Jesus christ! everything is wrong with it...for the woman its hell...meaning she will only rely on vaginal orgasm which you can not always count on to come not to mention the pain, physical and psychological to her...and talking about the men...where will i put my tongue and lips in my wive's undercarriage if everything is mutilated and gone!!

Nicetohave you are a poet of sublime talent.  I will always smile from now on when I hear the phrase "undercarriage".

Previous to your post, that word carried for me only mundane connotations applicable to landing aircraft and bulldozers.

*clears throat* i had this conversation with a female friend of mine. She was against it as she said it debases a woman. I am not against it because it is yet to be proven that (at least, i have no experience of the fact that) circumsised females DO NOT have less libido than their uncircumsised counterparts. I will be all for it if it could be done hygenically by a licenced medical pratictioner and at birth. That's just my own. *runs out before being lynched*

Vongauche, even if it makes no difference to a woman's sexual enjoyment/libido and is done by an expert medical doctor, why would you want to cut her clitoris anyway? To put on your rice for dinner?

if all the conditions i said were satisfied, the girl (who is a baby) will not have a traumatic experience as some people claim and "culture" is preserved. it's a win-win situation

What I'm asking you is the purpose of cutting it anyway? Even if it's totally harmless and whatever. Why do you have to cut it? Do you want to eat it? Can you answer that?

Why don't we start cutting off people's ears. They will still be able to hear, even though a little less good. I am yet to see someone with half an ear that doesn't enjoy music, so where's the harm?

@IAH: I am not a cannibal. There are clearly still people in society(minus the Western world) who believe that it should be done. But there are increasingly also a number of people in such societies who feel it should be stopped as it does not reduce female libido. What I suggested was the best attempt at a Pareto optimum i.e. making someone better-off without making another worse off. Shikena!

nferyn, ur analogy doesn't quite stick here. body parts are entirely unique and cannot be compared.

Vongauche:

@IAH: I am not a cannibal. There are clearly still people in society(minus the Western world) who believe that it should be done. But there are increasingly also a number of people in such societies who feel it should be stopped as it does not reduce female libido. What I suggested was the best attempt at a Pareto optimum i.e. making someone better-off without making another worse off. Shikena!

So you think that reducing the female libido is a valid reason for this practice?

Vongauche:

nferyn, your analogy doesn't quite stick here. body parts are entirely unique and cannot be compared.

It does stick. Both bodyparts increase an ability. When removed, that ability is impared, but not completely removed. Your statement that they are entirely unique is irrelevant. Everything is unique in it's own right. All my hair follicles are unique as well.

read with an open mind and with patience and stop jumping the gun. in my very first post on this, I said it has not been proven that the act decreases the female libido. therefore, one can assume (at least I assume) that it has not effect if and when done while the girl is a baby. Being performed by a medical practitioner should dispel any doubts about infection.

and your analogy still does not stick. so u agree that body parts are unique in their own right? Good! that means there is no basis for perfect comparison as each part must be looked at on its own. finis!

lastly, as a corollary of there being 'no effect' as I earlier assumed (which is also what IAH agreed with if only for the sake of argument), it implies that "when removed, that ability is NOT impaired."

QED



PS
what u have to prove to me is that my assumption is wrong.

Vongauche, the question is, "why on earth should it be removed in the first place? " Can u answer that?

goodguy, obviously the anwser has already been discusssed earlier by others.

Vongauche:

read with an open mind and with patience and stop jumping the gun. in my very first post on this, I said it has not been proven that the act decreases the female libido. therefore, one can assume (at least I assume) that it has not effect if and when done while the girl is a baby. Being performed by a medical practitioner should dispel any doubts about infection.

Libido is one thing, the sensation you have when having sex is quite another. The fact that the clitoris contains millions of nerve endings and is present only for the pleasure of the woman and has no other function should prove something.
Concerning libido: are there any controlled tests performed to give evidence to the statement that female genital mutilation does not decrease libido? There are none that I'm aware of.

Vongauche:

and your analogy still does not stick. so u agree that body parts are unique in their own right? Good! that means there is no basis for perfect comparison as each part must be looked at on its own. finis!

That's an easy cop out. No analogy gives a basis for perfect comparison, that's why it's analogous, not identical.
The comparison I made is just there to indicate that there are no good reasons whatsoever to engage in the practice of female genital mutilation (I explicitly use the term genital mutilation to set it apart from male circumcision)

Vongauche:

lastly, as a corollary of there being 'no effect' as I earlier assumed (which is also what IAH agreed with if only for the sake of argument), it implies that "when removed, that ability is NOT impaired."

QED

Not. The only thing that would demonstrate your point is evidence to the fact that libido is not affected by this practice. You have not brought any evidence. Moreover, affection of libido is not the only factor under consideration (if it were, this would be an extremely male approach to the question). The pleasure the woman feels when having sex is just as much, if not more important than libido.

Vongauche:

PS
what u have to prove to me is that my assumption is wrong.

I do not need to disprove your assumption. An assertion by you is no evidence.

