 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Aug 07 - 05:48 PM No, Rinslinger, it had nothing whatsoever to do with going to church, at least not in my case... My parents were atheists, and so was I. I was a militant atheist, as a matter of fact, and very proud of myself for being so brilliant, too. ;-) Like most people of that youthful age, I knew everything there was to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Bonzo3legs Date: 08 Aug 07 - 05:42 PM Screaming Lord Sutch used to have a banana in his stage act. He would hold it up and peel back a quarter of the skin and yell "one skin" another and yell "two skins, the third and yell "three skins", the last and yell "four skins", he would then let out a deafening scream and yell "circumcision", whereupon his band, the Savages who were dressed in leopard skins would come crashing in!!Just to get things in context among the religeous pontificatones! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Aug 07 - 04:46 PM Is the implication that there is some inconsistency between left wing politics and religion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:05 PM Emma - It looks like you saw the light! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Emma B Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:03 PM Riginslinger, I was babtized and educated in the High Anglican faith. Brought up by an evangelical grandmother and entered a left wing organization by my own choice in my teens. I decided to train for Social Work in later life in order to help my fellow man after a career in chemical research. I don't think I'm "special" in making my own decisions in life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Aug 07 - 06:25 PM "All this happened because our parents were allowed to brainwash us with their folksongs and their liberal humanistic propaganda." And it had nothing to do with going to church? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Aug 07 - 06:14 PM Yes! The pernicious influence of folksongs, foisted on innocent young minds, led millions of young people into horrible fates! ;-) I witnessed the human wreckage all around me in the 1970s. Matter of fact, I was part OF that human wreckage. LOOOOONG hair! Cruddly old blue jeans with bell bottoms and holes in the knees! Belts so wide you could hardly handle them! BO and dirty bare feet! A pathological desire to avoid work! Deep and abiding prejudice against "straights", "suits", cops, older people! Rampant drug use! Tie-died shirts! Lining up for hours to watch the midnight screening of the "Rocky Horror Picture Show". My God, man, my blood runs cold when I think about it........ All this happened because our parents were allowed to brainwash us with their folksongs and their liberal humanistic propaganda. There oughta have been a law... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:50 PM And don't go singing those folksongs in the presence of your children, they might grow up liking them. Though it might work the other way. And so might a refusal to allow your children to attend church. You can't avoid influencing your children, one way or another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:35 PM Emma, I have never suggesting making smoking illegal. I have merely suggested moving it outdoors where the smoke can disperse into the open air. That does not interfere with a person's choice to smoke or not to smoke. I have a good friend who is a smoker by choice, and she asks visitors to smoke outside, as she does, so that her own house won't smell like an ashtray. I am also in favor of legalizing the smoking of marijuana, although I don't wish to smoke it, but I would likewise suggest that it be done outdoors, not inside buildings....because inside a building it affects everyone there not just the smoker. I do not intend to take away anyone's right to suck smoke into their own lungs. It is people's violent or destructive behaviour against others that we need laws against, and we already have all those laws. We have laws against theft, murder, assault, rape, property destruction, fraud, embezzlement, slander, arson....all of those are cases of a direct attack of some kind on another human being or their property...or an attack on society in general. Those are the laws we need, and we have them. We do not need more laws that restrict people's free choice in matters that are NOT an attack on another human being or on society. Rinslinger: If, as you say, "churchgoers should leave children alone and let them decide for themselves if they want to be brain washed"....Well, HEY.....then so should capitalists, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, atheists, heterosexuals, gays, conseratives, liberals, and everyone else who does anything that in any way influences the future thoughts and beliefs of their own children in such a way as to superimpose those thoughts and beliefs UPON their children...ahem! To brainwash them, in other words. How are we going to achieve that? How are we going to end ALL brainwashing of children by people who, like all people, naturally want to bring their kids up in their own minset? ;-) We AREN'T going to achieve it. And we shouldn't, because we have no right to. Therefore, forget it. Your beliefs, your philosophy, and your prejudices are no more sacrosanct than anyone else's....and your children may one day resent having had some of those beliefs and prejudices foisted on them when they were young and impressionable. You never know... (I say that because my parents foisted a lot of their beliefs and prejudices on me when I was a child. Naturally! That's what parents do to their children. They almost can't help it. It just happens. I later completely rejected some of their attitudes and beliefs, while I retained others. I developed independent beliefs of my own. Give young people the benefit of the doubt! Give them credit for having some brains of their own. Whatever their parents brainwashed them into when they were young, chances are that they will take a fesh look at it at some point as they move into adolescence or adulthood. If they do, fine. If they don't, it is no one else's business to pass a law forcing them to.