I have a question [Content Warning]
-
Why can't Muslims circumcise their daughters in the US? The clitoral hood and labia don't have any functions as far as medicine can tell. The amount of tissue removed would be about the same as in the male prepuce. If male circumcision is not painful to the newborn, then female newborns won't remember it either. If they leave the clitoris, then I can't see why the procedure shouldn't be performed. Also, it would have benefits, like the reduction of smegma underneath the clitoral hood, and reduce the likely hood of cancer of the labia. UTI may be reduced because women have a greater chance of UTIs than men do. I think it would improve the apperance of the vagina becuase all that skin would be removed. I think most men would prefer circumcised wives once they saw how it looks. Also, circumcised mothers would want their daughters to look like them. How would a man react if the woman wasn't circumcised? Would he not perform fellatio on her, or dump her because she isn't clean? Remember, that in the embryo, the clitoris is equivalant to the male penis, and the clitoral hood is equal to the foreskin. So medically this proceedure is equal to circumcision. We shouldn't be so harsh on the people who want to follow their custom, and change the laws to make female circumcision legal. In short, if male circumcision is legal, then Muslims should be allowed to have this proceedure done in the hospital also.
-
Why can't Muslims circumcise their daughters in the US? The clitoral hood and labia don't have any functions as far as medicine can tell. The amount of tissue removed would be about the same as in the male prepuce. If male circumcision is not painful to the newborn, then female newborns won't remember it either. If they leave the clitoris, then I can't see why the procedure shouldn't be performed. Also, it would have benefits, like the reduction of smegma underneath the clitoral hood, and reduce the likely hood of cancer of the labia. UTI may be reduced because women have a greater chance of UTIs than men do. I think it would improve the apperance of the vagina becuase all that skin would be removed. I think most men would prefer circumcised wives once they saw how it looks. Also, circumcised mothers would want their daughters to look like them. How would a man react if the woman wasn't circumcised? Would he not perform fellatio on her, or dump her because she isn't clean? Remember, that in the embryo, the clitoris is equivalant to the male penis, and the clitoral hood is equal to the foreskin. So medically this proceedure is equal to circumcision. We shouldn't be so harsh on the people who want to follow their custom, and change the laws to make female circumcision legal. In short, if male circumcision is legal, then Muslims should be allowed to have this proceedure done in the hospital also.
Martin Marvinski wrote: Would he not perform fellatio on her Not unless she has a dick. Fellatio is for guys and cunnilingus is for gals if you wanna get technical. As far as the rest of your post, I'll play nice and keep my thoughts to myself. :cool: :rose: Jeremy Falcon Imputek "C# is the answer to a question nobody asked." - Chris Losinger
-
Why can't Muslims circumcise their daughters in the US? The clitoral hood and labia don't have any functions as far as medicine can tell. The amount of tissue removed would be about the same as in the male prepuce. If male circumcision is not painful to the newborn, then female newborns won't remember it either. If they leave the clitoris, then I can't see why the procedure shouldn't be performed. Also, it would have benefits, like the reduction of smegma underneath the clitoral hood, and reduce the likely hood of cancer of the labia. UTI may be reduced because women have a greater chance of UTIs than men do. I think it would improve the apperance of the vagina becuase all that skin would be removed. I think most men would prefer circumcised wives once they saw how it looks. Also, circumcised mothers would want their daughters to look like them. How would a man react if the woman wasn't circumcised? Would he not perform fellatio on her, or dump her because she isn't clean? Remember, that in the embryo, the clitoris is equivalant to the male penis, and the clitoral hood is equal to the foreskin. So medically this proceedure is equal to circumcision. We shouldn't be so harsh on the people who want to follow their custom, and change the laws to make female circumcision legal. In short, if male circumcision is legal, then Muslims should be allowed to have this proceedure done in the hospital also.
Martin, have actually seen the results of this ? Also, it is not part of Islam ! Often it is about sewing the women up as tight as their husband want, and when they give birth the flesh gets badly torn because part of the labias function is to provide the elasticity need for the babys head. and as for the hood, it isn't that selective. Often snesation is lost. Immagine the head of your penis is cut off then make that comment :mad: Fluffy level -1 Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Martin, have actually seen the results of this ? Also, it is not part of Islam ! Often it is about sewing the women up as tight as their husband want, and when they give birth the flesh gets badly torn because part of the labias function is to provide the elasticity need for the babys head. and as for the hood, it isn't that selective. Often snesation is lost. Immagine the head of your penis is cut off then make that comment :mad: Fluffy level -1 Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Why can't Muslims circumcise their daughters in the US? The clitoral hood and labia don't have any functions as far as medicine can tell. The amount of tissue removed would be about the same as in the male prepuce. If male circumcision is not painful to the newborn, then female newborns won't remember it either. If they leave the clitoris, then I can't see why the procedure shouldn't be performed. Also, it would have benefits, like the reduction of smegma underneath the clitoral hood, and reduce the likely hood of cancer of the labia. UTI may be reduced because women have a greater chance of UTIs than men do. I think it would improve the apperance of the vagina becuase all that skin would be removed. I think most men would prefer circumcised wives once they saw how it looks. Also, circumcised mothers would want their daughters to look like them. How would a man react if the woman wasn't circumcised? Would he not perform fellatio on her, or dump her because she isn't clean? Remember, that in the embryo, the clitoris is equivalant to the male penis, and the clitoral hood is equal to the foreskin. So medically this proceedure is equal to circumcision. We shouldn't be so harsh on the people who want to follow their custom, and change the laws to make female circumcision legal. In short, if male circumcision is legal, then Muslims should be allowed to have this proceedure done in the hospital also.
