Female genital mutilation victim was 'aged just seven'

Haven't really read the entire thread, but it is illegal for a reason, it's life threatening. The male equivalent should also be illegal unless there is a dire need for it at birth, however it should be banned unless of this until the age of 16, at which point things like patient confidentiality kick in and to the NHS etc they're classed as an adult, there are some problems that can take place which mean circumcision should be used however unless this isn't the case why should the body that has evolved for millions of years be changed?
 
They are hardly going to say it was ugly and wished you had never had it done are they?

I think some people are a bit off on this point tbh - I work in retail with a lot of (very bored) women in their 20s the topic has come up more than once. Atleast the anecdotal evidence doesn't support the majority of people in this thread around here.
 
Hahaha, you are bitterly mad. You do realise that uncircumcised men can pull their foreskin back right? We have tens of thousands of extra nerve endings that give additional protection, a greater degree of protection, less weird sensations, less drying out.

Give the below a good read then decide. ;)

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

shut up sports brah,

don't send me your foreskin propaganda

All I see here is someone who was bitter that he had his sausage peeled.

Another ant eater I see

It's delicious irony that the origins of circumcision is to prevent masturbation, but the guy who is clearly most insecure about having no foreskin is also managing to come across as the biggest ****** in the Thread. ;)

I won't let you fill my head with your lies!!!!
 
Last edited:
Haven't really read the entire thread, but it is illegal for a reason, it's life threatening. The male equivalent should also be illegal unless there is a dire need for it at birth, however it should be banned unless of this until the age of 16, at which point things like patient confidentiality kick in and to the NHS etc they're classed as an adult, there are some problems that can take place which mean circumcision should be used however unless this isn't the case why should the body that has evolved for millions of years be changed?

How is it life threatening exactly?? Are you talking about female or male circumcision??.

Im not circumcised myself but am going to see my doctor about getting mine removed although it doesnt cause me any real issue but its an issue for me as both my younger brothers are circumcised but somehow i missed out lol...im sure it will be painful but as they say no pain no gain:p:D
 
I like these threads, brings out the religious ignorant morons who I can stick on the ignore list.

Stop lapping up everything mummy and daddy says and think for yourself.
 
How is it life threatening exactly?? Are you talking about female or male circumcision??.

Im not circumcised myself but am going to see my doctor about getting mine removed although it doesnt cause me any real issue but its an issue for me as both my younger brothers are circumcised but somehow i missed out lol...im sure it will be painful but as they say no pain no gain:p:D

You will be inducted into the good looking cawk club.
 
Your analogy does ring true in the physical aspect of things, but the principle remains the same, gentian mutilation is gross and barbaric in both sexes.


I agree. However, there's a significant difference: circumcision makes only a small difference to male pleasure; whereas FGM is designed expressly to prevent female pleasure. Orgasm becomes all but impossible for the vast majority of women who get it. As I said, a whole different scale. It's the difference between being very slightly short-sighted and being blind.
 
I was booked in for a circumcision not so long ago because everything was very tight and painful when Mr Hiss came out to play. Fortunately two days before the procedure the pre op nurse contacted me and said certain requirements that I wanted now couldn't happen so I canceled. Thankfully after gentle stretching of my hoodie it now works fine. :)

So glad I didn't go through with it!
 
I agree. However, there's a significant difference: circumcision makes only a small difference to male pleasure; whereas FGM is designed expressly to prevent female pleasure. Orgasm becomes all but impossible for the vast majority of women who get it. As I said, a whole different scale. It's the difference between being very slightly short-sighted and being blind.

But the difference is only in the result of the operation - not the actual operation itself.

My point is that either both should be allowed, or neither should be allowed by law. Male circumcision for religious reasons is allowed and womens is not.

What I don't understand is how it all started. if someone said, 'dude I've just thought up this great new religion, we are the chosen people', i'd be like, 'go on...'

'yea I just need to trim the end of your penis off and then we'll get started with your kids as well'

'Oh, really? Did god say that?'

'No but...'

....
 
What I don't understand is how it all started. if someone said, 'dude I've just thought up this great new religion, we are the chosen people', i'd be like, 'go on...'

'yea I just need to trim the end of your penis off and then we'll get started with your kids as well'

'Oh, really? Did god say that?'

'No but...'

....

:D

I don't get a lot of it because of that. I get the festival stuff, like Easter and Christmas, they're about food and the Sun/seasons, but some of the other stuff beggars belief. Including chopping off the end of your kids' ****s. If my parents had done that to me I'd be absolutely '****** fuming.

Perhaps that's the point... Rather than self-implode with rage, the circumcised turn to religion (or phoney medical claims) to justify the fact that their parents got a stranger to cut the end of their **** off.

Bananas. :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom