boyfriday Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 When you have it done as an infant it causes less pain, my youngest brother had it done aged 12 years old and was in pain for a good 2 weeks after the operation. I think the point is mafya it's not done for medical reasons. How many young children under 3 years that need to have an operation give their consent? That would be. I don't agree with FGM as it is done for no reason at all, male circumcision has its benefits ie it's hygienic and pleasant to look at.That's probably what the shamen of whatever backward African village have been saying for centuries about cutting off a woman's labia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I think the point is mafya it's not done for medical reasons. That would be. That's probably what the shamen of whatever backward African village have been saying for centuries about cutting off a woman's labia. I always thought FGM was done because those doing it thought that by doing so it would prevent the girl succumming to sexual urges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 When you have it done as an infant it causes less pain, my youngest brother had it done aged 12 years old and was in pain for a good 2 weeks after the operation. I doubt that there is less pain, but even if there is it is irrelevant. How many young children under 3 years that need to have an operation give their consent?Something that is necessary isn't comparable to something that isn't necessary. I don't agree with FGM as it is done for no reason at all, male circumcision has its benefits ie it's hygienic and pleasant to look at. It serves no purpose, its just another silly belief and the fact you find them pleasing to look at isn't the best reason to mutilate a child. ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 20:57 ---------- I always thought FGM was done because those doing it thought that by doing so it would prevent the girl succumming to sexual urges? Why would you want to cut something off that Allah gave you, did Allah make a mistake when it created humans, and why would Allah give women sexual urges if it didn't want women to have sexual urges. Seems a little odd to me that Allah would need men to correct its errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 When you have it done as an infant it causes less pain, my youngest brother had it done aged 12 years old and was in pain for a good 2 weeks after the operation. It causes even less pain if you don't have it done at all How many young children under 3 years that need to have an operation give their consent? If they need to have the operation then it's not unnecessary, which is the key issue - pieces of babies being sliced off unecessarily. I don't agree with FGM as it is done for no reason at all, male circumcision has its benefits ie it's hygienic It can be hygienic, if your glans doesn't suffer blisters and infection from the exposure of not having it's foreskin. What's even more hygienic is a washed penis (it doesn't take much to look after it) and pleasant to look at....in your current opinion. If you still had your foreskin, you'd probably still say it was pleasant to look at. ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 21:10 ---------- Why would you want to cut something off that Allah gave you, did Allah make a mistake when it created humans, and why would Allah give women sexual urges if it didn't want women to have sexual urges. Seems a little odd to me that Allah would need men to correct its errors. It seems that unnecessary and involuntary circumcision may be the devil's work... Various translations of this sentence of 4:119 (Satan) -and I will command them to distort the creation of GOD. -I will order them so they would alter and deface the nature of (a creation created by) Allah -and I will command them so they will make change to God's creation. -and I will command them and they shall change God's creature -and I will command them so that they will alter the creation of Allah from here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 It causes even less pain if you don't have it done at all If they need to have the operation then it's not unnecessary, which is the key issue - pieces of babies being sliced off unecessarily. It can be hygienic, if your glans doesn't suffer blisters and infection from the exposure of not having it's foreskin. What's even more hygienic is a washed penis (it doesn't take much to look after it) ...in your current opinion. If you still had your foreskin, you'd probably still say it was pleasant to look at. My bold= I should have stated that women who I've been intimate with are the ones who said its pleasant to look at. ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 21:14 ---------- I doubt that there is less pain, but even if there is it is irrelevant. Something that is necessary isn't comparable to something that isn't necessary. It serves no purpose, its just another silly belief and the fact you find them pleasing to look at isn't the best reason to mutilate a child. ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 20:57 ---------- Why would you want to cut something off that Allah gave you, did Allah make a mistake when it created humans, and why would Allah give women sexual urges if it didn't want women to have sexual urges. Seems a little odd to me that Allah would need men to correct its errors. My bold= I do not support FGM and no Allah doesn't tell people to perform FGM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 My bold= I should have stated that women who I've been intimate with are the ones who said its pleasant to look at. ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 21:14 ---------- [/b] My bold= I do not support FGM and no Allah doesn't tell people to perform FGM. Why would Allah give you a foreskin if it unnecessary, why not just create males without it so they don't have to endure the pain of circumcision. Why do you support MGM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 My bold= I should have stated that women who I've been intimate with are the ones who said its pleasant to look at. I'm not debating peoples' personal preferences with regards to the aesthetics of a cut or uncut member, I'm talking about people cutting body parts from babies that have no say in the matter. (Surely you're not arguing that we should cut perfectly healthy body parts off kids because it looks nicer. You're not, are you?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Male circumcision at least serves a purpose and is better for hygiene, also its been linked with helping hold off the spread of the aids virus. Women's circumcision serves no purpose what so ever and no one can justify doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Male circumcision at least serves a purpose and is better for hygiene, also its been linked with helping hold off the spread of the aids virus. Women's circumcision serves no purpose what so ever and no one can justify doing it. Condoms would do a better job. But very interesting. Why would circumcision decrease a man's risk of contracting AIDS? Edited March 25, 2014 by ivanava Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Condoms would do a better job. In Africa ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now