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:33 PM No. Look up incision and skinstripping on this site The Geography of Genital Mutilations Human beings are sometimes pretty weird. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Ebbie Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:25 PM What "forms of male circumcision" should be banned, McGrath? Surely you are not referring to castration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:17 PM By "nebulous" I mean that it is not always clear what it includes and what it doesn't include, and that this is liable to change over time. The relevant question should always be whether something does sufficient harm to children to justify legal sanction, not whether it can be characterised as in some sense constituting a kind of child abuse. So, in this context, I would see it as wholly right for "female circumcision" to be illegal, but wrong for such a ban to extend to cover male circumcision as practiced by Jews and Moslems. That's based on a judgement about the balance of harm and good that such a ban would produce. (There are some forms of "male circumcision" for which a ban would certainly be appropriate.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Aug 07 - 04:34 PM "...and their responsibility to leave other people alone so that they can made a similar decision on their own part..." That's exactly my point. Church goers should leave children alone and let them decide for themselves if they want to be brain washed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Emma B Date: 07 Aug 07 - 04:16 PM Child Abuse is not a "nebulous" term. It is the term used in the UK to describe when an adult harms a child or a young person under the age of 18. Child abuse can take four forms, all of which can cause long term damage to a child: physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect and child sexual abuse. Prosecutions for child abuse are heard in court and therefore subject to legal definitions and proof. "Physical abuse includes hitting, shaking, kicking, punching, scalding, suffocating and other ways of inflicting pain or injury to a child. It also includes giving a child harmful substances, such as drugs, alcohol or poison. If a parent or carer reports non-existent symptoms of illness in a child, or deliberately causes illness in a child, this is also a form of physical abuse" Might I remind you McGrath that you were the person to bring up the concept of "evil" Those people working to protect children from abuse also work with and aim to help the abusers too! Now you folks who argue that we don't need more laws to restrict personal choice may I suggest you read some of the comments on the smoking threads! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Cluin Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:56 PM "...We do not need more laws to restrict people's choices..." Amen. Especially where common sense, maturity, and taking responsibility for own's own actions and decisions is supposed to take over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:53 PM Yeah. Besides, if everything that some bunch of loudmouthed, soreheaded, prejudiced people don't like got banned in this world...nothing would be legal. Absolutely nothing. We do not need more laws to restrict peopl'es choices. I mention that not in defence of circumcision, but in response to Rinslinger's last comment. I make it in defence of all human beings' right to decide for themselves what they like and what they believe in...and their responsibility to leave other people alone so that they can made a similar decision on their own part, rather than clamoring for laws that will force everyone else to be like them and do only what they think is the right thing to do! A society that legally banned people from attending the church of their choice would be just as despicable and dictatorial as one that made it a legal offense NOT to go to church. Societies that ban all religion have existed. Pol Pot's Khymer Rouge regime was one of them. Mao's initial experiments in extreme authoritarianism in China were another. p.s. I don't go to church. That's my choice. I don't metaphorically spit on people who do either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:33 PM My point being, when things need to get banned that has to be in a specific manner, and on the basis that they are harmful enough to justify a legal ban, not because they fall under some nebulous term like "child abuse" where the definition is going to vary in the opinion of different people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:27 PM Then there is smacking, male circumcision, junk food... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Cluin Date: 06 Aug 07 - 10:09 PM But what do you define as child abuse. I'd nominate just about all the programming on these so-called kids channels on TV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:43 PM "...I suggest making all forms of child abuse illegal and subject to prosecution as they are now in the UK..." It's not working. They still send children to church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 06 Aug 07 - 05:22 PM "Peace, you missed out one fatwa, I hope not deliberately:" 1) No, it wasn't deliberate. 