User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:03:05 PM EDT
[#1]
It seems more cultural than religious, since most Muslims don't do it. Don't some whacky Middle East Christians do it too?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:05:12 PM EDT
[#2]
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:06:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. I was going to post as to how quickly this would turn into a circumcision thread for the 3rd post, but then I just backed out to let someone else take the lead. Came back in a few minutes later and, tada!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:07:07 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. From what I understand, female genital mutilation is equivalent to cutting the head off of your penis. That's not what circumcision is. And at least male circumcision doesn't really have any negative effects and also helps keep it clean. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:09:55 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was going to post as to how quickly this would turn into a circumcision thread for the 3rd post, but then I just backed out to let someone else take the lead. Came back in a few minutes later and, tada!
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. I was going to post as to how quickly this would turn into a circumcision thread for the 3rd post, but then I just backed out to let someone else take the lead. Came back in a few minutes later and, tada!
it was going to end up there eventually. May as well be along for the ride. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:10:18 PM EDT
[#6]
How in the hell did someone come up with the idea that female and male genital mutilation was a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:11:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How in the hell did someone come up with the idea that female and male genital mutilation was a good idea. Like I said, the two are not equivalent at all. I am a "victim" of "male genital mutilation", and I have no problem with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:11:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. If female genital mutilation involved removing the hood, instead of the rod, you'd have a point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:13:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If female genital mutilation involved removing the hood, instead of the rod, you'd have a point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. If female genital mutilation involved removing the hood, instead of the rod, you'd have a point. I say slicing bits off, any bits falls under the mutilation umbrella. There are certainly degrees of it, and I'm not disputing the female version is usually worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:13:29 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It seems more cultural than religious, since most Muslims don't do it. Don't some whacky Middle East Christians do it too? *shrug* Perhaps. I've only heard about it in Muslim communities, and the figures they site in England parallel the growing Muslim community there pretty well. Who knows. Maybe it's just a new British fad like the Spice Girls and not related to one particular demographic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:13:48 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I understand, female genital mutilation is equivalent to cutting the head off of your penis. That's not what circumcision is. And at least male circumcision doesn't really have any negative effects and also helps keep it clean. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. From what I understand, female genital mutilation is equivalent to cutting the head off of your penis. That's not what circumcision is. And at least male circumcision doesn't really have any negative effects and also helps keep it clean. Yeah, as I understand it, it is done so females can never get physical pleasure from sex. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:14:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It seems more cultural than religious, since most Muslims don't do it. Don't some whacky Middle East Christians do it too? k den FUCK CULTURE 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:15:12 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I understand, female genital mutilation is equivalent to cutting the head off of your penis. That's not what circumcision is. And at least male circumcision doesn't really have any negative effects and also helps keep it clean. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. From what I understand, female genital mutilation is equivalent to cutting the head off of your penis. That's not what circumcision is. And at least male circumcision doesn't really have any negative effects and also helps keep it clean. Really? Cutting anything off my dick is like cutting my dick. No negative effects? lol. Keeping it clean isn't a matter of a piece of skin, it's a matter of being hygenic. You can have a dirty cut dick too 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:16:12 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? Cutting anything off my dick is like cutting my dick. No negative effects? lol. Keeping it clean isn't a matter of a piece of skin, it's a matter of being hygenic. You can have a dirty cut dick too Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. From what I understand, female genital mutilation is equivalent to cutting the head off of your penis. That's not what circumcision is. And at least male circumcision doesn't really have any negative effects and also helps keep it clean. Really? Cutting anything off my dick is like cutting my dick. No negative effects? lol. Keeping it clean isn't a matter of a piece of skin, it's a matter of being hygenic. You can have a dirty cut dick too Cutting the end of your penis off is the same as cutting off a little unimportant skin? Like I said, I'm speaking from experience. It's not a big deal at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:16:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Its not a Muslim practice, its a local cultural practice in places like Yemen, eastern and central Africa, that pre-date Islam. Different levels are practiced. The most common is the removal of the clitoris, which is done with either a pair of scissors or a knife, without any anesthesia or local pain killers, when the girl is still pre-pubescent. The idea is to reduce female pleasure in sex, to dissuade them from committing adultery or fornication. In a few cultures its very extreme, the labia minora are removed and sometimes sewn shut, leaving just enough room for urination, and then is opened up when married. This method leads to considerable risk of infection, pain, and issues with childbirth. Strangely, its largely the older women in the culture that push for it, not the men. A mother that refuses to get it done to her daughter will be ostracized by the female community and the girl will not be marriageable.
