Quote:
Originally Posted by Mommy2Amira  Excellent point. But women who are victims of FGM are never likely to enjoy sex..whereas men can.
I just don't know why it seems hurtful to me to compare but then I contradict myself because mutilation is mutilation. kwim?
I realize this is just a personal issue because I often instinctively cringe when I hear the two being compared. Although, I fully realize the impact on the victim is the same.
|
The thing about mentioning circ in this country is that *most* people here think that female circumcision = infibrilation. The majority of female circumcisions are sunna circumcisions as they're sometimes called. The clitoral hood/occasionally labia are removed. Fewer than 5% of female circumcision is infibrilation.
Incidentally, there has been research in countries which circumcise females that has shown that the women there are as orgasmic as women in non-circumcising countries. What people don't know about is that the clitoris is also an internal structure. There are bulbs of the clitoris, which extend deep into the groin, surrounding the vaginal walls. One particular bulb is commonly referred to as the "g-spot." There are many women out there who do not require any clitoral stimulation and can orgasm from having these areas stimulated. Which is likely why a woman who was circumcised could still experience orgasm.
I'm an intact woman who can orgasm from g-spot stimulation alone. In fact I prefer that type of stimulation but I'd NEVER want to give up ANY of my parts! I view it as a human right to be able to keep all of your genitals. There are unique sensations as well that the clitoris gives that I would miss, and it does make for a "complete experience". Likewise, the foreskin in its natural state gives unique sensations that an intact man would miss. Everybody should be allowed full sexual function. The logic of "well, as long as they can still orgasm it's OK" that is lunacy.
Adult intact men/women would know what they're missing...which is why circumcision is generally always performed on infants or pre-pubescent children. Where it's difficult or impossible to object/know that there are differences.
If you went to an intact man and said..."why not give up your foreskin...you could still orgasm after all" they'd look at you like you were a lunatic. The whole idea is so insane after all...but you know, most likely the person asking the question was themselves circumcised as an infant and never knew that the foreskin had such value.
It's pretty clear from an ethical standpoint, genital modification to a minor should be considered a human rights violation. There's no amount of tissue that is OK to arbitrarily remove from a minor for cultural reasons.
: I assume not.
:
:
, but this really made me laugh out loud!
So he accepts it as 'normal' - after all, most (if not all) of his friends are circumcised, and they all say they're OK as well.
) that my hood is where about 90% of my pleasurable feelings lie- if my glans clitoris was exposed because of prepuce removal, I think I'd beg to have it cut off, too. The thought of an exposed glans is torture, just torture.
