You didn't make the cut

I realize this doesn't answer the original question, but just to clarify, I'm a female and my vagina is uncircumcized.

 

Do you think some African guys are sitting around right now and having a conversation about hooking up with an uncircumcised woman?

"I don't know, it was weird. I don't know how I feel about it. Like, it was okay. I just wasn't ready for... That. You know?"

 

In western society, that's called vaginal rejuvenation.

 

So, I’m sitting here at work reading all this talk of female circumcision and I realize I don't know if that’s something different than genital mutilation and what not so I decide I'm going to Google it. Well I am at work so I can't use the work computer for that so I decide to use my phone. I type female into the Google search bar and it automatically filled in circumcision. I'm finding this a little disturbing for a few reasons. First, are there that many people searching for that? Second, has TiB taken over my phone somehow?

 

Well, this certainly explains why your girl complained of pain after sexytime when you claim to be average sized - female genital mutilation causes scar tissue, pain with intercourse and bleeding. IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

for all the gentlemen that are confused, female circumcision = genital mutilation. It is very rare that a lady has labia that are a foot long and need to be cut off for medical reasons, and then it is called labiaplasty. Cutting off all external female genitalia is what is called female circumcision, which is why it is also called genital mutilation. Cutting off your clitoris is like cutting off your dick.

 

My former neighbor told us a story about how he had sex with a circumcised woman in Africa.

 

Did she enjoy it?

 

Can anyone explain to me why female circumcision = abhorrent, but male circumcision = meh, up to the parents? I realize cutting off a clitoris is like cutting off the entire head of a penis (let alone Types 2, 3 and 4 female circumcision), so in that sense it's definitely worse, but isn't that just different degrees of mutilation? Boy or girl, it's still taking a knife to the most sensitive part(s) of a wholly innocent newborn child. I'm completely disgusted by both (again, without immediate medical reason), but the night-and-day difference in attitude towards the two really shocks me.

I'll also never understand why/how someone could believe in a god, learn that that god wants them to mutilate their child's reproductive organ, and still believe in said god. Different strokes, I guess.

 

Because one is done in Africa. Duh.

 

One is complete removal of the female erogenous for purposes of subjugation. The other is a practice with its ancient etiology in cleanliness and disease control that became a religious ritual due to its benefits. Same thing with Kosher dietary laws.

The two circumcisions are nothing alike. I'll even go so far as to say female circumcision does not exist, but its a cutesy little bullshit term thrown around to deflect from the despicable practice of a form of mental and physical rape of children.

 

Maybe you should read up on the God of the Old Testament.

 

Yup, nobody ever advocated male circumcision to reduce sexual pleasure.

You know who wrote that? Maimonides.

 

Ok. That doesn't really deter from the details though. The two are nothing alike and rose from two completely disparate reasons. Interesting factoid though.

What's really bothering is some Jews wait until the kid is over a year old to do the Bris. No idea where that came from. Supposed to be done at a week old.

Edit. Read this: <a class="postlink" href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/05/my-take-jesus-was-a-dirty-dirty-god/?iref=allsearch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/0 ... =allsearch</a>

Then imagine touching your dick in 30 B.C.E.

 

To play devil's advocate, that sounds a lot like "Your ancient cultural customs of mutilation are barbaric and antiquidated, but ours have a rich cultural history and purpose."

Sure, one is like chopping off a finger at the knuckle whereas the other is like chopping off the whole hand, but isn't that what is meant by "difference of degrees"?

 

I got cut when I was an infant, so I have no idea if uncut guys are more sensitive during sex. I know I've never had any problems wherein I didn't enjoy sex or jerking off because of my lack of extra skin. I would think it'd be preferable to be less sensitive, avoid premature squirts.

And hey, check the poll up there. About half the women don't care. About half the women prefer cut. None prefer the uncut. Not one. No women are out there going, "You know, I like dick and all, but I wish there was some extra skin to suck on."

I don't know. If I ever have kids, I'll probably leave them uncut. Seems like a decision they should be able to make for themselves.

 

To play it further you're both arguing for the acceptance of clitoris removal.

Also, nowhere in my two posts in this thread have I said to continue or stop circumcision practices.

 

But no, I'm suggesting that "it has a grand Jewish tradition, and was useful in the world before showers" seems like a piss-poor justification for its modern acceptability, potentially the worst of all available ones. You indicated some sympathy for this argument.

 

I'm sorry, an interesting factoid? It's just as interesting factoid that Maimonides explicitly writes that the purpose of circumcision is to dull the sex drive in order to enforce morality through pain and blood? If I had quoted W.K. Kellogg, you might have a point. Maimonides is not some fringe character in Judaica.

George Carlin once quipped that circumcision is society's way of reminding you that your penis is not your own. I think he was right. Female genital mutilation, while on a different order of magnitude in terms of short and long-term damage, is a different expression of the same human instinct: attempting to suppress sexuality.