quasi SFW liveleak video, you don't actually see anything sexual or blood, but its disturbing to watch |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:17:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I say slicing bits off, any bits falls under the mutilation umbrella. There are certainly degrees of it, and I'm not disputing the female version is usually worse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. If female genital mutilation involved removing the hood, instead of the rod, you'd have a point. I say slicing bits off, any bits falls under the mutilation umbrella. There are certainly degrees of it, and I'm not disputing the female version is usually worse. It's not the mutilation that's the issue. It's what the mutilation does. A set of earrings on a non-consenting baby is a mutilation, but its intention and its effects are rather harmless. I'm in the pro-anteater camp, but you're minimizing a fucking atrocity by comparing it to foreskin removal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:18:54 PM EDT
[#17]
I had a really good looking sociology professor in college and this topic was her hot button. She would go off on random tangents about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:19:44 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm in the pro-anteater camp, but you're minimizing a fucking atrocity by comparing it to foreskin removal. Heh, "pro-anteater." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:19:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
k den FUCK CULTURE Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It seems more cultural than religious, since most Muslims don't do it. Don't some whacky Middle East Christians do it too? k den FUCK CULTURE Indeed. Fuck that culture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:20:23 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. Taking away a woman's ability to orgasm or enjoy sex completely is nowhere near the same thing as snipping off some extra skin. You know better. Not to mention many of the girls it is done to are married off terribly young, and are sewn up so tightly sex can be excruciating. Not only are they raped, their bodies are savaged again and again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:20:58 PM EDT
[#21]
We are working to eradicate it here, England is embracing it with open arms. Also, when a nine year old has her clitoris cut off (without anesthesia), the next step is to marry her off to a forty or fifty year old man. Can someone go to England and help them untuck their thinking? Thanks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:21:11 PM EDT
[#22]
Cut? Uncut? question bring on a new meanning
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:21:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said, the two are not equivalent at all. I am a "victim" of "male genital mutilation", and I have no problem with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How in the hell did someone come up with the idea that female and male genital mutilation was a good idea. Like I said, the two are not equivalent at all. I am a "victim" of "male genital mutilation", and I have no problem with it. I'm a victim as well. I couldn't walk for a year after the procedure. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:21:38 PM EDT
[#24]
It's a method of exercising control over women, pure and simple. Oddly enough, older women are the ones who generally perform the mutilation. The men have succeeded in making it a cultural rite of passage, and the women join right in.
And no, circumcision isn't anything like female mutilation, where the point is to remove or damage the clitoris so the woman can't experience sexual stimulation there. It's intended to prevent masturbation, too, so the girls and women don't get all sexed up and go nuts. (Kinda like how Muslim women are required to cover their overpoweringly-erotic hair with a scarf, so men don't lose control and ravish them in the streets. Mmm, that hair.  )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:21:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said, the two are not equivalent at all. I am a "victim" of "male genital mutilation", and I have no problem with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How in the hell did someone come up with the idea that female and male genital mutilation was a good idea. Like I said, the two are not equivalent at all. I am a "victim" of "male genital mutilation", and I have no problem with it. And the women who've had female genital mutilation don't generally have a problem with it either. It's deeply ingrained in their culture and, from what I read, women often perform or assist in the procedure. Culture can a bitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:22:06 PM EDT
[#26]
I guess they did not mention the muslim rape gangs in Europe who after the rape take shears to the victims after brutally gang raping them.
