Female genital mutilation used to stop girls being sluts!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143295/When-cut-won-t-slut-looking-men-like-prostitute-utterly-horrifying-encounter-FGM-cutter-women-butcher-young-girls-genitals-razor-blade.html

read on and see the sick minds at work, "cutting season"..


Standing barefoot with a viciously sharp blade in her hand this is a cutter woman who performs female genital mutilation (FGM) on young girls as part of a misguided belief it prevents promiscuity and maintains family status in the traditional community.
Half-blind and with just a couple of teeth left in her mouth, Anna-Moora Ndege started cutting girls' sexual organs over 70 years ago.
At first she used a six-inch nail, sharpened on stone to create a crude flat blade. Now she uses a razor blade - bought at the little shop at the end of the dirt track leading from her mud hut in rural Africa.
Ndege, 86, along with Agnes Kerubo, are two of the cutters that can be found in villages, towns and cities in Kenya and across Africa and parts of the Middle East where communities cling on to this barbaric tradition.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143295/When-cut-won-t-slut-looking-men-like-prostitute-utterly-horrifying-encounter-FGM-cutter-women-butcher-young-girls-genitals-razor-blade.html#ixzz3eizIISqn
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

How about chopping off the balls of the men that should sort it .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:How about chopping off the balls of the  men that should sort it .

Well it would be one way, i wonder if they have got any further with stopping it being done to English girls...

it is hard to believe that parents would let this happen to their girls.....

Vicar of Dibley wrote:How about chopping off the balls of the  men that should sort it .

Why are you against this?

Let me just establish one thing- I AM against this. Big time. Like male circumcision and being able to refuse blood transfusions to your children, I put the rights of the CHILD first.

But not long ago you repeatedly talked about the parents rights to do what is best for their children according to their faith/religion. Why the double standards now? Or is it only when it concerns a religion you agree with?

I am against this, as I am all religious practices or actions based on faith where children are concerned.

Eilzel wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:How about chopping off the balls of the  men that should sort it .

Why are you against this?

Let me just establish one thing- I AM against this. Big time. Like male circumcision and being able to refuse blood transfusions to your children, I put the rights of the CHILD first.

But not long ago you repeatedly talked about the parents rights to do what is best for their children according to their faith/religion. Why the double standards now? Or is it only when it concerns a religion you agree with?

I am against this, as I am all religious practices or actions based on faith where children are concerned.

even if it affects lady boys...lol

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Why are you against this?

Let me just establish one thing- I AM against this. Big time. Like male circumcision and being able to refuse blood transfusions to your children, I put the rights of the CHILD first.

But not long ago you repeatedly talked about the parents rights to do what is best for their children according to their faith/religion. Why the double standards now? Or is it only when it concerns a religion you agree with?

I am against this, as I am all religious practices or actions based on faith where children are concerned.

even if it affects lady boys...lol

Q.E.D.......

Eilzel wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:How about chopping off the balls of the  men that should sort it .

Why are you against this?

Let me just establish one thing- I AM against this. Big time. Like male circumcision and being able to refuse blood transfusions to your children, I put the rights of the CHILD first.

But not long ago you repeatedly talked about the parents rights to do what is best for their children according to their faith/religion. Why the double standards now? Or is it only when it concerns a religion you agree with?

I am against this, as I am all religious practices or actions based on faith where children are concerned.

Doing what is right is one thing cutting off a little girls clitoris is barbaric and torture .I'm even against male circumcision unless it is for medical reasons.

I don't agree with denying children blood transfusions and this is one time i am all for the courts ruling against parents .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Why are you against this?

Let me just establish one thing- I AM against this. Big time. Like male circumcision and being able to refuse blood transfusions to your children, I put the rights of the CHILD first.

But not long ago you repeatedly talked about the parents rights to do what is best for their children according to their faith/religion. Why the double standards now? Or is it only when it concerns a religion you agree with?

I am against this, as I am all religious practices or actions based on faith where children are concerned.

Doing what is right is one thing cutting off a little girls clitoris is barbaric and torture .I'm even against male circumcision unless it is for medical reasons.

I don't agree with denying children blood transfusions and this is one time i am all for the courts ruling against parents .

Well that's all good to hear

Though you are still telling people they cannot live by their beliefs.

Eilzel wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Doing what is right is one thing cutting off a little girls clitoris is barbaric and torture .I'm even against male circumcision unless it is for medical reasons.

I don't agree with denying children blood transfusions and this is one time i am all for the courts ruling against parents .

Well that's all good to hear

Though you are still telling people they cannot live by their beliefs.

Of course i can't bare the thought of children being hurt i hate it when my grandson cries i'm very sensitive and compassionate .

