Too Dumb to Know the Difference Between Circumcision and Clitoridectomy!

[Contessa_Sharra]

Why is it the majority of people seem to be too stupid to understand that circumcision is NOT full "yards and stones" castration of a male?


Or is it that they just want to go nuts with a fallacious argument trying to equate circumcision of a male with female genital mutilation, i.e. clitoridectomy?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is it the majority of people seem to be too stupid to understand that circumcision is NOT full "yards and stones" castration of a male?

Yeah, but like pornography you know it when you see it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I am not aware of a single adult who doesn't know what circumcision is.
Perhaps it is the people you hang out with that are of particular ignorance.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

It just gets so tiresome having to wade through the idiots that immediately pronounce, in their oh so tiresome way, that if a person thinks that male circumcision can be acceptable, then "OF COURSE" they want to go world wide promoting and enforcing, and forcing clitoridectomy on all females.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I am not aware of a single adult who doesn't know what circumcision is.

Perhaps it is the people you hang out with that are of particular ignorance.

I was just going by what I am reading up here, on USMB, as there are some that just don't seem to "get it."

 

[Mad Scientist]

Why is it the majority of people seem to be too stupid to understand that circumcision is NOT full "yards and stones" castration of a male?


Or is it that they just want to go nuts with a fallacious argument trying to equate circumcision of a male with female genital mutilation, i.e. clitoridectomy?

"Go Nuts".

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have never in my life (46 yo) have even heard of anyone talking about a clitoridectomy except when used to treat women who suffer from spontaneous/chronic orgasms.
And then...isn't there some nut religion that does this also?

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I have never in my life (46 yo) have even heard of anyone talking about a clitoridectomy except when used to treat women who suffer from spontaneous/chronic orgasms.
And then...isn't there some nut religion that does this also?

Should I take it that you don't get around much, or just that you are being deliberately obtuse?

All "religious" types tend to be pretty well nuts, BTW, what with their magical thinking, LOL!

 

[Charles_Main]

I have never in my life (46 yo) have even heard of anyone talking about a clitoridectomy except when used to treat women who suffer from spontaneous/chronic orgasms.
And then...isn't there some nut religion that does this also?

I assume you are simply being sarcastic. Or do you really not know that many Muslims, and other religions around the world. Practice Female Castration. Usually it is meant to reduce pleasure and therefore or so they say adultery.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I just wish that people discussing the issue would stop deliberately equating the two issues.

The one is either the religious issue, the "covenant," or a matter of cleanliness, and the other is about enslavement, treating women as property, and frankly speaking, an endemic male insecurity.

 

[whitehall]

Does Sharia law allow or promote or authorize Clito? All those women who enjoyed equal rights in Egypt might be subject to Sharia law after the "democratic" revolution.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have never in my life (46 yo) have even heard of anyone talking about a clitoridectomy except when used to treat women who suffer from spontaneous/chronic orgasms.
And then...isn't there some nut religion that does this also?

I assume you are simply being sarcastic. Or do you really not know that many Muslims, and other religions around the world. Practice Female Castration. Usually it is meant to reduce pleasure and therefore or so they say adultery.

About the "nut religion" - yes I was being sarcastic.
However the point about not hearing people talk about this in Western Society is the truth. Not a topic I ever hear about

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Does Sharia law allow or promote or authorize Clito? All those women who enjoyed equal rights in Egypt might be subject to Sharia law after the "democratic" revolution.

It does NOT.

[SIZE=+1]In this discussion I shall refer to any form of permanent cutting the genitals as "genital mutilation." Some may feel this is prejudicing the case, since the words certainly sound pejorative. I think the term is fair, however, since the purpose of all the procedures under discussion–and the purpose of male circumcision and of the now commonly practiced forms of body piercing, including the piercing of the ears done by almost every Western female–is unquestionably to mutilate those parts of the body cut or pierced. The issue of interest, then, is not whether mutilation is involved but rather whether it is religiously (or morally) and/or medically desirable or contraindicated.

Although there is no reference to circumcision at all in the Qur'an, there is a well-established tradition of male circumcision in Islam as a "sunnah" act. In the Abrahamic tradition this act is understood as a fulfillment of a covenant with God, but there are numerous health reasons for the practice. There is no mandate at all for female circumcision, however, neither in the Qur'an, the traditional reports (called hadith), nor medical theory.

Although female circumcision is not mandated, one tradition of disputed authenticity permits (but does not encourage) the removal of a minuscule segment of skin from the female prepuce, provided no harm is done:

A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina [Madîna]. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.'–Sunan Abu Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.One does not want to make too much of this tradition, as it is classified as "weak" by Abu Dawud (the compiler) himself. Nonetheless, it clearly forbids severity in circumcision and bases such limitation on both the potential to harm the woman and the potential to make her less desirable to her husband. Yet, despite the restriction against severity, the Prophet did not here prohibit circumcision completely.