The victims get chosen because they dressed like whores..(normal western dress). Fuck that mental illness and so called culture of peace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:22:57 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm a victim as well. I couldn't walk for a year after the procedure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How in the hell did someone come up with the idea that female and male genital mutilation was a good idea. Like I said, the two are not equivalent at all. I am a "victim" of "male genital mutilation", and I have no problem with it. I'm a victim as well. I couldn't walk for a year after the procedure. Huh. I was fine after a week or two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:23:06 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed. Fuck that culture. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It seems more cultural than religious, since most Muslims don't do it. Don't some whacky Middle East Christians do it too? k den FUCK CULTURE Indeed. Fuck that culture. don't stop at that one, there's loads of loathsome cultures out there |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:24:18 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the women who've had female genital mutilation don't generally have a problem with it either. It's deeply ingrained in their culture and, from what I read, women often perform or assist in the procedure. Culture can a bitch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How in the hell did someone come up with the idea that female and male genital mutilation was a good idea. Like I said, the two are not equivalent at all. I am a "victim" of "male genital mutilation", and I have no problem with it. And the women who've had female genital mutilation don't generally have a problem with it either. It's deeply ingrained in their culture and, from what I read, women often perform or assist in the procedure. Culture can a bitch. Seriously? That's your argument? I'm just blind? First of all, it wasn't a cultural decision. Secondly, they DO have a problem with it whether they know it or not, and I don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:24:51 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. honestly though thats kinda like comparing a teeth cleaning with a root canal I dont even know why but I watched some documentary about this if was in Africa and they were using old razor blades and I think even flint type stones it showed the whole ordeal too pretty much anything hanging out was cut off lips,labia,clitoris, hood.... all gone and then they sewed it all shut leaving a tiny hole it was considered more attractive and tighter for the men they would marry sex would literally be "tearing them a new one" any woman without this done was considered unworthy of marriage pretty gnarly when compared to circumcision |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:28:14 PM EDT
[#31]
My suggestion is simple. Immediate execution for anyone involved in FGM. The parents, the doctor(s), any potential suitor... You mutilate a little girl, you get a bullet in the head within 36 hours of conviction.
And then you're skyburied with a couple carcasses of animals that are culturally offensive to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:28:34 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Taking away a woman's ability to orgasm or enjoy sex completely is nowhere near the same thing as snipping off some extra skin. You know better. Not to mention many of the girls it is done to are married off terribly young, and are sewn up so tightly sex can be excruciating. Not only are they raped, their bodies are savaged again and again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. Taking away a woman's ability to orgasm or enjoy sex completely is nowhere near the same thing as snipping off some extra skin. You know better. Not to mention many of the girls it is done to are married off terribly young, and are sewn up so tightly sex can be excruciating. Not only are they raped, their bodies are savaged again and again. I don't disagree that it's horrible. All I'm saying is the practices are a lot more related than most people are willing to admit. They are done for similar purposes as well. Circumcision didn't start out for hygiene reasons (the common excuse given today.) It started in a similar vein as the female version. Reduced sexual pleasure. One of the effects of circumcision is reduced sensitivity. Ergo, reduced pleasure. Is it the same? No, of course not. But it's still mutilation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:28:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously? That's your argument? I'm just blind? First of all, it wasn't a cultural decision. Secondly, they DO have a problem with it whether they know it or not, and I don't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How in the hell did someone come up with the idea that female and male genital mutilation was a good idea. Like I said, the two are not equivalent at all. I am a "victim" of "male genital mutilation", and I have no problem with it. And the women who've had female genital mutilation don't generally have a problem with it either. It's deeply ingrained in their culture and, from what I read, women often perform or assist in the procedure. Culture can a bitch. Seriously? That's your argument? I'm just blind? First of all, it wasn't a cultural decision. Secondly, they DO have a problem with it whether they know it or not, and I don't. It's all part of the brainwashing. No 8-10 year old girl willingly goes to the butcher block to have her most private area mutilated, while the older women in the family hold her down. The numbness, acceptance, and continuation of 'tradition' come later. It makes me so sick and sad. And every time a feminist complains about manspreading and how big of a problem it is, or some guy says circumcision is totally the same thing, I just feel like lighting the world on fire and walking away from the explosion in slow motion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:29:36 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Taking away a woman's ability to orgasm or enjoy sex completely is nowhere near the same thing as snipping off some extra skin. You know better. Not to mention many of the girls it is done to are married off terribly young, and are sewn up so tightly sex can be excruciating. Not only are they raped, their bodies are savaged again and again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. Taking away a woman's ability to orgasm or enjoy sex completely is nowhere near the same thing as snipping off some extra skin. You know better. Not to mention many of the girls it is done to are married off terribly young, and are sewn up so tightly sex can be excruciating. Not only are they raped, their bodies are savaged again and again. Pretty much. And I'm in the pro-anteater crowd too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:32:22 PM EDT
[#35]
So .... not to start a serious topic then suddenly make light of it but... Would Caitlyn Jenner need to get this done if he relocated to that culture?