-
Why can't Muslims circumcise their daughters in the US? The clitoral hood and labia don't have any functions as far as medicine can tell. The amount of tissue removed would be about the same as in the male prepuce. If male circumcision is not painful to the newborn, then female newborns won't remember it either. If they leave the clitoris, then I can't see why the procedure shouldn't be performed. Also, it would have benefits, like the reduction of smegma underneath the clitoral hood, and reduce the likely hood of cancer of the labia. UTI may be reduced because women have a greater chance of UTIs than men do. I think it would improve the apperance of the vagina becuase all that skin would be removed. I think most men would prefer circumcised wives once they saw how it looks. Also, circumcised mothers would want their daughters to look like them. How would a man react if the woman wasn't circumcised? Would he not perform fellatio on her, or dump her because she isn't clean? Remember, that in the embryo, the clitoris is equivalant to the male penis, and the clitoral hood is equal to the foreskin. So medically this proceedure is equal to circumcision. We shouldn't be so harsh on the people who want to follow their custom, and change the laws to make female circumcision legal. In short, if male circumcision is legal, then Muslims should be allowed to have this proceedure done in the hospital also.
Martin whilst I find it applaudable that you have the testicular fortitude to talk about a male health issue, I do think you are fixated arround one pariticular subject. Have you considered learning more about male health ? One alarming statistic still remains ... why women live so much longer on average then men. Why do males have such a high incidence of cardaic arrest ... and male cancers ? Most men shrink into the closet of homophobia at the mere mention of male health and the visit to the urologist etc. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Martin, have actually seen the results of this ? Also, it is not part of Islam ! Often it is about sewing the women up as tight as their husband want, and when they give birth the flesh gets badly torn because part of the labias function is to provide the elasticity need for the babys head. and as for the hood, it isn't that selective. Often snesation is lost. Immagine the head of your penis is cut off then make that comment :mad: Fluffy level -1 Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: and as for the hood, it isn't that selective. Often snesation is lost. That's the same with the male foreskin. That's why I am so vocal in opposing male circumcision. Biologically, they were the same in the embryo at one point. That is why I can compare them directly. Trollslayer wrote: Immagine the head of your penis is cut off then make that comment Actually removing the clitoris would be equivalent to removing the head of the penis. Removing the clitoral hood is equivalent to circumcising the prepuce in the male.
-
Trollslayer wrote: and as for the hood, it isn't that selective. Often snesation is lost. That's the same with the male foreskin. That's why I am so vocal in opposing male circumcision. Biologically, they were the same in the embryo at one point. That is why I can compare them directly. Trollslayer wrote: Immagine the head of your penis is cut off then make that comment Actually removing the clitoris would be equivalent to removing the head of the penis. Removing the clitoral hood is equivalent to circumcising the prepuce in the male.
Martin, that isn't what happens in practice. There are too many instances of the clitoris being removed instead deliberately. Look up the word 'ligation' X| That is done to make it more likely that the girl will be a virgin on her wedding night (no clitoris, a lot less sensation). In a lot of those same instances the girls are sewn up almost completely and then cut open with a knife so their husbands know they are virgins. There have been a couple of tv programmes in the uk and articles about this and that is what often happens in practice. The term 'circumcision' is not the right one for what goes on. This is prevelant in some parts of North Africa, and does not originate in Arabia (the home of Islam). Elaine Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Why can't Muslims circumcise their daughters in the US? The clitoral hood and labia don't have any functions as far as medicine can tell. The amount of tissue removed would be about the same as in the male prepuce. If male circumcision is not painful to the newborn, then female newborns won't remember it either. If they leave the clitoris, then I can't see why the procedure shouldn't be performed. Also, it would have benefits, like the reduction of smegma underneath the clitoral hood, and reduce the likely hood of cancer of the labia. UTI may be reduced because women have a greater chance of UTIs than men do. I think it would improve the apperance of the vagina becuase all that skin would be removed. I think most men would prefer circumcised wives once they saw how it looks. Also, circumcised mothers would want their daughters to look like them. How would a man react if the woman wasn't circumcised? Would he not perform fellatio on her, or dump her because she isn't clean? Remember, that in the embryo, the clitoris is equivalant to the male penis, and the clitoral hood is equal to the foreskin. So medically this proceedure is equal to circumcision. We shouldn't be so harsh on the people who want to follow their custom, and change the laws to make female circumcision legal. In short, if male circumcision is legal, then Muslims should be allowed to have this proceedure done in the hospital also.