Permitting such a ritual constitutes an act of tolerance by Islamic law for pre-Islamic practices, and may be overruled by the Islamic prohibition against harmful acts. Consider, for example, that Islamic law protects a woman's right to sexual enjoyment, as demonstrated by the fact that a woman has the right to divorce on the grounds that her husband does not provide sexual satisfaction. It follows that Islamic law prohibits clitorodectomy (partial or complete removal of the clitoris) or infibulation (excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening), or any genital mutilation which impairs the woman's ability to enjoy sexual relations. Such prohibitions are consistent with the hadithic warning against severity in female circumcision.


[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]If the Islamic law does not mandate female genital mutilation and tolerates only the most mild form of circumcision (and that only if it produces no adverse effects in the child), then how does it come about that so many people from certain countries with large Muslim populations insist that savage acts which exceed these limits are not only permitted, but required by Islamic law? The answer becomes obvious when one realizes that Christians from many of these countries also insist that the tradition is mandated by their religion as well. People often confuse traditions rooted in local culture with religious requirements.

Immigrants from such countries now residing in the United States stand between the culture of their heritage and the American culture of their environment. They cannot and should not be expected to abandon their religion. There should be no doubt, however, that the young amongst them, at least, will be willing to abandon old-world cultural practices at odds with their adopted culture when such practices are unsupported by religion. (This is because they carry no cultural bias towards such practices. On the contrary, they may absorb biases against them from their adopted culture.)

For the Muslims, opposition to cliterodectomy and infibulation should be considered part of our ongoing mandate to fight against superstition and oppression. As to the mildest form of female circumcision, the risks to the girl's future ability to enjoy sexual relations with her husband must place it at best in the category of makrûh (disliked) practices. Since it has neither hygienic nor religious value, there is no justification for Muslims to practice this painful and potentially harmful practice, and it would best be considered harâm (prohibited).

Wa Allahu a`lam. (And God knows best.) Female Genital Mutilation: An Islamic Perspective By: Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. [/SIZE]

This should pretty well cover it and explain...

 

[editec]

Why is it the majority of people seem to be too stupid to understand that circumcision is NOT full "yards and stones" castration of a male?


Or is it that they just want to go nuts with a fallacious argument trying to equate circumcision of a male with female genital mutilation, i.e. clitoridectomy?

A total clitectomy would be roughly equivalent to cutting a man's penis totally off.

Castration of a male (removing his gonads) makes the man a eunuck.

A hysterectomy is a kind of female castration.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It just gets so tiresome having to wade through the idiots that immediately pronounce, in their oh so tiresome way, that if a person thinks that male circumcision can be acceptable, then "OF COURSE" they want to go world wide promoting and enforcing, and forcing clitoridectomy on all females.

Who in the HELL is saying that?!?

There is no reason WHATSOEVER for surgically altering healthy female genitalia.

And what the fuck does male circumcision have to do with a conversation about the horror of female mutilation?

 

[brokenarrow]

Why is it the majority of people seem to be too stupid to understand that circumcision is NOT full "yards and stones" castration of a male?


Or is it that they just want to go nuts with a fallacious argument trying to equate circumcision of a male with female genital mutilation, i.e. clitoridectomy?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH2Jg5soZig]YouTube - ‪Circumcision on Seinfeld‬‏[/ame]​

 

[boedicca]

I'm going to go with the theory that the men who think that a Clitoridectomy is the same as Male Circumcision have never given a woman an orgasm.

That's my theory, and I'm stickin' with it.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Why is it the majority of people seem to be too stupid to understand that circumcision is NOT full "yards and stones" castration of a male?


Or is it that they just want to go nuts with a fallacious argument trying to equate circumcision of a male with female genital mutilation, i.e. clitoridectomy?

A total clitoridectomy would be roughly equivalent to cutting a man's penis totally off.

Castration of a male (removing his gonads) makes the man a eunuch.

A hysterectomy is a kind of female castration.

Historically, castration could be just testes removal, or full removal of all external sexual organs.

As for hysterectomy, until fairly recently, it was almost routine that this
was suggested for nearly anything a woman went to the gynecologist for.

Birth Change: End Unnecessary Hysterectomies!

http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/c...search="Unnecessary+hysterectomies+in+the+US"

And to clarify, I personally am totally against the removal of anyone's body parts, any of them, without some life-threatening reason.

Horrible thought: has any male here, or that anyone knows of ever had it suggested to them, by a Dr. that they ought to just have penis, testes and prostate removed as a preventative to some possible future disease, or as a means of "birth control?"