...but seriously folks.. Here is another article that addresses the religion/culture aspect of it. I think my Muslim college professor summed it up well when he argued (mind you he was a very modern/liberal Muslim) that Islam is an all-encompassing ideology, and not really "just" a religion as the west typically defines religion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:36:30 PM EDT
[#36]
ive mutilated every genitalia ive been in
I blame this on midget porn |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:36:50 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't disagree that it's horrible. All I'm saying is the practices are a lot more related than most people are willing to admit. They are done for similar purposes as well. Circumcision didn't start out for hygiene reasons (the common excuse given today.) It started in a similar vein as the female version. Reduced sexual pleasure. One of the effects of circumcision is reduced sensitivity. Ergo, reduced pleasure. Is it the same? No, of course not. But it's still mutilation. No, male circumcision was not done to remove sensitivity, the Torah and Bible and Koran all make it very clear that male sexual pleasure was A-okay. Circumcision had been practiced among Semitic people, Jews, early Christians, and Muslims, as far back as time recorded. People living in deserts don't bath with water, they take handfuls of sand and rub it on their bodies, the grittiness removes the external microderms of skin and it actually works very well. But to use that method underneath the foreskin is almost impossible, the skin is too sensitive and any sand particles not removed after will cause terrible irritation. So its either don't clean your dick and it gets covered in "fromunda" cheese (smegma) which leads to infection, or clean your dick with sand and you're always in pain and getting sores, or you cut off the foreskin and then have no worries. It's the reason the not only Hebrews but all desert people have done it, even in southern Africa, which had no access to the ME and Abrahamic religions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:37:55 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
*shrug* Perhaps. I've only heard about it in Muslim communities, and the figures they site in England parallel the growing Muslim community there pretty well. Who knows. Maybe it's just a new British fad like the Spice Girls and not related to one particular demographic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It seems more cultural than religious, since most Muslims don't do it. Don't some whacky Middle East Christians do it too? *shrug* Perhaps. I've only heard about it in Muslim communities, and the figures they site in England parallel the growing Muslim community there pretty well. Who knows. Maybe it's just a new British fad like the Spice Girls and not related to one particular demographic. its cool that you got to the spice girls from cutting clits off. Bravo |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:39:14 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So .... not to start a serious topic then suddenly make light of it but... Would Caitlyn Jenner need to get this done if he relocated to that culture? Hummm. Hack off ones nutsack & turn the penis inside out. Does it even feel good? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:39:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? Cutting anything off my dick is like cutting my dick. No negative effects? lol. Keeping it clean isn't a matter of a piece of skin, it's a matter of being hygenic. You can have a dirty cut dick too Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. From what I understand, female genital mutilation is equivalent to cutting the head off of your penis. That's not what circumcision is. And at least male circumcision doesn't really have any negative effects and also helps keep it clean. Really? Cutting anything off my dick is like cutting my dick. No negative effects? lol. Keeping it clean isn't a matter of a piece of skin, it's a matter of being hygenic. You can have a dirty cut dick too 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:39:57 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, male circumcision was not done to remove sensitivity, the Torah and Bible and Koran all make it very clear that male sexual pleasure was A-okay. Circumcision had been practiced among Semitic people, Jews, early Christians, and Muslims, as far back as time recorded. People living in deserts don't bath with water, they take handfuls of sand and rub it on their bodies, the grittiness removes the external microderms of skin and it actually works very well. But to use that method underneath the foreskin is almost impossible, the skin is too sensitive and any sand particles not removed after will cause terrible irritation. So its either don't clean your dick and it gets covered in "fromunda" cheese (smegma) which leads to infection, or clean your dick with sand and you're always in pain and getting sores, or you cut off the foreskin and then have no worries. It's the reason the not only Hebrews but all desert people have done it, even in southern Africa, which had no access to the ME and Abrahamic religions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't disagree that it's horrible. All I'm saying is the practices are a lot more related than most people are willing to admit. They are done for similar purposes as well. Circumcision didn't start out for hygiene reasons (the common excuse given today.) It started in a similar vein as the female version. Reduced sexual pleasure. One of the effects of circumcision is reduced sensitivity. Ergo, reduced pleasure. Is it the same? No, of course not. But it's still mutilation. No, male circumcision was not done to remove sensitivity, the Torah and Bible and Koran all make it very clear that male sexual pleasure was A-okay. Circumcision had been practiced among Semitic people, Jews, early Christians, and Muslims, as far back as time recorded. People living in deserts don't bath with water, they take handfuls of sand and rub it on their bodies, the grittiness removes the external microderms of skin and it actually works very well. But to use that method underneath the foreskin is almost impossible, the skin is too sensitive and any sand