Don't ask how i found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

apparently it's for religious and "health" reasons, but the entire idea sounds... not good...

Who the hell would have this done? I mean, wtf is wrong with them?!

Female circumcision is an African thing, if memory serves. It's supposed to promote fidelity from the women by removing their clitoral stimulation from sex.

Basically it's a backwards element of some African cultures that managed to survive to become highly enough regarded to be practiced under the name of upholding their culture. Or, you know, they really do believe that it'll stop their women cheating. Either way it's a huge problem that isn't going away soon.

It's a retarded thing to do. If the stupid men who do that to their womans think that it will stop them cheating, they're daft.

Cheating isnt allways about finding someone who can fuck better. Sometimes it's about finding someone to give you more love and respect than your worthless curant partner can.
And I imagine a man who'd cut bits of your cunt off but was quite insistent that his own genitalia should be left alone because he's allowed to cheat and have any women as he wants should be someone who deserves to be cheated on, hurt and abandoned. Badly.

Some things people do make me sick.

Let's look at the MALE genital mutilation.

In my opinion, if you're gonna remove the foreskin from males at birth, chop down the labia and see where we stand, eh?

Everybody always says "removing the clit isn't the same as removing the foreskin" but there's no way to measure how the unshielded penis tip is desensitized by being exposed all the time.

BAH

[is very bitter about being circumcised without consent...]

Yeah generally I dont give a fuck what people do to their bodies aslong as its consenting and they're aware of whats happening.

Circumsizing little kids is cruel and evil. To put a child through that when it doesent even know what's happening...

bah

booooooooo

Remember people, this is a thread about female circumcision. If it tuns into a Real Men v. Mutilated then it will be closed.

*edit from jackketch, no just no .We are so not going down that road. I didn't edit DXM's comment as he posted before my warning.

On the other hand, a FGC prevents the woman from even having sex if a certain procedure is performed... And what's the point of removing the clit? It says in the article that having an FGC "improves" an orgasm, but why remove an entire part of the body that would improve it even further? Is it to prevent masturbation? (Tries not to get off-topic) I think the whole thing is just bad...

That's looking at it from a completely Westernised viewpoint. Cultural values are very different in places female genital cutting* is practised.

*I don't like that term, but it's not circumcision; circum-cision, literally around-cutting, it's not cutting around anything, just cutting off something.

The procedure is involuntary at the time. So would any painful, unanaesthatised procedure be, so would male circumcision be if it was performed in the same conditions. It's a natural response to pain. But the point oft-overlooked by opponents of the practise is that, in foresight, many of the women would rather have had the procedure. Those with the most extreme form (Pharaonic circumcision) where practically the whole vulva is closed usually actually request the procedure re-done after sex or childbirth. In some cultures women who aren't 'circumcised' are actually ashamed of the fact, and will actively seek out a way to have it performed. It can be for social reasons, or religious... hell, it can even be economically advantageous. Think about the situation with male circumcision in the US, except much more extreme; uncircumcised males there often feel uncomfortable with the fact as circumcision is the norm.

I'm not an advocate of the procedure, quite the opposite. I'm not saying it's right that it happens (nor involuntary male circumcision, for that matter). But it's not a decision based on a Western viewpoint; it's simply the done thing where it's practised. It's a cultural tradition stretching back thousands of years and it's as supported by women as it is by men (the procedure is usually carried out by women), which makes it a much more tricky issue than some opponents make it out to be.

Is it even morally right to condemn a cultural practise because it's considered barbaric by us? What if we encountered a culture that considered infant male circumcision barbaric? How far would they get if they attempted to change the common practise in America on those grounds?