2) Post under your member nmae and not some guest name, please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:52 AM Excellent. Thank you very much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST,Al Arrack-Barr Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:45 AM Peace, you missed out one fatwa, I hope not deliberately: November 24, 2006 A Egyptian conference of Muslim scholars from around the world declared female circumcision to be contrary to Islam and an attack on women, and called today for those who practice it to be punished. "The conference appeals to all Muslims to stop practicing this habit, according to Islam's teachings which prohibit inflicting harm on any human being," the participants said in their final statement. Egypt's two top Islamic clerics, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar, the foremost theological institute in the Sunni Muslim world, and Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, attended the conference, which drew scholars from as far afield as Russia. Tantawi's and Gomaa's edicts are considered binding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:26 AM (chuckle) Yes! Further pearls are yet to drop, I'm sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Cluin Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:14 AM "That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard an American president say." Hold on, I don't think he's finished yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Aug 07 - 11:47 PM "George Bush who decided to label 3 countries as an "Axis of Evil". That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard an American president say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Aug 07 - 09:17 PM ...and by rights, we Americans should have been annihilated 150 years ago for practicing slavery. I'm sure we can find a reason to exterminate the British, too. Self-righteous imperialism is probably good grounds for doing in both nations. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Aug 07 - 08:29 PM Precisely my point, Joe, and I believe that is McGrath's point as well. It contributes nothing useful to a debate to start labelling other people as "evil". You can judge their actions, but you cannot judge their worth as a human being. (in my opinion) You aren't morally equipped to pass judgement on the intrinsic value of another human being, only on his or her actions. (If anyone were ever to call you "evil" for whatever it is that you believe in, you would realize immediately how awful it is to be tarred with that label...and your sense of outrage would tell you what had really been done to you in that moment by the one who presumed they could judge your worth as a human being.) Thus laws are designed specifically to proscribe illegal actions by people, actions that are deemed unacceptable. Laws are not designed to decide who is "good" and who is "evil", at least not laws in any place where I ever want to live. One of the worst things about organized religion is its frequent tendency to label large numbers of people as "evil", those being usually the people who don't follow the rules and dictates of that religion. It's also one of the worst things about political demagogues. Remember, it was George Bush who decided to label 3 countries as an "Axis of Evil". That's caveman-level thinking. It is designed to incite people to violence and to sanction slaughter. It is a preparation for war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Emma B Date: 05 Aug 07 - 08:01 PM I'm sorry Joe but I suggest making all forms of child abuse illegal and subject to prosecution as they are now in the UK |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:55 PM Please note that hardly anyone here approves of either male or female mutilation. What I question is the demonization of those who perform the procedure. Demonization is another tradition that needs to be abandoned. Too often, our self-righteous demonization translates into this:
You're not going to change tradition by telling people how evil they are, for doing something they've done for generations. I suggest tolerance, patience, understanding, and good example may be a better remedy. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: MaineDog Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:51 PM God made us male and female, therefore sex is ok. God made us perfect, therefore , we don't "need" to be circumcised (or tattooed!}. The early Israelites did this to distance themselves from "the others" . Male circumcision may have health benefits for those who don't wash properly. Female "circumcision is clearly evil. AIDS drugs may have health benefits for those who mismanage their sex lives. Go Figure. (Don't believe anything you read on-line) Peace, MD |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:33 PM From a WHO site: "Female genital mutilation This page provides links to descriptions of activities, reports, news and events, as well as contacts and cooperating partners in the various WHO programmes and offices working on this topic. Also shown are links to related web sites and topics. FGM, often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Emma B Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:28 PM PLEASE read the WHO report - the proceedure is supposed to enhance fertility! and is NOT based in any religion!