particles not removed after will cause terrible irritation. So its either don't clean your dick and it gets covered in "fromunda" cheese (smegma) which leads to infection, or clean your dick with sand and you're always in pain and getting sores, or you cut off the foreskin and then have no worries. It's the reason the not only Hebrews but all desert people have done it, even in southern Africa, which had no access to the ME and Abrahamic religions. Do some research. Reduced sensitivity and control / prevention of masturbation were primary motivators. The hygiene thing came WAY later. ETA: I'm referring more to the modern resurgence of circumcision in western society but the origins are true for both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:45:08 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do some research. Reduced sensitivity and control / prevention of masturbation were primary motivators. The hygiene thing came WAY later. ETA: I'm referring more to the modern resurgence of circumcision in western society but the origins are true for both. Doesn't seem to affect them too badly
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:45:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do some research. Reduced sensitivity and control / prevention of masturbation were primary motivators. The hygiene thing came WAY later. ETA: I'm referring to the modern resurgence of circumcision in western society. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't disagree that it's horrible. All I'm saying is the practices are a lot more related than most people are willing to admit. They are done for similar purposes as well. Circumcision didn't start out for hygiene reasons (the common excuse given today.) It started in a similar vein as the female version. Reduced sexual pleasure. One of the effects of circumcision is reduced sensitivity. Ergo, reduced pleasure. Is it the same? No, of course not. But it's still mutilation. No, male circumcision was not done to remove sensitivity, the Torah and Bible and Koran all make it very clear that male sexual pleasure was A-okay. Circumcision had been practiced among Semitic people, Jews, early Christians, and Muslims, as far back as time recorded. People living in deserts don't bath with water, they take handfuls of sand and rub it on their bodies, the grittiness removes the external microderms of skin and it actually works very well. But to use that method underneath the foreskin is almost impossible, the skin is too sensitive and any sand particles not removed after will cause terrible irritation. So its either don't clean your dick and it gets covered in "fromunda" cheese (smegma) which leads to infection, or clean your dick with sand and you're always in pain and getting sores, or you cut off the foreskin and then have no worries. It's the reason the not only Hebrews but all desert people have done it, even in southern Africa, which had no access to the ME and Abrahamic religions. Do some research. Reduced sensitivity and control / prevention of masturbation were primary motivators. The hygiene thing came WAY later. ETA: I'm referring to the modern resurgence of circumcision in western society. LOL. You need to read the fucking bible and do your own research on anthropology. You think Abraham cut his foreskin off as a covenant with God because he yanked his dick too much? The hygienic thing came first and foremost. Nomadic desert people of the Hebrew variety started the practice of circumcising before Abraham was even born, it just wasn't mandatory. As any Jewish or American that is circumcised can tell you, removing the foreskin does NOT stop people from experiencing intense pleasure through sex or masturbation. If you believe otherwise it means your doctor either botched your circumcision badly, you have something really wrong with the nerve endings of your dick, or you're not circumcised and just talking out your ass. King David, king of the Jews, had 700 wives and concubines. You think he didn't enjoy the fuck out of sex? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:48:35 PM EDT
[#44]
LOL, at least you didn't say god dam bible
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:50:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Africa is a special place.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:51:12 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We are working to eradicate it here, England is embracing it with open arms. Also, when a nine year old has her clitoris cut off (without anesthesia), the next step is to marry her off to a forty or fifty year old man. Can someone go to England and help them untuck their thinking? Thanks When one holds the silly position that it is wrong to judge another culture by our standards, you invite this kind of bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:53:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
honestly though thats kinda like comparing a teeth cleaning with a root canal I dont even know why but I watched some documentary about this if was in Africa and they were using old razor blades and I think even flint type stones it showed the whole ordeal too pretty much anything hanging out was cut off lips,labia,clitoris, hood.... all gone and then they sewed it all shut leaving a tiny hole it was considered more attractive and tighter for the men they would marry sex would literally be "tearing them a new one" any woman without this done was considered unworthy of marriage pretty gnarly when compared to circumcision Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's ironic is that male genital mutilation is tolerated, accepted, hell it's demanded in many circles. honestly though thats kinda like comparing a teeth cleaning with a root canal I dont even know why but I watched some documentary about this if was in Africa and they were using old razor blades and I think even flint type stones it showed the whole ordeal too pretty much anything hanging out was cut off lips,labia,clitoris, hood.... all gone and then they sewed it all shut leaving a tiny hole it was considered more attractive and tighter for the men they would marry sex would literally be "tearing them a new one" any woman without this done was considered unworthy of marriage pretty gnarly when compared to circumcision Dear God... 