Lez people can live by their beliefs i have no problem with gays and i have always said this to you right back on sky , i just don't accept it and i can't help the way i feel . I'm not trying to stop anyone live their life the way they want to and if that is making them happy then that's brilliant but i just don't accept it but it doesn't mean i want to interfere .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Well that's all good to hear

Though you are still telling people they cannot live by their beliefs.

Of course i can't bare the thought of children being hurt i hate it when my grandson cries i'm very sensitive and compassionate .

I totally understand that, people being hurt for no good reason pisses me off no end.

So you are saying there is a limit, for you, as to how far we can act based on our beliefs when in comes to affecting others?

Lez i wouldn't want gay marriage being forced on Pastors and churches if it is not what they could do because of their faith , if that would happen it then goes against the person's right to believe the bible .

If there are Pastors and vicars out there that do not feel condemned about marrying gay couple's then that is up to them , but i don't think it should be forced .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:Lez i wouldn't want gay marriage being forced on Pastors and churches if it is not what they could do because of their faith , if that would happen it then goes against the person's right to believe the bible .

If there are Pastors and vicars out there that do not feel condemned about marrying gay couple's then that is up to them , but i don't think it should be forced .

Neither do I, but we weren't talking about gay marriage, in fact you not long ago said it was boring so why are you bringing it up?

I was just checking if you think there is a limit as to how far we should be allowed to act based on our beliefs when it comes to affecting others?

Eilzel wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:Lez i wouldn't want gay marriage being forced on Pastors and churches if it is not what they could do because of their faith , if that would happen it then goes against the person's right to believe the bible .

If there are Pastors and vicars out there that do not feel condemned about marrying gay couple's then that is up to them , but i don't think it should be forced .

Neither do I, but we weren't talking about gay marriage, in fact you not long ago said it was boring so why are you bringing it up?

I was just checking if you think there is a limit as to how far we should be allowed to act based on our beliefs when it comes to affecting others?

well as we were being civilized i wanted to put my view across while nobody else was jumping in .

I think we should all consider each other even when it comes to what we want .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Neither do I, but we weren't talking about gay marriage, in fact you not long ago said it was boring so why are you bringing it up?

I was just checking if you think there is a limit as to how far we should be allowed to act based on our beliefs when it comes to affecting others?

well as we were being civilized i wanted to put my view across while nobody else was jumping in .

That's fair enough. I've always maintained it should be up to individual churches or sects whether they allow gay marriage or not.

But do you think there should be limit on how far we allow beliefs to impact others?

I think we should be fair Lez and we should consider how our beliefs will affect others , this is why going back to the B&B couple again (yeah i know old news) but that had a negative effect on their business and it undermined their faith . They could have said sorry we took your booking but we are actually double booked . So why didn't the gay couple just accept it that they were sticking to their faith .

We run our own business and we serve anyone , there is a moslem lady who wears the full niqab who comes to us regularly and we have no problem with her we chat about the weather the grandkids . We don't turn anyone away unless they are known trouble makers and there are some . But if i owned a B&B i would object to having same sex couples stay and i would have to think carefully how to go about it , luckily i won't ever own one as i'm not very good at that sort of thing .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:I think we should be fair Lez and we should consider how our beliefs will affect others , this is why going back to the B&B couple again (yeah i know old news) but that had a negative effect on their business and it undermined their faith . They could have said sorry we took your booking but we are actually double booked . So why didn't the gay couple just accept it that they were sticking to their faith .

We run our own business and we serve anyone , there is a moslem lady who wears the full niqab who comes to us regularly and we have no problem with her we chat about the weather the grandkids . We don't turn anyone away unless they are known trouble makers and there are some . But if i owned a B&B i would object to having same sex couples stay and i would have to think carefully how to go about it , luckily i won't ever own one as i'm not very good at that sort of thing .

Well, I don't think you're going to answer the question full on. But I'm presuming your answer is yes, since it relates to the initial post I made regarding FGM and MGM.

My point was going to be that I am the same, its just that I draw the limit line at a different point to where you do. Like you, I don't think certain acts based on our beliefs should be allowed (we agree on the extreme case of genital mutilation) I just take the limit encompass a whole lot more.

We will never agree on this- but I just want to relate what I'm saying to your feeling on circumcision. For me ANY act based on beliefs that affects others in any negative way is going too far.

very good

Vicar of Dibley wrote:I think we should be fair Lez and we should consider how our beliefs will affect others , this is why going back to the B&B couple again (yeah i know old news) but that had a negative effect on their business and it undermined their faith . They could have said sorry we took your booking but we are actually double booked . So why didn't the gay couple just accept it that they were sticking to their faith .

