FGM

can we talk about how fucked up this shit is?

Other urls found in this thread:

unicef.org/media/files/FGMC_2016_brochure_final_UNICEF_SPREAD.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=6FK1uf3Q3ec
youtube.com/watch?v=Kpa0JTKtTeI
youtube.com/watch?v=0_sTHgce3ug
metro.co.uk/2016/02/23/some-forms-of-female-genital-mutilation-should-be-legalised-doctors-argue-5713899/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947
historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=15
sexuallymutilatedchild.org/immuno.htm
cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Muahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Is this because muslim men have small penises and need a tighter vagina in order to achieve orgasm?

WHAT THE FUCK

>muh clitorus

"Yes"

what the fuck is this barbaricity

Ahhh! I love muslim culture! So tolerant!

no we can't
this is Sup Forums and serious discussions belong on lelditt

UNA VELA....

female "circumsicion" (brotip: it's plain ablation)

It predates Muslim culture. Only a small minority of Muslims practice it, and they all practiced it before Islam.

Nah, it's to be sure women don't take pleasure with benis in bagina, because it would make them slut. Basically, it's to remove the fun from the sex and reduce it as a procreation-only purpose for women.

seems to be more of an saharo-african thing, possibly helped by an interpretation of islam's puritanical view towards women

based clooney singlehandedly conquered large swathes of land from the mudshits

t. mehmet abadi

>Somalia

>Mehmet
Dude, like half the time the Kurds are brought up, Turks shame them for practicing FGM. I'm just saying, calling FGM a Muslim tradition is like a pre Christian tradition from Slavic countries a Christian tradition.

>200 millions women
>shitloads of countries where 50 to 99% of women are FMG'd
>minority

unicef.org/media/files/FGMC_2016_brochure_final_UNICEF_SPREAD.pdf

guise its the religion of peace. you shouldn't say anything about their culture because we are white so we have none.

>we are white

t. Pekka Chong

I should've picked mohammed. More of a stereotypical muslim name desu
im retarded desu

It is also fairly common amongst Indian Shiites and is not common, but practiced, in Indonesia.

i think its pretty hot tb lad, women dont deserve pleasure

200 million is a minority of 1.6 billion (so 900 Muslim million women). And not all countries practicing FGM are Muslim.

I don't get how you people can be so stupid. This thread was started by someone from a Muslim country. FGM is constantly used by Muslims to shame other Muslims who do practice it.

Whoops, I take that last bit back.... It is both common and practiced in Indonesia. 50% rate of incidence amongst post-pubescent women.

good idea, poor execution
"muh sex is fun, fuck le having babies" culture is a massive cancer

So, something only becomes a problem once it becomes a practice of a majority of people? In the case, do we have to wait to criticize Islamic culture until it is 450 million women and not 200 million women?

This "Muh minority" argument is fucking retarded.

fucking disgusting

>not liking pussy

t. hasn't had sex

Please show me where I said that FGM is not a problem. I said that it is not a Muslim thing. Non Muslim things can be bad. The point of my comments was never to defend FGM. I honestly don't get how you came to that conclusion.

t. fucked some ugly whore and now thinks he's the real deal

how is this worse than benis mutilation

Hey murrilard let's ban guns

It's not, and I say this as a mutialted American from a Jewish household. The mental gymnastics that surround this are unbelievable and I'm glad the based scandis are working to ban it.

It's considered not worse simply because I'M A FUCKING WHITE MALE.

t. Ivan Smallcock

How does period blood come out when you sole the labia shut?

I'm sure and your sex life stories will impress your fellow middle schoolers

Stop trying to bend the facts through rethoric to make it looks like an irrelevant side-problem.
Yeah, 200 millions out of 900 don't even make 25% of the female population, so technicaly it's not a "majority". Sure. That's still a hell fucking huge minority.
And using percentages is a very convenient way to hide the absolute numbers: whether you like it or not, 200 millions people is a fucking massive number.

>literally only in muslim countries

but it so very clearly *is* a Muslim thing. Muslims as an aggregate have a rate of FGM infliction completely unparalleled by any other religious group.

To deny that there is a link between the world's most puritanical ideology in relationship to female sexuality, and the violent suppression of female sexuality is nonsensical.

Plus, there are even Hadiths calling FGM noble.

So 22% of Muslim women were inflicted with FGM, compared to about a .9% incidence rate amongst christians (and virtually 0 in every other group). Islam is easily the most hostile to female sexuality of all modern religions. There is Islamic Scripture praising FGM.

How in the world is this not a Muslim thing?

