Female Genital Mutilation is the term used for removal of all or just part of the external parts of the female genitalia. There are three varieties to this procedure.

1. Sunna Circumcision – consists of the removal of the prepuce(retractable fold of skin, or hood) and /or the tip of the clitoris. Sunna in Arabic means “tradition”.
2. Clitoridectomy – consists of the removal of the entire clitoris (prepuce and glands) and the removal of the adjacent labia.
3. Infibulation(pharonic circumcision)– consists of performing a clitoridectomy (removal of all or part of the labia minora, the labia majora). This is then stitched up allowing a small hole to remain open to allow for urine and menstrual blood to flow through

Now, this may be difficult for the old pubscout to understand, but when a male undergoes a circumcison, there is no other part of the penis removed EXCEPT for a small portion of the foreskin. This removal of this piece of skin DOES NOT in any way deter from the feel or function of the penis. It does not keep the man from pleasure, does not keep him from urinating etc.

As I have just posted the official definition of what Female Genital Mutilation is, if you cannot see the VAST difference in the two, or why the practice of FGM is barbaric and in no way necessary, then you are indeed as stupid and agenda driven as all the previous posters have stated.

Circumsision, we’re arguing, is not.

So, if it is determined that someone’s appendix needs to be removed for the sake of their health (or even life), it should not be because “God put it there”?

I know, we could argue back and forth about whether or not circumsision has any real health or well-being benefits for males, although there have been some pretty persuasive arguments that it does.

There is no room for argument, however, that girls who undergo FGM (for the 10th time) have problems related to sex, childbirth, menstruation, and even going to the bathroom for the rest of their lives.

My response was to the essence of matty’s post which was that God put it there; therefore He intended them to have it.

Dude. Mutilation of the genitalia is mutilation of the genitalia. If you’re going to condemn it, be consistent.

Seems to me our disagreement lies in the fact that you only see FGM as mutilation where I see both as such.

“I haven’t read all the comments so apologies if this is a repeat. But if Allah gave women a clitoris, it would stand to reason he wants them to have it.”

But the same logic doesn’t apply to a male foreskin?

—————————————

As Karmi just pointed out, try to think of FGM as the equivalent of castration for a male. Then you might understand the difference we’ve been trying to explain.

But the same logic doesn’t apply to a male foreskin?

No. It would be like cutting the penis HEAD off…

“I haven’t read all the comments so apologies if this is a repeat. But if Allah gave women a clitoris, it would stand to reason he wants them to have it.”

But the same logic doesn’t apply to a male foreskin?

On January 8th, 2009 at 8:01 pm, MtsEdge said:

How could anybody take pictures of that?

Says a lot for the Washington Post, doesn’t it?

Nothing we didn’t already know.

How could anybody take pictures of that?

Says a lot for the Washington Post, doesn’t it?

How could anybody take pictures of that?

I suspect that one of our posters is correct that there will be no peace as long as Islam is a religion being practiced.

I didn’t watch, either. Couldn’t.

It’s enough to know that this horror happens. And, of course, to speak – scream, if necessary – out against it.

No need for me to see the slideshow. Some things are just wrong; one doesn’t need to see graphic evidence to know so.

mattymatt, my thoughts exactly. I couldn’t bring myself to see the horror and agony that little girl went through. To me, it would be like staring fixated at the mangled corpses from a train wreck.

Wrong is wrong. God save our children.