We run our own business and we serve anyone , there is a moslem lady who wears the full niqab who comes to us regularly and we have no problem with her we chat about the weather the grandkids . We don't turn anyone away unless they are known trouble makers and there are some . But if i owned a B&B i would object to having same sex couples stay and i would have to think carefully how to go about it , luckily i won't ever own one as i'm not very good at that sort of thing .

gays cannot be fair, they are not interested in fair, they won't be happy until everyone has to agree that being gay is normal and most people know it is not....

HF wrote:gays cannot be fair, they are not interested in fair, they won't be happy until everyone has to agree that being gay is normal and most people know it is not....

I do love the way you convolute, HF. You take a message aimed at persecuting and end up complaining of being persecuted.

The reality is that gays don't give a shit about you. STFU and you would be a non-entity. But you can't do that, which makes you the aggressor.

It's like you are beating on someone, and at the same time complaining that s/he is hurting your fist.

superb analogy Quill.

Original Quill wrote:

HF wrote:gays cannot be fair, they are not interested in fair, they won't be happy until everyone has to agree that being gay is normal and most people know it is not....

I do love the way you convolute, HF.  You take a message aimed at persecuting and end up complaining of being persecuted.

The reality is that gays don't give a shit about you.  STFU and you would be a non-entity.  But you can't do that, which makes you the aggressor.

It's like you are beating on someone, and at the same time complaining that s/he is hurting your fist.

yup every thread these Neanderthals use gay slurs and attacks its tantamount to abusive behaviour against a section of the community

how would this supposed "black" couple react is we stared calling them koons and niggers and dragging almost every topic around to persecuting them because of there colour something they have no control over

Eilzel wrote:Let me just establish one thing- I AM against this. Big time. Like male circumcision and being able to refuse blood transfusions to your children, I put the rights of the CHILD first.

I agree, Les.  I keep hammering on the point of how ignorant people are of their own physiology.  Consequently they don’t know anything about procedures.

Genital mutilation is any kind of cutting or mutilating.  Some are valuable, some are ugly.  Without knowledge of the body, people are completely ignorant about what they are condemning, and what they champion.  If you are going to complain indignantly about FGM, do it the honor of knowing what you are talking about.

Here’s a listing:

1. FGM: any cutting of female parts.
2. MGM: any cutting of male parts.
3. Circumcision: circular excision of the prepuce, or foreskin of the male penis, resulting in permanent exposure and cornification of the dermis of the glans penis.
4. Female circumcision: there is no such thing, as a female does not have a penis or any circular equivalent.  The homologue of the male penis is the female clitoris (see hoodectomy).
5. Labia recision (or reduction): act of trimming or pruning the labia…usually to make intercourse more comfortable. A pronounced labia can inhibit or painfully interfere with penetration.
6. Hoodectomy: excision of the hood, resulting in permanent exposure and cornification of the dermis of the glans clitoris (see circumcision).
7. Clitorectomy: complete removal of the clitoris (prohibited, unless clinically mandated).
8. Penectomy: complete removal of the penis (prohibited, unless clinically mandated).

Eilzel wrote:But not long ago you repeatedly talked about the parents rights to do what is best for their children according to their faith/religion. Why the double standards now? Or is it only when it concerns a religion you agree with?

Any consenting adult can do what they want to their own body, but to alter the genitals of another is the equivalent of sexual assault and/or bodily mutilation.

Any parent or doctor causing genital mutilation on a child should be prosecuted for child molestation and abuse…and the child should be removed.

Parents should be prosecuted for any genital mutilation of a child that is not immediately, clinically warranted…religious rituals and prophylactic surgery of the genitals should be specifically outlawed.

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Let me just establish one thing- I AM against this. Big time. Like male circumcision and being able to refuse blood transfusions to your children, I put the rights of the CHILD first.

I agree, Les.  I keep hammering on the point of how ignorant people are of their own physiology.  Consequently they don’t know anything about procedures.

Genital mutilation is any kind of cutting or mutilating.  Some are valuable, some are ugly.  Without knowledge of the body, people are completely ignorant about what they are condemning, and what they champion.  If you are going to complain indignantly about FGM, do it the honor of knowing what you are talking about.

