Female Circumcision

[AncientwisdomParticipant 6089]

Someone mentioned this in a different thread, and I have honestly never even heard of this, and I was amazed I hadnt. Part of my curiosity is really superficial: that nasty roast beef looking pussy vs. the pussy where all of the lips are tightly tucked inside lol. I used to think that some women were just born with this variation, than I found out about vaginal rejuvination, and I considered it could be due to too much sex, now I hear about this lol.

Questions:

-How many of you were familiar with this?

-Can you tell the difference between an “uncut” and “cut” vagina?

-I read a couple of articles but it really didn’t amswer my questions. It sounds like this is mainly done in Africa and the middle east. Ive been with a girl from the middle east and all her lips were neatly tucked inside, can you visually see the difference?

-Why is it performed other than a cultural aspect?

 

Resident cynic.

[EdogParticipant 254]

 

As an observer, I think it’s pretty messed up. It’s not equivalent to a male circumcision. There’s a reason it’s also referred to as “female genital mutilation”, emphasizing the word ‘mutilation’ instead of circumcision.

As far as I can tell, this is base on traditions of keeping virginity. It can be pretty extreme and possibly permanently detrimental to the female in regard to her getting certain types of stimulus where she otherwise would.

This short video will display the most common forms of this…

I find it pretty messed up and I would never advocate such a thing. I would find better parenting to be a more valuable alternative than sewing a females vagina shut or cutting off her clitoris for no apparent reason.

[AncientwisdomParticipant 6089]

Thanks for the reply. About some of my questions:

How long have you known about this?

Ive heard of female genital mutilation, but liberals dramatize things so I didn’t realize it was refferring to circumsision lol.

 

What about the roast beef pussy question lol?

Thnx for the video, Ill check it out.

Resident cynic.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Edog wrote:

It’s not equivalent to a male circumcision.

How is it not equivalent? How is male circumcision not male genital mutilation?

Yes the specific procedure is different, but that’s going to happen when you’re dealing with two completely different topologies.

The only difference I can see is people in the west are still generally fine with male genital mutilation but started screaming bloody murder the instant they learned it also happens occasionally to precious little princess girls in a very few uncivilized primitive backwaters.

[RoyDalParticipant]

First world feminists are strangely silent on this practice done on third world girls. Our feminists are all a twitter because some scientist wore the wrong shirt to a news conference.

sidecar wrote:

How is it not equivalent? How is male circumcision not male genital mutilation?

The females in question have their clitoris removed. It is a cultural thing, and therefore no concern of first world feminists who have more important things to worry about than the fates of some girls who will never go to an Ivy League Univ.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[EdogParticipant 254]

Well my first reply didn’t post, so I’ll try again, and if the other somehow magically appears, then you’ll all know why I said something similar twice.

sidecar wrote:

How is it not equivalent? How is male circumcision not male genital mutilation?

As I said, if this is done merely to ensure virginity, then this is nothing more than sexual control. We’ll need to take into account that a lot of the cultures and nations that practiced this in the past and still practice it today also practice arranged marriages, of which this would be a part of.

If this is done for sexual control, then this isn’t the same as male circumcision which despite it’s traditional and religious backgrounds does have modern day scientific data to suggest it’s risks are outweighed by it’s benefits. I’m no doctor, so I won’t argue those points. But I will acknowledge they are there. If anyone wants to show me scientific data on the benefits of cutting off a females clitoris and labia and then sewing her vagina shut, then I’m all ears and willing to learn something today.

Ancientwisdom wrote:

How long have you known about this?

Well I’ve known about it for a while, but since I live in the U.S., obviously it’s not something we see here. So what I know is merely based on reading and watching whatever material there is on it. It’s practiced pretty heavily in islam.

Ancientwisdom wrote:

What about the roast beef pussy question lol?

LMAO! I think this is just as possible without the mutilation as it is with is. Some vaginas have just been blown out and turned into bologna flaps…

 

[AncientwisdomParticipant 6089]

Thanks for the replies guys. But, does anyone have any answers to the original questions I posted? Ive never heard of this and im honestly curious

Resident cynic.

[uchibenkeiParticipant 7965]

I don’t remember when I first heard about this practise but it has been several years.  Feminists here do try to educate people about it but mostly they use it to justify the petty s~~~ they are fighting for here.  (ie There is female genital mutilation going on in Africa.  Sexism is alive and we need to fight it.   Stop manspreading in America.)  It ‘s a disgrace how feminists use real mistreatment of women abroad to further their local agenda.

