- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,562
- Likes
- 2,572
How can this disgusting, barbaric, medieval practice be allowed in a modern country? Can Malaysia truly be considered "civilized"?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well you gotta give credit where it is due. At least in Islam, there is no gender inequality when it comes to chopping off genital parts.How can this disgusting, barbaric, medieval practice be allowed in a modern country? Can Malaysia truly be concerned "civilized"?
1. I don't think it is common in any Western nation other than the US.Well you gotta give credit where it is due. At least in Islam, there is no gender inequality when it comes to chopping off genital parts.
In my experience, the ones that make the most noise about this are Christian majority western countries, where people happily chop off their boys' foreskin while hypocritically condemning the same practice when it is applied to girls.
Let them first stop their barbaric practices before lecturing the world on right and wrong. It's nauseating to see such baseless self-righteousness.
I don't know why Malaysians are doing this, coz female circumcision is more a sub saharan thing than an Islamic thing. I could be wrong though.How can this disgusting, barbaric, medieval practice be allowed in a modern country? Can Malaysia truly be concerned "civilized"?
1. It is common in the English speaking world including the US, Australia, Canada and the UK.1. I don't think it is common in any Western nation other than the US.
2. I read that it was practiced for males in US to stop them from jerkin' off.
3. Also there seems to be some evidence that a circumcised penis has lesser chance of receiving HIV.
1. Wow, I did not know that. Are you sure ? I was under the impression that circumcision was prevalent only among US christians, afa Euro populations are concerned.1. It is common in the English speaking world including the US, Australia, Canada and the UK.
2. What a ridiculous reason. Remember, most circumcisions are performed on infants.
3. Yea, and if you chop off the whole thing, you have an even lesser chance of developing HIV. Point is, circumcision came first (the practice originates from Judaism and is passed down to Christianity) and the link to HIV was made much more recently as a way for religious zealots to justify the practice since otherwise it is obviously inhumane and barbaric.
Definitely not !is Female Circumcision scientific?
No. The name itself is balderdash. Women have no foreskin and "female circumcision" is removal of the clitoris and other unspecifed bits of flesh.Barbaric or otherwise, is Female Circumcision scientific?
A very illuminating and educative explanation, especially now the organs form.No. The name itself is balderdash. Women have no foreskin and "female circumcision" is removal of the clitoris and other unspecifed bits of flesh.
When humans are foetuses in the mothers womb and male-female differentiation has not occurred the gelitalia look similar. But in the male a little knob of tissue fuses with two strips of tissue below it to form a penis which therefore has three parts or chambers in its shaft
In the female the same part that becomes the "knob" (glans) of the penis remains small and forms the clitoris. The two strips of tissue that fuse to form the bottom half of the penis in the male remain separate in the female and the vaginal opening develops between those two strips. The two strips become the "inner lips" labia minora in the woman.
The "Labia majora" or what is seen outside as the female genital organs actually forms the scrotum (the balls-bag) in the man
So there is absolutely no corresponding female structure that can be removed by female circumcision. Only surgeons and gynaecologists can see and understand these little details (which are simply di*k and c*nt) for others. What is chopped off is random, variable and highly mutilating
As an aside "labiium" means lip (labia=lips) - similar to Sanskrit "Labha"
Medically, Circumcised penis is far "safer" than an uncircumcised one.3. Yea, and if you chop off the whole thing, you have an even lesser chance of developing HIV. Point is, circumcision came first (the practice originates from Judaism and is passed down to Christianity) and the link to HIV was made much more recently as a way for religious zealots to justify the practice since otherwise it is obviously inhumane and barbaric.
Do the Chrisitians do it too?? I thought only the Jews and the Muslims do it.1. Wow, I did not know that. Are you sure ? I was under the impression that circumcision was prevalent only among US christians, afa Euro populations are concerned.
It reduces the chances of any STI. Also, it reduces the chances of Penile carcinoma. And the risk of penile carcinoma is lower in patients where the circumcision is done earlier. For instance, Jews who undergo circumcision at birth, have much lower chances of Penile Cancer than the Muslims who do it at a later age.2.
3. Yes circumcision came before and yes the HIV thingy is a way to justify circumcision. But it may be true that circumcision lowers chance of contracting AIDS. Is it true
Some times it is necessary to do it on them for medical reasons. Also, a cricumcised penis is a lot cleaner-hence chances of penile cancer is less. Do you still think it is a bad idea to circumcise the penis?Btw my stand on it is: Don't do it on kids. Let them make the choice when they grow and can take informed decisions (In which case I'm pretty sure that most non religious people will avoid it).
LOLalso std prevention by circumcision is a myth.
you can't stop a f@cking virus from entering your peewee just by removing your penis's foreskin.i mean without foreskin penis is like more vulnerable and there is a better alternative then cutting your peewee "USE THE F@CKIN PROTECTION"