removal of a woman's clitoris?

You...don't appear to understand how female orgasm works. No man is prevented from achieving orgasm because of his lack of foreskin. Many, if not most women would not be able to achieve orgasm without the clitoris. Your precious "nerves inside the vagina" are only occasionally able to allow a woman to achieve orgasm alone, and it varies widely from woman to woman.

For example:

Only 17% of women are likely to have an orgasm during sexual intercourse, because the clitoris often is not stimulated enough by intercourse alone.

And that's for women that -have- a clitoris.
If you want to argue against male circumcision, that's great and wonderful. But don't compare the two.

[Maguspk]

That wikepedia quote seems to be taken out of context. It is talking about orgasm as if the clitoris is the only means by which orgasm can be achieved.

[archibaldcrane]

That wikepedia quote seems to be taken out of context. It is talking about orgasm as if the clitoris is the only means by which orgasm can be achieved.

The quote is in regards to penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse alone - you know, the type that stimulates those precious "nerves inside the vagina". No oral, no hand-play, etc. Of course, oral is a non-factor if you don't have a clit. It acknowledges that orgasm is achievable without direct clitoral contact, but also acknowledges that it's not particularly common.

Every woman is different - some need deep, hard, g-spot rubbing penetration to orgasm. Some could care less what is inside of them, and the clit is it. However, the vast majority of women need some clitoral stimulation in order to orgasm. Remove the clit, remove the ability to orgasm for most women.

[Priran]

Wow, so circumcision severs the nerves inside the vagina? Crazy Africans.

You obviously have no idea how a vagina works.

The concentration of the nerve endings that lie close to the entrance of a woman's vagina can provide pleasurable sensation during sexual activity, when stimulated in a way that the particular woman enjoys. During sexual arousal and particularly stimulation of the clitoris, the walls of the vagina self-lubricate, reducing friction during sexual activity.

An erogenous zone referred to commonly as the G-spot is located at the anterior wall of the vagina, about five centimeters in from the entrance. Some women experience intense pleasure if the G-spot is stimulated appropriately during sexual activity. A G-Spot orgasm may be responsible for female ejaculation, leading some doctors and researchers to believe that G-spot pleasure comes from the Skene's glands, a female homologue of the prostate, rather than any particular spot on the vaginal wall. Some researchers deny the existence of the G-spot.

Obviously, all of that goes to shit the second someone lops off your clit.

And that would be just awesome and shit, you know, if one of the practices that goes hand-in-hand with this were not introducing substances into the vagina that burn the skin, create scar tissue, and kill the nerve endings inside. Seriously, you need to educate yourself about FGM before you talk about it like it's nothing. The whole purpose is to eliminate sexual pleasure or make sexual intercourse painful for the woman in order to ensure chastity before marriage and fidelity during marriage. Also to alter the vagina to increase the sexual pleasure for men.

The whole purpose of male circumcision is the same reason more or less, but the only way to completely remove feeling from a dick is to cut it off. And your link says nothing about those substances being introduced having the effect of killing nerves. What, did you think I wouldn't read it?

P.S. As someone who has a vagina, I feel just a little bit more qualified to talk about it. Few women can achieve orgasm through internal stimulation alone.

And as someone with a dick, I feel a bit more qualified to tell you that you're biased towards trivializing male circumcision.

Are you seriously going to persist with your comparisons of removing a man's foreskin to the removal of a woman's clitoris?

Are you seriously going to persist in your argument that they're totally different? Because they do the same fucking thing for the same reason or lack thereof.

You...don't appear to understand how female orgasm works. No man is prevented from achieving orgasm because of his lack of foreskin. Many, if not most women would not be able to achieve orgasm without the clitoris. Your precious "nerves inside the vagina" are only occasionally able to allow a woman to achieve orgasm alone, and it varies widely from woman to woman.

Removing the foreskin reduces male sensitivity significantly. I don't have a percentage, so I guess that makes my argument inferior. But the end result in both procedures is a drastically less sensitive, but still functional, organ.

[Ivve]

but the only way to completely remove feeling from a dick is to cut it off.

Which... is pretty much what I said to begin with. FGM is akin to cutting off the dick in many cases.

And your link says nothing about those substances being introduced having the effect of killing nerves. What, did you think I wouldn't read it?

What do you think tightens/narrows the vagina? What do you think is the result of the bleeding mentioned? That would be scar tissue. If you have scar tissue, that means that a lot of the sensation is going to be lost/destroyed. I provided a very basic fact sheet that outlines the generalities of FGM. If you think that's a comprehensive, complete evaluation of all aspects, then you are mistaken.

And as someone with a dick, I feel a bit more qualified to tell you that you're biased towards trivializing male circumcision.

I don't feel that the two are comparable. Neither of them is a good practice, but there's no denying that FGM is much more invasive, severe, and damaging than male circumcision. It is much more likely to cause death and other health complications.