Here’s a listing:

1. FGM: any cutting of female parts.
2. MGM: any cutting of male parts.
3. Circumcision: circular excision of the prepuce, or foreskin of the male penis, resulting in permanent exposure and cornification of the dermis of the glans penis.
4. Female circumcision: there is no such thing, as a female does not have a penis or any circular equivalent.  The homologue of the male penis is the female clitoris (see hoodectomy).
5. Labia recision (or reduction): act of trimming or pruning the labia…usually to make intercourse more comfortable.
6. Hoodectomy: excision of the hood, resulting in permanent exposure and cornification of the dermis of the glans clitoris (see circumcision).
7. Clitorectomy: complete removal of the clitoris (prohibited, unless clinically mandated).
8. Penectomy: complete removal of the penis (prohibited, unless clinically mandated).

Eilzel wrote:But not long ago you repeatedly talked about the parents rights to do what is best for their children according to their faith/religion. Why the double standards now? Or is it only when it concerns a religion you agree with?

Any consenting adult can do what they want to their own body, but to alter the genitals of another is the equivalent of sexual assault and/or bodily mutilation.

Any parent or doctor causing genital mutilation on a child should be prosecuted for child molestation and abuse…and the child should be removed.

Parents should be prosecuted for any genital mutilation of a child that is not immediately, clinically warranted…religious rituals and prophylactic surgery of the genitals should be specifically outlawed.

what rubbish female genital mutilation has nothing to do with any thing healpful or healthy, it is control over women...

while I do not agree with circumcision for the sake of it there are cases when it is beneficial health wise...

Original Quill wrote:

HF wrote:gays cannot be fair, they are not interested in fair, they won't be happy until everyone has to agree that being gay is normal and most people know it is not....

I do love the way you convolute, HF.  You take a message aimed at persecuting and end up complaining of being persecuted.

The reality is that gays don't give a shit about you.  STFU and you would be a non-entity.  But you can't do that, which makes you the aggressor.

It's like you are beating on someone, and at the same time complaining that s/he is hurting your fist.

wrong on all accounts, HF is saying that there is no equality when it comes to gays because they expect everyone to accept them and not everyone do .

HF wrote:what rubbish female genital mutilation has nothing to do with any thing healpful or healthy, it is control over women...

while I do not agree with circumcision for the sake of it there are cases when it is beneficial health wise...

Complete ignorance.  You haven't even read, let alone digested the taxonomy.  

You are so into the political argument that you haven't paused to figure out what is being discussed.  FGM is meaningless unless you take the time to specify what you mean.

And I absolutely agree with you that any kind of genital mutilation should be considered equivalent to rape or any other obvious abuse.  However, rape is quite close to what a husband and wife do to each other...so be careful.

And being careful in your understanding is what I require from you.  Only, you resist understanding.  Something you do often.

"...thought before action," is something that Sheldon Wolin spoke of often in his lectures on political theory.  It is the difference between ignorance--and trouble--and insightful analysis.  Maybe the Internet equivalent is 'thought before typing'.  You need to slow down and begin thinking, HF.  You completely whiffed on that one.

Original Quill wrote:

HF wrote:what rubbish female genital mutilation has nothing to do with any thing healpful or healthy, it is control over women...

while I do not agree with circumcision for the sake of it there are cases when it is beneficial health wise...

Complete ignorance.  You haven't even read, let alone digested the taxonomy.  

You are so into the political argument that you haven't paused to figure out what is being discussed.  FGM is meaningless unless you take the time to specify what you mean.

And I absolutely agree with you that any kind of genital mutilation should be considered equivalent to rape or any other obvious abuse.  However, rape is quite close to what a husband and wife do to each other...so be careful.

And being careful in your understanding is what I require from you.  Only, you resist understanding.  Something you do often.

"...thoght before action," is something that Sheldon Wolin spoke of often.  It is the difference between ignorance--and trouble--and insightful analysis.  Maybe the Internet equivalent is 'thought before typing'.  You need to slow down and begin thinking, HF.  You completely whiffed on that one.

the topic is quite clear what it means, they believe it will stop women being sluts....

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Complete ignorance.  You haven't even read, let alone digested the taxonomy.  

You are so into the political argument that you haven't paused to figure out what is being discussed.  FGM is meaningless unless you take the time to specify what you mean.

And I absolutely agree with you that any kind of genital mutilation should be considered equivalent to rape or any other obvious abuse.  However, rape is quite close to what a husband and wife do to each other...so be careful.

And being careful in your understanding is what I require from you.  Only, you resist understanding.  Something you do often.

"...thoght before action," is something that Sheldon Wolin spoke of often.  It is the difference between ignorance--and trouble--and insightful analysis.  Maybe the Internet equivalent is 'thought before typing'.  You need to slow down and begin thinking, HF.  You completely whiffed on that one.

the topic is quite clear what it means, they believe it will stop women being sluts....

The topic is totally confused. Can you give a working definition of FGM?

