5 ms·
Less damaging???? It is way way worse. I am not circumcised but I guess it does not stop you from getting pleasure from sex. It does with women. Can you imagi
by BrandoElFollito 3y ago
Less damaging???? It is way way worse.
I am not circumcised but I guess it does not stop you from getting pleasure from sex. It does with women.
Can you imagine your penis being slit along, live, when you are 7 yo or so? I am not taking about removing a bit of skin, but about craving into your penis with your family holding you.
This is something that proves that forced sterilization should be a thing for families that plan to do this to their children.
- throw310822 3y agoI think there are a lot of different versions of FGMs, from those as cruel as the one you describe down to the purely symbolic ones.
- BrandoElFollito 3y agoWhat kind of "purely symbolic" FGM do you have in mind? Every part in women genitals is useful and removing it means problems down the road (as opposed to removing a foreskin where the damages are relatively benign - of course it is proof of a profound mental illness of the ones doing it on children in all cases).
- throw310822 3y agoI've read (a long time ago) a newspaper article mentioning a simple pricking of the skin to produce one drop of blood. A pure ritual with no practical effect. Not sure how widespread it is though, or if it's just a wishful thinking on part of some Western cultural mediation agency.
- BrandoElFollito 3y agoI must say that the only reports I know of (I am French) are those of tortures of children girls who have their whole clitoris excised by their own family. This is simply insane to me. Any such ritual that subordinates someone to something is disgusting to me, though the one you described is indeed symbolic, at least it does not leave any physical traces (I do not know about mental ones)