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:12 PM "It stems from a barbaric attitude toward women and toward sexuality in general, stemming from an archaic religion." Aren't all religions archaic? But more to the point, you can understand their barbaric attitude toward sexuality. Before birth control, everytime they engaged in it they had children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:43 PM Hence the term "castrato"...a male with a permanently high and pure singing voice, ideal for warbling medieval love ballads and such... The weight of tradition is an incredible thing. Believe me, if the last 27 generations in our entire collective society had taken it for granted that the left testicle and the left hand fingernails of every male should be surgically removed shortly after birth, there would be any number of people here willing to defend those practices tenaciously....and they would somehow come up with all kinds of wonderful and rational-sounding reasons for so doing. ;-) It is that utter tenacity of acquired custom and tradition that you are dealing with when you try to get traditional people in various parts of Africa and Asia to stop mutilating females. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:33 PM Yeah. Christians used to cut the nuts off young boys to keep their voices fit for the choir. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:31 PM There are a whole range of procedures of genital mutilation for both sexes which tend to get - not always accurately - called "circumcision". Fortunately the one for males which is officially sanctioned by both Jewish and Islamic authorities is at the relatively mild end of the spectrum. As for the kind of barbarities that get referred to as "female circumcision", it's not really any fairer to call it Islamic than it would be to call it Christian, on the basis that Christians in some parts of Ethiopia also go in for it. And we should remember that there are to be found clerics in pretty well all religions who are liable to come up with the daftest pronouncements. Generally speaking you'll find some other cleric who tries to balance things out by saying something more sensible, but that doesn't always get picked up. There are branches of Christianity which reject Infant Baptism, and think this should be reserved for adults. I've sometimes wondered whether there are varieties of Judaism or Islam which take the same attitude towards circumcision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:22 PM Glad we all agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:20 PM Peace, you and McGrath and I ALL think it is an evil thing to do. And yes, it is absolutely barbaric. It stems from a barbaric attitude toward women and toward sexuality in general, stemming from an archaic religion. That doesn't mean that the Muslim clerics who passed those fatwas did not, however, think they were going "a good thing". That was precisely the error in their thinking...they definitely thought they were doing a good thing, and they had ancient traditions to back them up on that. I think they were wrong to do it, you think they were wrong to do it, everyone here thinks they were wrong to do it. Everybody here thinks it's evil. McGrath's post of 05 Aug 07 - 04:19 PM sums up the matter perfectly, and with clarity: "Actually "moral relativism" is more or less the reverse of how I see the world. All kinds of evil things are seen as good things by the people who do them, and may be seen as good things by the people around them as well, and by whole societies for that matter. A moral relativist would say that this meant that it'd be wrong to call such things "evil". I wouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily feel entitled to call the people involved "evil", but that's a very different matter." You see, McGrath is quite ready to call the custom of female circumcision "evil"...but at the same time he recognizes that the people who support that custom are not, by definition, "evil people". They are ordinary people...ignorant people who imagine themselves to be doing "the right thing", "as God requires it", as tradition has taught them, as their parents and grandparents did before them. Ignorance is not evil...but it can certainly lead to a great many evil acts. Our common medical western customs of removing a child's tonsils (now out of style), the infant male's foreskin, and an adolescent's wisdom teeth may also be based primarily on ignorance...and the overpowring weight of social tradition. I still have my wisdom teeth, though, and they aren't causing me any trouble at all. Because I questioned tradition, some dentist is short $1,000 and I still have all my teeth. But what cultural group, what nation will EVER admit to or even be aware of their own ignorance, when they feel much better ranting about someone else's? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Aug 07 - 05:52 PM I recommend the guillotine for the most effective circumcision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:45 PM There is a distinction. Male circumcision leaves the penis intact but missing some skin. Female circumcision cuts out a chunk of the female. Keriste. I need a vacation. BFN. