Allah wants you to cut little girls genitals so you don’t grow up an English slut

WARNING! This video is disturbing and sick—but since one of the gods says its OK to hold down a little girl while she screams in agony as her clitoris is removed, you’re just going to have to accept that until you allow this sort of thing to happen to your children the prophet is going to carry on blowing up your busses and aeroplanes.

14 comments on “Allah wants you to cut little girls genitals so you don’t grow up an English slut

  1. I could not bring myself to click ‘play’, but then, I feel the same about male circumcision. Do you??

  2. Chopping the reproductive organs up presumably so they look more like how God was supposed to design them worries me on a multitude of levels—regardless of it being a penis or a vagina we’re talking about. These brain donors are sick freaks who belong in gaol.

  3. The video doesn’t need to show graphic details for it to be horrific. When a child is screaming for help, “they’re cutting me!”, and then the older women telling her afterward “it didn’t hurt… stop it… you’re lieing”

    WTF is wrong with people.

    And yes, I do feel the same way about male circumcision. Every nurse, doctor and janitor in the hospital is going to know they can’t circumcise my son.

  4. It seems to me the causal factors for this are predominately social rather than religious.

    From the WHO:

    “The causes of female genital mutilation include a mix of cultural, religious and social factors within families and communities.

    Where FGM is a social convention, the social pressure to conform to what others do and have been doing is a strong motivation to perpetuate the practice.

    FGM is often considered a necessary part of raising a girl properly, and a way to prepare her for adulthood and marriage.

    FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is believed by some to reduce a woman’s libido and help her resist “illicit” sexual acts. When a vaginal opening is covered or narrowed (type 3 above), for example, a woman is physically hindered from premarital sex. Afterwards, a painful procedure is needed to reopen the closure to enable sexual intercourse.

    FGM is associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty, which include the notion that girls are “clean” and “beautiful” after removal of body parts that are considered “male” or “unclean”.

    Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support.

    Religious leaders take varying positions with regard to FGM: some promote it, some consider it irrelevant to religion, and others contribute to its elimination.

    Local structures of power and authority, such as community leaders, religious leaders, circumcisers, and even some medical personnel can contribute to upholding the practice.

    In most societies, FGM is considered a cultural tradition, which is often used as an argument for its continuation.

    In some societies, recent adoption of the practice is linked to copying the traditions of neighbouring groups. Sometimes it has started as part of a wider religious or traditional revival movement.

    In some societies, FGM is being practised by new groups when they move into areas where the local population practice FGM.”

    Source

  5. “And yes, I do feel the same way about male circumcision. Every nurse, doctor and janitor in the hospital is going to know they can’t circumcise my son.”

    Male circumcision is a completely different really. Whilst female circumcision has zero medical benefits, the removal of the foreskin benefits males in numerous ways. For example;

    Decreased risk of cancer.

    This includes both penile cancer for the men themselves, and cervical cancer for the women they have sex with. (Circumsized men are apparently less likely to transmit HPV.)

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2817902.html

    Reduced risk of contracting S.T.I’s, including H.I.V.

    Uncircumsized men are up to 8 times more likely to catch H.I.V than uncircumsized men.

    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/320/7249/1592

    Improved hygiene and corollary reduction in urinary tract infections.

    Not to mention conditions like Phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin), for which the standard treatment is you guessed it circumcision.

  6. Penile cancer?

    Why don’t I just lop off my breasts… I might get breast cancer. Might.

    This isn’t about preventing some theoretical miniscule chance of Phimosis, or how having unprotected sex leads to STDs. (Duh). As far as hygiene, its a myth that boys can’t properly clean themselves with a foreskin. Not to be weird, but I worked at infant/childcare center and there were several uncircumcised boys that I helped to toilet train. They were instructed, the same as the girls, how to properly ‘go’ and wipe, and had no problems.

    Male, female — Mutilation is mutilation. Won’t be happening to my son.

  7. Who performs circumcision to prevent phimosis? That would be retarded. It’s done to treat it. If your child did develop the condition you would no doubt drop your emotional objections as it can become extremely painful as a child ages. As for your comments about unprotected sex, presuming you will expect grandchildren some day that will be unavoidable (duh). Don’t get hostile with me because I pointed out your obvious error. Male circumcision is justifiable on medical grounds in many instances. Female circumcision never is. You must have a very muddled definition of ‘mutilation’ if you think that word applies to both of these procedures.

  8. Given your mentality on male circumcision, removal of the hood that covers the clitoris, according to you, should be neccessary for hygeine. I’m betting sex feels better for the foreskin-covered people. I think if I lost the skin flap that covers my clitoris as an infant, I’d likely have lost sensitivity there. Either that, or I’d constantly be thinking about my clitoris, because of my clothing constantly rubbing on it. Maybe that’s what’s wrong with men in the US! The sensitive part is always exposed, and the poor dears can’t help but constantly think about their penises! So glad I left the protective cover on my boys. Sorry about your fate, Michael.

  9. Certain medical conditions are treated by removing the foreskin. No medical condition I have heard of is treated or prevented by removing the clitoris. This is done only by people who believe their god is instructing them to correct his design mistake. Similarly with boys. These people are morons. Child abusing morons. End of debate.

  10. Grow up Leah.

    Jim, read the information I provided. The reasons for this practise (F.G.M) are primarily social and cultural. Religious people may be involved insofar as they are imbedded in the local power structures. However there is no consensus amongst the religious leaders in the areas in which this is practised as to the validity of the practise. There is no religious mandate from Islam itself.
    This means that religion is demonstrably not the issue here, unless there is a correlation=causation argument waiting to be made?

    Deliberately oversimplifying a sensitive issue may be an effective rhetorical strategy, but you would be the first to agree that it is not the hallmark of an effective thinker is it?

  11. That is a totally valid point Michael, but in a way that is also the precise point being made here. These practises are conceived of in an environment where the kind of cluttered thinking which is fostered by extreme religiosity is not only permissible but prescribed. You simply wouldn’t find these things happening in isolation. In a society geared around measured, reasoned principals and sexual equality such an act would be inconceivable. But in a society geared around the idea that women are inferior to entirely male theocrats, it’s par for the course. You can’t divorce one from the other.

  12. Michael,

    You have a very muddled definition of mutilation, if you think it should be a normal procedure to cut off genital skin on an infant. I’m not hostile, that’s just the straight and narrow of it. This practice is done, in most people’s minds, because uncircumcised boys simply can’t keep clean otherwise. That’s just not true. Circumcision was not invented to lower the risk of STD contraction. There is a correlative study from 2002 that you linked, but again, parents don’t circumcise their sons because they want to prevent STD transmission. That’s called use a condom and be responsible.

    Leah, I think you and I agree on this one.

  13. Let’s not forget that male circumcision, if not a purely Jewish practice, IS cultural; the argument always ending with a non-Jewish pro-circumcision person telling me my kid’s going to be considered a freak. By whom? I don’t think I want my son having sex with a girl that has seen many penises, anyway! lol. All circumcision is good for is making it easier for a man to be a slut. There’s your argument in a nutshell, Michael. I’m also against clipping puppy tails; got a problem with that, too?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s