The virgin rage is real

woohoo

I'm sorry, but cultural relativism is the proper way to respect traditions of every people in Earth; if some of them practice that, all we can do is let them follow their way of life!
There are people that unironically believe what I stated up there. That's why it still happens.

Oh look it's yet another correlation = causation argument. I wonder why has no one produced any evidence that it's done for religious practices.

good post /r9k/

benis is not mutilated, just cut of the banjo string (with anesthesia)

>Literally pulling things out of your ass
Not all Kurds are Muslim and they still practice it. Some animist Africans practice it.

Correlation =/= causation. I'm not defending Islam or FGM. I'm just saying, it's not a coincidence that the only Muslim cultures that practice FGM also practiced it before Islam. How do YOU explain that?

Is that a yes?

youtube.com/watch?v=6FK1uf3Q3ec

Again, I'm NOT defending FGM. Stop acting like I'm trying to minimize the issue. We will be more effective in ending FGM if we don't try to demonize all Muslims for it because they could be more effective in convincing other Muslims to end it.

I am Chicano and intact benis... but mate, it is super clear that you are just projecting butthurt about your dick here. Difference in sexual function and sensitivity between cut and uncut men is effectively nominal, and there are virtually no long term health consequences.

I am all for banning male circumcision, but to say that it is "the same" as the female counterpart is ridiculous. FGM and its long term side effects are frequently a mortal risk to inflicted women, it categorically makes women anorgasmic, and all but guarantees serial pelvic infection.

Sorry you were circumcised buddy, but to compare yourself to someone who got FGM'ed effectively trivialized FGM and makes you look dumb.

>expecting rationality from Sup Forums in 2016
Wew lad

>Egypt 91%

WHAT THE FUCK
I thought this kind of thing only happen ins small villages in the middle of Africa.

>Only a small minority of Muslims practice it
absolutely ebin

there are fatwas sanctioning it and Islamic centres in Indonesia frequently hold events for the surgical performance of FGM. There are Hadiths calling it noble. There is a clear connection between Islam's holistic take on female sexuality and the proactive suppression of it. That is evidence it is done for religious reasons.

I am not saying Islam invented FGM. I am saying it is a major force today in A. sanctioning and encouraging the practice of FGM and B. spreading outlooks on female sexuality that encourage behaviour like FGM.

That second statement is not true. Indonesia did not practice FGM before Islam, and neither did Malaysia, Pakistan, or India. In those countries where was practiced before and after Islam, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that Islam played a major role in crystallizing the practice.

Maybe type 1 isn't, but the other two are pretty serious and more gruesome, in type 3 the womens entire vulva is hacked off with a razor blade and the remaining hole sown together with only a small opening left to urinate and let period blood out, you can imagine how unhygienic and dangerous that is.

On the wedding night the man opens the puss with a knife to consummate the marriage, which can lead to death, if she hadn't already bled to death during the circumcision, or one of it's subsequent complications.

all with anesthesia and surgical cleanliness
now compare to
youtube.com/watch?v=Kpa0JTKtTeI
youtube.com/watch?v=0_sTHgce3ug

alright Ben Affleck, we got it, it's just africans being shit regardless of islamism or christianity

The first type isn't. It functions the exact same purpose as normal circumcision.

The last one is far worse as your literally grafting inside the vagina before sewing it back up again, which greatly increases the chance of mortality for both the mother and the infant during pregnancy. It also disrupts menstruation cycles so that the women can go monthes on end without menstuating, which fucks up their development and psyiological help.

The final and possibly worst thing it does is result in early menopause, meaning that if their husbands want children, they're going to have to marry and impregnate them when they're young, usually at around 13 or so years of age. This basically assures that the practice continues due to the mothers being almost entirely impoverished, resulting in the next generation being limited in education and thus more supportive of the practice.

no

so female circumcision with anasthesia would be ok?

again, it's not circumcision but ablation
they have to stop cutting EVERYTHING off
in the case of true male circumcision, they cut off the foreskin. if males had to go through the same as those nigger females do, they'd had the whole head chop off

Its barbaric, but why fixate on it. The uniformity you seek only creates more inequality.

even type one is much worse. The anatomical analogue of type one on a male would be the removal of the Glans. The anatomical analogue of type two would be severing the upper portion of the penis, and type three would quite literally be removing the penis, such that all pleasurable sexual function is eliminated.

There's no topical anesthesia that could possibly help.

I don't think either is ok, but equating them is not accurate. Male circumcision is an uneccesary and outdated practice. Female circumcision, especially type 3, threatens the very development of the fetus.

No, most in fact circumcision is done with no anesthesia here.