One more thing, as [i]IAH [/i]and [i]goodguy [/i]have repeatedly asked and you seem to ignore: what purpose is there in the first place to this practice. Harming the integrity of the human body needs strong positive indicators for the good. In the absence of these indicators, inaction is the correct strategy.

Plenti of oyinbo but well said

nicetohave:

Plenti of oyinbo but well said

Well, that's just me Didn't make myself

VVF

VVF?

Vesico Vaginal Fistula...it is an abnormal connection between the vagina and the urinary bladder...a sorry complication of female genital mutilation that results from the difficult delivery imposed by the narrowed passageway.

thx for the info. It sounds awful. Are you a medical doctor?

Aye

Vongauche your quaint opinion in support of female genital mutilation is in fact quite gauche.

Since you seem to be so supportive of non-essential surgical procedures provided they are carried out in hygienic circumstances, might I suggest that you elect for similarly motivated cosmetic surgery to remove the top 2 inches of your own penis, since your normal excretory and copulatory activities will only be marginally impaired after the "fix".   And when that is done, please do remember to share your post-operative findings with us.

nferyn

1)

are there any controlled tests performed to give evidence to the statement that female genital mutilation does not decrease libido? There are none that I'm aware of.

 
exactly, there are none. and there are no controlled test which prove that FEMALE CIRCUMSISION does decrease libido. Hence, my assumption of "no effect". To pacify people who are still steeped in culture (and there are many) it can still be done provided the conditions I stated earlier are met.
2) sensation: circumcised and uncircumcised women both have heightened sensation during intercourse.  The question of who has more, is impossible to answer as it subjective.
3) analogy: there has to be at least some partial similarity between the parts described for it to be an analogy. it could be identical and or the same. the clitoris and the ear have no similarity whatsoever.
4)

Not.The only thing that would demonstrate your point is evidence to the fact that libido is not affected by this practice.

YES! we are both arguing using the same stick. You say I haven't brought evidence to the fact that libido is not affected. And I also say that you have not broought evidence to the fact that libido is affected except the fact that assumption that it has "millions of nerve endings" and the assumption that libido must therefore be affected.
5) much more than libido: with my earlier stated "OK conditions", trauma is non-existent because the girl is a baby. hygiene has also been dealt with. at this point in time, i cannot see any other factors which need to be considered. an extremely male approach to the question? maybe, afterall, I am male. Yes so are you but forgive me as i'm not blessed with your open-mindedness. as for pleasure, I have already dealt with that at the beginning of this post.
6) "but why?": I have not ignored IAH and goodguy's comments. I responded to both even if tacitly. The most you can accuse me of is skirting around. And i will answer the question directly; the purpose, form the eyes of those for it i.e. those who hold strong cultural beliefs is that it discourages promiscuity. I WILL NOT go into whether it is effective or not.  My concern is preserving the culture beliefs of such people while not debasing womanhood. Finis!



PS
I know that there are others on here who are not wholly against female circumcision. please give your opinions. I don't need re-inforcements you give the impression to the indifferent observer that those against female circumcision are right. Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction!

Jakumo:

Vongauche your quaint opinion in support of female genital mutilation is in fact quite gauche.

Since you seem to be so supportive of non-essential surgical procedures provided they are carried out in hygienic circumstances, might I suggest that you elect for similarly motivated cosmetic surgery to remove the top 2 inches of your own penis, since your normal excretory and copulatory activities will only be marginally impaired after the "fix".   And when that is done, please do remember to share your post-operative findings with us.

little wonder then that my id is Vongauche. Maybe I should post in the reason-for-your-id thread to give the full raison d'être. 

But on a more serious note, what is the reason for your above-mentioned surgery? If there was a seemingly logical explanation and i was still a baby then why not? Unfortunately, I willnot be able to share "post-operative findings" with u as I will have no recollection of the event!

Vongauche:

nferyn

1)
exactly, there are none. and there are no controlled test which prove that FEMALE CIRCUMSISION does decrease libido. Hence, my assumption of "no effect".

You cannot possibly make that assumption. The best you can do is say that you don't know. And as I put it in my last post:

Harming the integrity of the human body needs strong positive indicators for the good. In the absence of these indicators, inaction is the correct strategy

Vongauche:

To pacify people who are still steeped in culture (and there are many) it can still be done provided the conditions I stated earlier are met.

Slavery also used to be steeped in culture. That does not make it something on which you should compromise. As I stated earlier:

Harming the integrity of the human body needs strong positive indicators for the good. In the absence of these indicators, inaction is the correct strategy

Vongauche:

2) sensation: circumcised and uncircumcised women both have heightened sensation during intercourse. The question of who has more, is impossible to answer as it subjective.

You can operationalise this if you use a large enough sample in the population and normalise for other external influences. It is inter-subjective and thus you can have a meaningfull debate about it.

Vongauche:

3) analogy: there has to be at least some partial similarity between the parts described for it to be an analogy. it could be identical and or the same. the clitoris and the ear have no similarity whatsoever.