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Emma B Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:41 PM "Circumcision began as a tribal custom which later became associated with religion. Mutilation of the genitals was quite common across North Africa and the Middle East, it is not a practice that began with Joshua or Abraham. Of course the Jews (outside of Ethiopia) were relatively fortunate, they only mutilated the genitals of their males. The infinitely more barbarous practices of female genital mutilation were also carried out by other tribes and still continue to this day, often under the quite specious argument that it is sanctioned or even required by Islam. This is not true, it exists across north eastern Africa including in Christian Kenya and Ethiopia. I hardly need mention that surgical removal of the clitoris is hardly comparable to male circumcision, apart from the fact that both are culturally sanctioned genital mutilations with no justification." from this site |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:26 PM The pic is from Wikipedia, btw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:25 PM "Bans on FGM: During 2007, FGM was banned in Eritrea. The Egyptian Health Ministry is seeking a law banning FGM in that country. That would leave Somolia, which lacks a central government, and Sudan as the two main countries where the practice will remain legal." I get real irritated when people use "it's a cultural/social custom" to justify something so friggin' bad. Jaysus, that isn't being politically correct, it's being spineless. Any of you guys who support this kinda shit try cutting off the tip of your dink maybe 1/2" below the opening just about where the white line is pointing. Let us know how it feels. If it's great, hell, the rest of us can get it done. Because THAT is basically what is being done to the clitoris of females. Fu#k custom. It's barbaric. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:19 PM Actually "moral relativism" is more or less the reverse of how I see the world. All kinds of evil things are seen as good things by the people who do them, and may be seen as good things by the people around them as well, and by whole societies for that matter. A moral relativist would say that this meant that it'd be wrong to call such things "evil". I wouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily feel entitled to call the people involved "evil", but that's a very different matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:18 PM "Fatwas published: Fatwas are published opinions by Muslim religious scholars. They are non-binding in law. But Muslim believers are expected to follow them. In Egypt, a number of Fatwas have been issued by the influential Egyptian Fatwa Committee on FGM: 1949-MAY-28: They decided that it is not a sin to reject female circumcision. 1951-JUN-23: They stated that female circumcision is desirable because it curbs "nature" (i.e. sexual drive among women). It stated that medical concerns over the practice are irrelevant. 1981-JAN-29: The Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar (the most famous University of the Islamic World) stated that parents must follow the lessons of Mohammed and not listen to medical authorities because the latter often change their minds. Parents must do their duty and have their daughters circumcised." The custom is barbaric. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:08 PM "...and increase male sexual pleasure;" I can't see how this figures into the equation. I'll have to take your word for it that all religions to it, but I've been told it was an Islam thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Aug 07 - 02:28 PM McGrath is not saying he's in favour of it, people, he's simply stating that in that culture it is thought to be "a good thing" to do by a lot of people. And that IS what they think, otherwise they wouldn't DO it! Therefore, they have what they imagine to be "good intentions"...as is always the case, for heaven's sake. (Even that maniac Pol Pot thought he was doing a good thing for Cambodia by killing 1/3 of the population.) To say that is not to excuse a practice or to condone it in any way as one speaking from the perspective of another culture. So what I am saying is that your righteous anger at McGrath is misplaced. He's simply stating the truth about another culture and its beliefs, he is not supporting or sympathizing with the practice of female circumcision in any way whatsoever. So why would you be mad at him? If you want to get mad, get mad at the people who are supporting and sympathizing with mutilating those women in those other cultures. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Alice Date: 05 Aug 07 - 02:07 PM McGrath, with your moral relativism view, Hitler had the best of intentions. It is insulting to use the phrase "best of intentions" when it comes to torture and death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Emma B Date: 05 Aug 07 - 01:43 PM Please read the links folks Female genital mutilation is performed …"In cultures where it is an accepted norm, female genital mutilation is practiced by followers of all religious beliefs as well as animists and non believers. FGM is usually performed by a traditional practitioner with crude instruments and without anaesthetic….. . . . The practice, predates Islam." These are the amongst the reasons given for this appalling practice - psychosexual reasons: reduction or elimination of the sensitive tissue of the outer genitalia, particularly the clitoris, in order to attenuate sexual desire in the female, maintain chastity and virginity before marriage and fidelity during marriage, and increase male sexual pleasure; hygiene and aesthetic reasons: the external female genitalia are considered dirty and unsightly and are to be removed to promote hygiene and provide aesthetic appeal I don't see God in this! |