I am done answering you now, though, because you seem to be completely ignorant of how to actually give a woman an orgasm. Knowing that is key in understanding why FGM is such a horrible practice, and also how it can be more severe than male circumcision in many cases. You also seem to be completely ignoring that I say multiple times that I do not support male circumcision at all. I'm sorry that you feel trivialized, but at this point you're arguing with your emotions instead of with rationality. Not that I expected something different.

[Priran]

but the only way to completely remove feeling from a dick is to cut it off.

Which... is pretty much what I said to begin with. FGM is akin to cutting off the dick.

And your link says nothing about those substances being introduced having the effect of killing nerves. What, did you think I wouldn't read it?

What do you think tightens/narrows the vagina? What do you think is the result of the bleeding mentioned? That would be scar tissue. If you have scar tissue, that means that a lot of the sensation is going to be lost/destroyed.

Ok, so you're just inferring from what you read and hearing what you want to hear. That's cool, but you shouldn't try to pass it off as actually having been said in that report. Odd that they wouldn't mention the whole "THERE IS NO FEELING LEFT AT ALL LOL" part, but I guess they might have accidentally left that out.

And as someone with a dick, I feel a bit more qualified to tell you that you're biased towards trivializing male circumcision.

I don't feel that the two are comparable. Neither of them is a good practice, but there's no denying that FGM is much more invasive, severe, and damaging than male circumcision. It is much more likely to cause death and other health complications.

I am done answering you now, though, because you seem to be completely ignorant of how to actually give a woman an orgasm. Knowing that is key in understanding why FGM is such a horrible practice, and also how it can be more severe than male circumcision in many cases. You also seem to be completely ignoring that I say multiple times that I do not support male circumcision at all. I'm sorry that you feel trivialized, but at this point you're arguing with your emotions instead of with rationality. Not that I expected something different.

Right, I'm "arguing with my emotions" and you're bringing in stupid shit like "u dotn kno vagienas" like it's a valid point.

The procedures are comparable. You've offered nothing to refute this other than that female circumcision is more invasive, which doesn't make them incomparable, it makes one more invasive than the other.

I'm sorry you're illogical, but I don't know what I was thinking expecting something different.

[xerodok]

everyone is on BG getting so heated about cocks and vaginal hoods. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm sorry you're illogical, but I don't know what I was thinking expecting something different.

Look Pririan.

Removal of the foreskin is arguably comparable to the removal of the clit hood. It excises a piece of skin with nerve endings that can induce pleasure, and as a result exposes a sexual organ more directly.

However. The removal of the clit hood and the clitoris is more comparable to the removal of the foreskin and the head of the cock. It would seriously decrease the ability to function properly as a sexual organ. Sure, you still have a prostate that you could pump to have an orgasm, but it's unreliable, not ideal, and...why would you want that?

Female circumcision is disgusting and appalling in comparison to male circumcision, because female circumcision is disgusting and appalling in comparison to male circumcision. Circular logic shouldn't be necessary here, but, well, they're removing the primary pleasure center of a woman's body. It's awful.

The loss of proper sexual function is the thing that sets male and female circumcision apart. Continue to ignore that -crucial- difference and your argument will continue to fail.

[6souls]

Uncircumsized dicks look funny lol.

All dicks look funny. Uncircumsized or not, if you ever whip out your piece and think your ladyfriend isn't laughing on the inside, think again.

I think Vaginas look more weird. But I mean, uncircumsized dicks just look stupid, circumsized dicks at least look normal.

the extra skin rubbing the walls provides more pleasure to the female.

[Priran]

Look Pririan.

Removal of the foreskin is arguably comparable to the removal of the clit hood. It excises a piece of skin with nerve endings that can induce pleasure, and as a result exposes a sexual organ more directly.

However. The removal of the clit hood and the clitoris is more comparable to the removal of the foreskin and the head of the cock. It would seriously decrease the ability to function properly as a sexual organ. Sure, you still have a prostate that you could pump to have an orgasm, but it's unreliable, not ideal, and...why would you want that?

Look Arcachichibaricorn.

You're arguing in terms of literal analogous structures. I'm not. I'm talking about the end results of a circumcision, the fact that neither is done for a real medical reason, and that because of this, the procedures are comparable.

All you seem to be proving is that the clitoris and the foreskin aren't the same thing embryologically, which is irrelevant because they perform the same function in an adult.

Female circumcision is disgusting and appalling in comparison to male circumcision, because female circumcision is disgusting and appalling in comparison to male circumcision. Circular logic shouldn't be necessary here, but, well, they're removing the primary pleasure center of a woman's body. It's awful.

Oh fuckity please. Male circumcision would be disgusting and appalling were it performed on teenage males. The fact that babies can't show resistance or resent doesn't make it suddenly completely different, it makes you shallow.

The loss of proper sexual function is the thing that sets male and female circumcision apart. Continue to ignore that -crucial- difference and your argument will continue to fail.

Your amazing ability to confuse proper sexual function with pleasurable sexual function makes you a fucking idiot. Work on that.

[Charla]

(skipped the second page, assuming it's a lot like the first page)

Wow, I'll bet the OP didn't expect this thread to turn into an argument.