I don’t know if I have ever been with a woman who was circumcised.  I don’t think so but it’s not something I ever asked or have been told.  I haven’t been with many Africans or middle easterners, zero muslems.  I don’t know if I could tell the difference.

I bathe in the tears of single moms.

[BloodyNineParticipant 87]

I think posters here are confusing the “tucking” of overused vaginal lips to make them look more youthful to the horrid practice of removing a chick’s clitoris.

 

OP-can’t answer your question.

[Anonymous 5]

I am confused about this as well. Out of all the c~~~s I have f~~~ed over the years, only one of them looked weird.

All of them looked like normal clean c~~~s. The one c~~~ looked like a huge bulge/oversized clit.

It was the weirdest thing ever and I have yet to even see one like it in porn vids.

So I have assumed doctors in North America circumsize females at birth and tuck it in if it already isn’t.

I tried looking this up but the internet is useless for once.

[RennieParticipant]

RoyDal wrote:

First world feminists are strangely silent on this practice done on third world girls. Our feminists are all a twitter because some scientist wore the wrong shirt to a news conference.

Sidecar wrote:

How is it not equivalent? How is male circumcision not male genital mutilation?

The females in question have their clitoris removed. It is a cultural thing, and therefore no concern of first world feminists who have more important things to worry about than the fates of some girls who will never go to an Ivy League Univ.

Yup, that’s their business if they want to do that in their country. You have to respect other peoples cultures, remember?

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

RoyDal wrote:

The females in question have their clitoris removed.

And male genital mutilation removes the foreskin. Both are removal of body parts that are fine the way they are. The different bits removed are simply a matter of different anatomies.

So again, how is female genital mutilation any different than male genital mutilation?

Why is it acceptable to chop parts off little boys but not little girls?

[EdogParticipant 254]

sidecar wrote:

Both are removal of body parts that are fine the way they are.

Exactly.

sidecar wrote:

So again, how is female genital mutilation any different than male genital mutilation?

Well, the reasons alone are not equivalent to each other. Male circumcision is done for three main purposes. Tradition, religion (obviously heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs), and modern medicine. Yes, modern medicine does suggest that the risks are outweighed by the benefits for male circumcision, but there is also a reason this is still left to the parents. The male doesn’t (to my knowledge) suffer any significant sensitivity loss or loss of stimulus. But for the female, if we speak traditionally about the cultures that practice this, this is typically done to control sexual behavior and ensure chastity. As well, she has sensitive areas, specifically the clitoris, removed and this is a permanent loss for the female. How many women flick their clit while getting off? Most of them, right? Good luck with that s~~~ after this procedure.

So the reasons for the procedure are different and the result is different. One doesn’t seem to suffer any significant loss and modern medicine would suggest benefits, and the other is permanently disabled in a way nature intended her to be functional.

sidecar wrote:

Why is it acceptable to chop parts off little boys but not little girls?

Well, this is up to the parents of the child and the society they are brought up in obviously. I can see full well that you SideCar don’t think any of it should be messed with. I tend to agree. Let them be as they are. Don’t go cutting s~~~ off!! I’m circumcised though, and I don’t consider it a loss of any kind. But that doesn’t mean I’d immediately advocate circumcisions either.

But why is it acceptable for boys and not girls? I’ll give you my personal response as a Christian.
<p class=”hdg”>The Covenant of Circumcision</p>
<p class=”cross”>(Leviticus 12:1-8; Joshua 5:1-9; Acts 15:1-4)</p>
 
<p class=”reg”><span class=”reftext”><b>Genesis 17:9</b></span>And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. <span class=”reftext”><b>10</b></span>This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. <span class=”reftext”><b>11</b></span>And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. <span class=”reftext”><b>12</b></span>And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. <span class=”reftext”><b>13</b></span>He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. <span class=”reftext”><b>14</b></span>And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.</p>
So we can see from the Bible at least, the reasons why this was done and became tradition. It was always intended for the male, not the female.

Now, if we proceed further into the New Testament, we find out that it actually no longer matters if you are circumcised or uncircumcised. The reason for this is because the new covenant made by God through Jesus Christ is a spiritual covenant, and therefor also requires a spiritual circumcision. Paul makes it clear by making a direct comparison saying that in one case he circumcised, and in another he didn’t, yet both were saved of God.

So in the end, I think people should stop cutting other peoples genitals up when they are infants and have no say in the matter.

[Author]

Posts