Remember, according to the tinfoil-hatters, female circumcision is neither different from nor more dangerous than male circumcision.
Nice troll. No male infant has ever died from routine, unnecessary circumsion, huh? So is it about complications, or what? Surely, there aren't ever complications associated with male circumcision. One must be a "tin-foil hatter" to think that.
For some reason this happening to female children is far worse than it happening to males. Right? Or is it about the unnecessary removal of sexual tissue in the first place? It's wrong to do this to girls, but fine to do to boys? What kind of sick routine N.O.W. emasculation can be justified here?
After all, women still have the A,G, and U spots, so it's not like it's all gone. Once most of the specialized male tissue is gone, there aren't many places to go poking around to find more. What's the problem with removing specialized sexual tissue for religious purposes? Jews, Muslims and Christians (for some strange reason) do it to boys. What's the problem with girls?
If you want to agree with me that it's sheer lunacy to do this to any child, fine. But, don't act as though a man has to be crazy to believe it's unconscienable to do this to either gender, against the will of the child.
I know you are making a point for debate, so I'm just continuing along those lines...cheers! : )
I have read countless documentation to the contrary. Female circumcision is specifically aimed at removed certain "pleasure oriented" sexual organs towards the end of making the women more chaste. By depriving them of the temptation, they are better wives.
We know that women subjected to this practice are losing a major "pleasure receptor" in this case. Absolutely horrid is what it is.
Article Reference follows:
***
Why is female circumcision done?
In many cases, female circumcision is done as an initiation into womanhood. While the age at which the procedure is done varies with the culture, it generally is performed before the girl reaches puberty. Among the reasons for the procedure are to ensure that a female is a virgin when she gets married and to reduce the female’s ability to experience sexual pleasure, which decreases the chance of extra-marital affairs. Some cultures also believe the clitoris (the small mass of highly sensitive tissue located near the opening of the vagina) is dangerous and must be removed for health reasons.
***
Sad is what it is...a tragic mutilation of innocent women.
There is continued debate over male circumcision. There is still discussion of decreased sexual pleasure on the part of circumcised males. It's really still open to debate at this point. The "Masters and Johnson" research was inconclusive. Other research supported a decrease in sexual pleasure due to the loss of "pleasure receptors" within the foreskin.
Really, I don't want to mess up anyone's breakfast so I won't relate to experience. Both practices lead to important questions, with Female circumcision absolutely being the more reprehensible of the two.
In the case of male circumcision, perhaps more questions should be asked before partaking in the process, maybe giving way to the individual's "choice" when they are older. If it's for religious purposes, this would certainly make for a greater sense of devotion and commitment at the "sacrifice", which it was originally supposed to be.
As for Female circumcision, I think the debate boils down to which caliber to use on the perpetrators, and do we go after their families afterwards? Yet this can be pursued in another thread some other time. Suffice to say I don't care for the practice nor the very concept.