I would like to see these men's genitals smashed with a rock and then let them live the rest of their live that way. Ignorant, evil faggots... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:55:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL. You need to read the fucking bible and do your own research on anthropology. You think Abraham cut his foreskin off as a covenant with God because he yanked his dick too much? The hygienic thing came first and foremost. Nomadic desert people of the Hebrew variety started the practice of circumcising before Abraham was even born, it just wasn't mandatory. As any Jewish or American that is circumcised can tell you, removing the foreskin does NOT stop people from experiencing intense pleasure through sex or masturbation. If you believe otherwise it means your doctor either botched your circumcision badly, you have something really wrong with the nerve endings of your dick, or you're not circumcised and just talking out your ass. King David, king of the Jews, had 700 wives and concubines. You think he didn't enjoy the fuck out of sex? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't disagree that it's horrible. All I'm saying is the practices are a lot more related than most people are willing to admit. They are done for similar purposes as well. Circumcision didn't start out for hygiene reasons (the common excuse given today.) It started in a similar vein as the female version. Reduced sexual pleasure. One of the effects of circumcision is reduced sensitivity. Ergo, reduced pleasure. Is it the same? No, of course not. But it's still mutilation. No, male circumcision was not done to remove sensitivity, the Torah and Bible and Koran all make it very clear that male sexual pleasure was A-okay. Circumcision had been practiced among Semitic people, Jews, early Christians, and Muslims, as far back as time recorded. People living in deserts don't bath with water, they take handfuls of sand and rub it on their bodies, the grittiness removes the external microderms of skin and it actually works very well. But to use that method underneath the foreskin is almost impossible, the skin is too sensitive and any sand particles not removed after will cause terrible irritation. So its either don't clean your dick and it gets covered in "fromunda" cheese (smegma) which leads to infection, or clean your dick with sand and you're always in pain and getting sores, or you cut off the foreskin and then have no worries. It's the reason the not only Hebrews but all desert people have done it, even in southern Africa, which had no access to the ME and Abrahamic religions. Do some research. Reduced sensitivity and control / prevention of masturbation were primary motivators. The hygiene thing came WAY later. ETA: I'm referring to the modern resurgence of circumcision in western society. LOL. You need to read the fucking bible and do your own research on anthropology. You think Abraham cut his foreskin off as a covenant with God because he yanked his dick too much? The hygienic thing came first and foremost. Nomadic desert people of the Hebrew variety started the practice of circumcising before Abraham was even born, it just wasn't mandatory. As any Jewish or American that is circumcised can tell you, removing the foreskin does NOT stop people from experiencing intense pleasure through sex or masturbation. If you believe otherwise it means your doctor either botched your circumcision badly, you have something really wrong with the nerve endings of your dick, or you're not circumcised and just talking out your ass. King David, king of the Jews, had 700 wives and concubines. You think he didn't enjoy the fuck out of sex? Religious texts are not reliable sources for factual information. That's an argument for another thread entirely. Truth is the foreskin contains the most nerve endings (and is thus the most sensitive part). Slicing it off makes a huge impact. Is it enough to really matter at game time? Perhaps not, but to deny it has any affect at all is ridiculous. The inherent slippery behavior of it also provides several benefits. Jump up and down and stomp all you want, you're wrong. Bible this, religion that, still wrong. Do some reading. Scientific studies. Medical papers. You may not agree with what I'm telling you, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. 
I'd provide links for reference, but so far every one I've found rather predictably has pictures of cock. So...you'll have to do your own google searching.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:57:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We are working to eradicate it here, England is embracing it with open arms. Also, when a nine year old has her clitoris cut off (without anesthesia), the next step is to marry her off to a forty or fifty year old man. Can someone go to England and help them untuck their thinking? Thanks When in doubt, just make up bullshit eh? Protip: FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985, with changes made in 2003 and 2014 to make it being illegal to travel abroad to do it. Doing so carries up to 14 years in prison. There's been a very recent case of passports being taken away to prevent people going overseas to have it done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:58:05 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When one holds the silly position that it is wrong to judge another culture by our standards, you invite this kind of bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We are working to eradicate it here, England is embracing it with open arms. Also, when a nine year old has her clitoris cut off (without anesthesia), the next step is to marry her off to a forty or fifty year old man. Can someone go to England and help them untuck their thinking? Thanks When one holds the silly position that it is wrong to judge another culture by our standards, you invite this kind of bullshit. How good are our standards? Have you ever scene Toddlers in Tiaras? How about Planned Parenthood? Prison population ratios? Sexual taboos? Overeating? Judge thee not lest ye be judged. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