So I guess all those pre Christian European traditions that also spread because of Christian missionaries are now Christian traditions.

>Its barbaric, but why fixate on it
because it's bad and shit
they should seek healthier alternatives like.. i dunno, putting ring on the girls genitalia like those BDSM people do. or straight stop and give sexual education

..... well shit nigga

The clit isn't a piece of foreskin in itself

No anesthetic drugs are used because those are dangerous for young children to ingest. Topical anesthesia is used fairly frequently though.

There are multiple types of FGM. It ranges from ceremonially drawing blood with a pin prick to cutting everything off. Most of the time they just cut off the inner labia and/or clitoral hood.

>So I guess all those pre Christian European traditions that also spread because of Christian missionaries are now Christian traditions.

Yes, this is correct.

Out of curiosity, are you a Muslim or are you a Ben Affleck type?

When the male prepuce is removed, about 30 feet of coiled nerve fiber, 80,000 fine touch/tempurature/texture receptors (meissner's corpuscles), and 15 square inches of tissue are removed, about just as much when a full FGM is performed. While I agree with you that it cannot be completely equated to some types of FMG since FMG varies in it's form from region to region and how much tissue is removed, the two are incredibly similar. Histological studies have gathered enormous evidence that the cellular makeup of the male and female prepuce, and found that their functions and sensory thresholds is completely identical. The only difference is how this tissue is arranged during fetal development.

It should also be noted that extensive histologial studies have been performed with a focus on sensory thresholds, comparing circumcised & uncircumcised men with circumcised and uncircumcised women. What they found in both sexes was an identical deficit and lowered ability to feel sensation (measured by electrical impulse) that was the same in both sexes. As an uncircumcised man, how can you claim to know the difference yourself?

The point is, don't fuck with a minor's genitals. It's all the same bad thing and it's destructive effects have been empirically measured to be identical in both males and females.

both the male and female glans actually contain very few nerve receptors, though I agree we should never cut it off

which is still ineffective because it doesn't block the major source of pain which males feel through the dorsal penile nerve

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I don't see all those pre Christian traditions as Christian simply because Europeans adopted Christianity.

I have no idea who Ben Affleck even is and I'm not a Muslim.

I had a coptic ex who was circumcised, it's very common in Egypt

Got a source on all of that, bud?

Do i really need to explain the limits of your own reach? Concentrate on your own community.

metro.co.uk/2016/02/23/some-forms-of-female-genital-mutilation-should-be-legalised-doctors-argue-5713899/

>from ceremonially drawing blood with a pin prick
so yeah, what could be as bad as this?
many baby girls get their ears pierced while the cartilage is soft in my cuntray
however you don't see the soft stuff in the news. there's a lot of sensationalism but that doesn't mean bad shit happens, it just happens to fewer people than thought

>I have no idea who Ben Affleck even is
now you're just trolling. you have to be

nerve receptors are not the primary metric of sexual pleasure. You have a lot of nerves on your face, but try bringing yourself to orgasm by rubbing that. Regardless of how many nerves are in the glans, it's removal all but guarantees anorgasmia. This is not the case with the male foreskin.

Anyhow, as a human rights issue, I agree that they are in the same category and equally condemnable. However, that doesn't mean that as a practice they are equatable.

>americans shun circumcising vagoos
>at the same time they mutilate penises
you cant explain that

Can any muslim explain how they even got the idea to do this?
I mean is there some verse in the Quran that says you should cut up your womans genitals?

......... NO
PAY DEMBTS

That's in the developed prepuce. The infant prepuce has about half that amount. Regardless, FGM is more dangerous not because of its neuralogical or psychological effects, but because of its hormonal effects and how it effects the development of a fetus. That's why it's considered far worse.

Also consider that there's an observable life expectancy difference between females with type 3 FGM, type 1, and normal gentelia by about 10 years, something that we don't find in males.

I think we can both agree that both are bad without too much of a problem.

See

nobody mentioned here that there's a good size of african prostitutes with their genitalia mutilated as well
so, if their original purpose was to stop women from becoming whores, they failed
it's simply an useless practice
at least in the case of REAL phimosis circumcision could save the penis by restoring blood to the head

.......looks like zika has consumed most of your brain already.

>is there some verse in the Quran that says you should cut up your womans genitals?
no, it's more or a cultural than a religious thing, the most islamic place in the world (Saudi Arabia) doesn't do it for example.

>ceremonially drawing blood with a pin prick
what's interesting is that Jewish circumcision actually started off this way thousands of years ago. As the temples fell and things got worse, it became more and more mutilating.