There is sufficient similarity, both are organs of perception, for which decreased ability does not render them useless.

Vongauche:

4) YES! we are both arguing using the same stick. You say I haven't brought evidence to the fact that libido is not affected. And I also say that you have not broought evidence to the fact that libido is affected except the fact that assumption that it has "millions of nerve endings" and the assumption that libido must therefore be affected.

1. I wasn't talking about libido here. I was talking about the physical pleasure one derives from sex., which [b]is [/b]affected by the practice.
2. I do not need to bring evidence. As I stated earlier:

Harming the integrity of the human body needs strong positive indicators for the good. In the absence of these indicators, inaction is the correct strategy

Vongauche:

5) much more than libido: with my earlier stated "OK conditions", trauma is non-existent because the girl is a baby. hygiene has also been dealt with. at this point in time, i cannot see any other factors which need to be considered. an extremely male approach to the question? maybe, afterall, I am male. Yes so are you but forgive me as i'm not blessed with your open-mindedness. as for pleasure, I have already dealt with that at the beginning of this post.

So you are not interested in the pleasure a women gets from sex? I do not see where exactly you have dealt with that.

Vongauche:

6) "but why?": I have not ignored IAH and goodguy's comments. I responded to both even if tacitly. The most you can accuse me of is skirting around. And i will answer the question directly; the purpose, form the eyes of those for it i.e. those who hold strong cultural beliefs is that it discourages promiscuity. I WILL NOT go into whether it is effective or not. My concern is preserving the culture beliefs of such people while not debasing womanhood. Finis!

So that's a strong enough reason for you to continue with this? Harming the bodily integrity of women, of baby girls, just to satisfy an imaginary need? A need of whom exactly? On top of that, you would need to show evidence that it is not debasing womanhood.

Vongauche:

PS
I know that there are others on here who are not wholly against female circumcision. please give your opinions. I don't need re-inforcements you give the impression to the indifferent observer that those against female circumcision are right. Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction!

If you could show me a significant proportion of the educated females that are in favour of this practice, then you might have an argument. After all, it's the women that need to decide about themselves, not the men deciding for them.

Vongauche:

But on a more serious note, what is the reason for your above-mentioned surgery? If there was a seemingly logical explanation and i was still a baby then why not? Unfortunately, I willnot be able to share "post-operative findings" with u as I will have no recollection of the event!

But then when you reach puberty and early adulthood, you see all your buddies enjoying themself tremendously with the girls, while you yourself always ask: what's the fuss about? Wouldn't you miss something?

Vongauche your arguments in favor of female genital mutilation are based on two patently false premises.  The first wrong assumption you have drawn regards the age at which these mutilations are inflicted.  You imply that rusty-blade genital carving is inflicted on female infants before they are old enough to realize the gravity of the injuries they will bear for life. You own stated willingness to undergo analogous amateur surgery on your person, in the hypothetical situation that you were an infant, is indicative of that incorrect assessment of the practice on your part.

The reality of female genital mutilation is that in the backward-looking cultures where such barbarity is still condoned, screaming and flailing adult or pubescent women are grappled and forcibly held down to be disfigured by illiterate self-taught butchers equipped with rusty razor blades. Your lofty talk of "hygienic surgical procedures" is simply not applicable to most of the societies that are guilty of genital mutilation, and this fact consigns the second plank of your hypothesis to the garbage-can where it belongs.  Those sterile operating room environments you allude to simply do not exist in the areas where female genital mutilation is rampant, difficult as that reality may be for you to fathom in your leafy Western suburb.

. . . i addressed this in previous posts. . .but like always, things tend to go unread as threads get longer. .

In any case, there are several medical conditions whose solution require some surgery of the female genital area.

Beyond that, there is NO valid cause - other than cosmetic which apparently for many is a valid cause for lots of things - for any work done on the area.

However, there is a difference between a medical procedure and genital mutiliation. If we're talking about FGM (female genital mutiliation) then there is NO reason a person can give in its support. If we're talking about the medical procedures, then there are probably few reasons a person can give against it.

This is turning into a Godwin's Law situation. .

it is more than just cutting off the clit or worse altering the formation of some of the other organs down there, just for a mans peace of mind. female circumcision can cause problems during childbirth mostly for the mother meaning that a woman will carry a child for 9months and never get to hold it because she is dead. f.c. is a violation of human rights, the only reason men still condon this practice is because it give their trifling asses yet another scape goat when they're out creeping!! this is a very barbaric 'tradition' if it can even be called that.

yes ooooo, actually no words is adequate to describe it, the long and short of it is that it should be outlawed

in almost all parts of africa u here that females have been circumcised because they are considered impure do u think thats true. because every female as a heart u cant just say that doing a ritual will make them pure. a woman can even be unclean with and without circumcision. Do you agree with me? when ur writing replies tell me whether circumcision is bad and why u think its bad. or the opposite is it good.

"Circumcision" is a terrible sin against women and their future husband .

no way!!!!!!!!
thats out-moded we're in a modern world
----
deres a whole lot rong wit female circumcision