I wonder with some of the topics Martin posts what he is really trying to achieve. There was the one where he was asking for a religion to follow about a month ago and now this :| I suspect he is trying to provoke discussions on sensitive topics that people wouldn't discuss otherwise while still trying to look all tough and butch. Aww, my fluffy wuffy Martin *huggle* Elaine (fluffy tigress emoticon) Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Why can't Muslims circumcise their daughters in the US? The clitoral hood and labia don't have any functions as far as medicine can tell. The amount of tissue removed would be about the same as in the male prepuce. If male circumcision is not painful to the newborn, then female newborns won't remember it either. If they leave the clitoris, then I can't see why the procedure shouldn't be performed. Also, it would have benefits, like the reduction of smegma underneath the clitoral hood, and reduce the likely hood of cancer of the labia. UTI may be reduced because women have a greater chance of UTIs than men do. I think it would improve the apperance of the vagina becuase all that skin would be removed. I think most men would prefer circumcised wives once they saw how it looks. Also, circumcised mothers would want their daughters to look like them. How would a man react if the woman wasn't circumcised? Would he not perform fellatio on her, or dump her because she isn't clean? Remember, that in the embryo, the clitoris is equivalant to the male penis, and the clitoral hood is equal to the foreskin. So medically this proceedure is equal to circumcision. We shouldn't be so harsh on the people who want to follow their custom, and change the laws to make female circumcision legal. In short, if male circumcision is legal, then Muslims should be allowed to have this proceedure done in the hospital also.
-
Why can't Muslims circumcise their daughters in the US? The clitoral hood and labia don't have any functions as far as medicine can tell. The amount of tissue removed would be about the same as in the male prepuce. If male circumcision is not painful to the newborn, then female newborns won't remember it either. If they leave the clitoris, then I can't see why the procedure shouldn't be performed. Also, it would have benefits, like the reduction of smegma underneath the clitoral hood, and reduce the likely hood of cancer of the labia. UTI may be reduced because women have a greater chance of UTIs than men do. I think it would improve the apperance of the vagina becuase all that skin would be removed. I think most men would prefer circumcised wives once they saw how it looks. Also, circumcised mothers would want their daughters to look like them. How would a man react if the woman wasn't circumcised? Would he not perform fellatio on her, or dump her because she isn't clean? Remember, that in the embryo, the clitoris is equivalant to the male penis, and the clitoral hood is equal to the foreskin. So medically this proceedure is equal to circumcision. We shouldn't be so harsh on the people who want to follow their custom, and change the laws to make female circumcision legal. In short, if male circumcision is legal, then Muslims should be allowed to have this proceedure done in the hospital also.
Martin Marvinski wrote: I think it would improve the apperance of the vagina becuase all that skin would be removed God, no wonder you have to use NLP to get laid. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "Winning an argument on the internet is like winning a gold medal at the Special Olympics -- even though you're the champ, you're still a retard." - Kuro5hin.org Wrong but still funny
-
I wouldn't inflict this on any child. To me, Male Circumcision is barbaric, but Female Circumcision is infinitely worse. Both should be banned (unless an adult consents to have it done to themselves - and how many would?).
Anna :) wrote: To me, Male Circumcision is barbaric, but Female Circumcision is infinitely worse. Both should be banned (unless an adult consents to have it done to themselves - and how many would?). I think you have got it absolutely right here, it should only be done if an adult agress to it themselves. Its wrong to inflict this on children. Ali
-
Why can't Muslims circumcise their daughters in the US? The clitoral hood and labia don't have any functions as far as medicine can tell. The amount of tissue removed would be about the same as in the male prepuce. If male circumcision is not painful to the newborn, then female newborns won't remember it either. If they leave the clitoris, then I can't see why the procedure shouldn't be performed. Also, it would have benefits, like the reduction of smegma underneath the clitoral hood, and reduce the likely hood of cancer of the labia. UTI may be reduced because women have a greater chance of UTIs than men do. I think it would improve the apperance of the vagina becuase all that skin would be removed. I think most men would prefer circumcised wives once they saw how it looks. Also, circumcised mothers would want their daughters to look like them. How would a man react if the woman wasn't circumcised? Would he not perform fellatio on her, or dump her because she isn't clean? Remember, that in the embryo, the clitoris is equivalant to the male penis, and the clitoral hood is equal to the foreskin. So medically this proceedure is equal to circumcision. We shouldn't be so harsh on the people who want to follow their custom, and change the laws to make female circumcision legal. In short, if male circumcision is legal, then Muslims should be allowed to have this proceedure done in the hospital also.
I really don't see why this is coming from you. Aren't you against male circumcision? Why would you be for female? Ryan Johnston
-
I really don't see why this is coming from you. Aren't you against male circumcision? Why would you be for female? Ryan Johnston
Ryan Johnston wrote: I really don't see why this is coming from you. Aren't you against male circumcision? Why would you be for female? I'm playing "Devil's Advocate".