The man who popularized Male Circumcision in the U.S. was not a muslim or a jew, but a devout Christian fundementalist """doctor""" who believed masturbation was the cause of all physical ailments. He was also in favor of FGM via hydrocloric acid, but for some reason only MGM stuck here in the US.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg

sure m8
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947
historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=15
sexuallymutilatedchild.org/immuno.htm
cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/


>I think we can both agree that both are bad without too much of a problem.
That's a good way to go about it honestly, they are both so terrible it's like comparing torture methods. I didn't know that about the hormonal changes and life expectancy though, I'll have to read up on it. What has been shown particularly in males, is that there is a link between the development of Autism Spectrum Disorders and male Circumcision, so they both have their drawbacks I guess.

I refuse to agree to disagree on that.

By your line of reasoning, the only thing that could be called Christian is the scripture and purist theology. That's a ridiculously reductionist view of religion. So much of Christian tradition is adapted pagan tradition, and you cannot call Christmas, Easter, Marian Apparition, etc. all non-Christian just because they entered the religion partially through its history, and were based in paganism.

When Christians in South Korea celebrate christmas, they are not celebrating european culture, they are celebrating Christianity.

>snibeti snab on penis is bad
>but hey FMG IS SO MUCH WORSE LOOK AT IT

There is nothing in the Quran, but there are several Hadith in which it is referred to as a noble or praiseworthy practice, though even in Hadith it is not mandatory.

>What has been shown particularly in males, is that there is a link between the development of Autism Spectrum Disorders
That study was debunked though. Considering that Western Europeans that don't circumcise often still have much higher measurable levels of autism than countries in the Middle East that regularly perform circumcision. The neurological effects are at worst unclear and at best non-existant. What is observable is how it effects sexual functioning.

Daily reminder that you will never hear feminists screeching against FGM because they are too much of a pussy.

But Koreans are celebrating European culture. Ethiopians converted to Christianity before most of Europe did (they were the second country to officially adopt Christianity). Their Christmas is called Ganna and is actually about celebrating Christ's birth and a few days later his baptism instead of gift giving. The significant differences in Christian sects with and without European influence is huge.

Because they are christians. We celebrate Christmas by eating chicken. We see Christmas as American holiday.

It's observably worse, which is the point

It's dey culture, it's wrong to be against it

>The report – in the Journal of Medical Ethics, describes Western attempts to ban the practice as, ‘Culturally insensitive and supremacist and discriminatory towards women.”

Actually we do it for a good reason
Pic on the right- the average western vagina
Pic on the left- the average Saharan/North African vagina

Those parts were developed to protect from Saharan sandstorms, we just remove them to get in line with western vaginal standards. So actually it is the wests fault for enforcing vaginal standards.

...Which somehow makes snibeti snabbing your wife's son's dick a-ok?

>historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=15
>sexuallymutilatedchild.org/immuno.htm

>THECIRCUMCISIONREFERENCELIBRARY


Lmao

I looked at the first, and the only legitimate link and right in the sidebar under similar articles you can find a meta-study that has the conclusion opposite to the one you linked. Point is individual studies hardly mean shit. But good on you for the effort.

I'm going to go ahead and guess somewhere in the other three is your citation for that claim about male circumcision being equally damaging. The first one certainly didn't have anything about that.

>The infant prepuce has about half that amount

True, but it often seems like a smaller ammount because the size and total bodily proportion of the penis changes as the child becomes an adult. When fully grown, the bi-layer tissue (unfolded removed tissue) of the foreskin takes up about 15 square inches of space. That's roughly the area as big as a large smartphone. So once you unfold the lost male tissue, the idea that FGM somehow removes more flesh is objectively false. MGM consistently removes a large ammount of tissue, while FGM can vary to just a small snip. Again, it's all bad and we should end all genital mutilation, but let's get our facts straight.

While I agree with you that the exact neuroscience of it is still debatable, there are studies that measured it strictly by population (while factoring in other variables of course). What they found that there was a much higher incidence of autism in circumcised males than there was in uncircumcised males. Also there are experiments that place infants under an MRI machine while they are being circumcised, and what was found was that enormous ammounts of cortisol were being flooded into the brain, a heavy indicator of stress response. 6 months later when these MRI and chemical tests were performed in a followup, the reactionary hormone levels were still just as elevated. You're going to tell me this has zero impact on neurological development?

This. They are both damaging as fuck, so why don't we stop arguing and put an end to all of it?

You don't hear occupy wall street fags fighting for the starving kids in Africa either. Is it difficult for you to understand people fight for a cause that affects and is personal to them?