Of course you can't. You think the FGM is a clitorectomy. With your approach, one could confuse a tonsillectomy with a frontal lobotomy...which in your case... Well, I'll leave it off.

FGM might have started as a way to control women, but notice that the "cutter" in the OP is a woman? FGM is almost exclusively done to girls by grown women who support the practice. There have been stories of fathers who didn't want it done to their daughters, only to have the grandmother sneak her away and have it performed anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

the topic is quite clear what it means, they believe it will stop women being sluts....

The topic is totally confused.  Can you give a working definition of FGM?

Of course you can't.  You think the FGM is a clitorectomy.  With your approach, one could confuse a tonsillectomy with a frontal lobotomy...which in your case...  Well, I'll leave it off.

so as usual you wade in and didn't even read the opening post...

there is a woman who has been cutting girls for very many years, she used to use a sharpened nail, now she uses a razor blade, dose that in any way sound like a surgical procedure designed to help these girls...??

it says from the newspaper quote " it stops girls from being sluts", again does that sound like any sort of surgical procedure designed to help women??

The dialectic is between the culture and the young woman.  It is the same with circumcision, with fathers in the Americas and Australia urging the practice.  It's the father that want's the son to be like him.  

It's passed on by the female or male respectively, but the real culprit is the culture.  Very often it is the religion.  In this country, circumcision started by a quack naturopath, in the 1880's, by the name of John H. Kellogg, who argued that circumcision would rid the world of the evils of masturbation.  His life was documented in a comic film, The Road to Wellville.

Unfortunately, by the turn of the century most men had their prepuces cut off and they were looking around for some justification.  They settled on the claim that is was more hygienic.  The hygiene theory was debunked during WWII in a massive study by the US Navy, but it wasn't until the 1980's that parents woke up and stopped 'snipping' their sons.

See?  It was the culture.  And the misperception of the current religion...science.  Some quack comes along and preaches some 'snake oil' theory--posing as a priest of science--and the culture becomes addicted.  This is how these things get started.

It's still going on today...every once in a while on TV s will come along with a 'Weight loss" pill that they will tout as miraculous, and ofe go.

Original Quill wrote:The dialectic is between the culture and the young woman.  It is the same with circumcision, with fathers in the Americas and Australia urging the practice.  It's the father that want's the son to be like him.  

It's passed on by the female or male respectively, but the real culprit is the culture.  Very often it is the religion.  In this country, circumcision started by a quack naturopath, in the 1880's, by the name of John H. Kellogg, who argued that circumcision would rid the world of the evils of masturbation.  His life was documented in a comic film, The Road to Wellville.

Unfortunately, by the turn of the century most men had their prepuces cut off and they were looking around for some justification.  They settled on the claim that is was more hygienic.  The hygiene theory was debunked during WWII in a massive study by the US Navy, but it wasn't until the 1980's that parents woke up and stopped 'snipping' their sons.

See?  It was the culture.  And the misperception of the current religion...science.  Some quack comes along and preaches some 'snake oil' theory--posing as a priest of science--and the culture becomes addicted.  This is how these things get started.

what a load of rubbish, it is nothing like circumcision, circumcision does have some valid medical reason and uses, especially if performed in a hospital..

we are talking about a woman who has progressed from a sharp nail to a razor blade, who will probably know zero about sterilising instruments, the place she does it, or the area she is cutting and usually the girl has no aesthetic and is likely to be held down and still might move during her ordeal..

then they talk about the cutting season, it sounds like a harvest not a medical procedure...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The dialectic is between the culture and the young woman.  It is the same with circumcision, with fathers in the Americas and Australia urging the practice.  It's the father that want's the son to be like him.  

It's passed on by the female or male respectively, but the real culprit is the culture.  Very often it is the religion.  In this country, circumcision started by a quack naturopath, in the 1880's, by the name of John H. Kellogg, who argued that circumcision would rid the world of the evils of masturbation.  His life was documented in a comic film, The Road to Wellville.

Unfortunately, by the turn of the century most men had their prepuces cut off and they were looking around for some justification.  They settled on the claim that is was more hygienic.  The hygiene theory was debunked during WWII in a massive study by the US Navy, but it wasn't until the 1980's that parents woke up and stopped 'snipping' their sons.

See?  It was the culture.  And the misperception of the current religion...science.  Some quack comes along and preaches some 'snake oil' theory--posing as a priest of science--and the culture becomes addicted.  This is how these things get started.

what a load of rubbish, it is nothing like circumcision, circumcision does have some valid medical reason and uses, especially if performed in a hospital..

we are talking about a woman who has progressed from a sharp nail to a razor blade, who will probably know zero about sterilising instruments, the place she does it, or the area she is cutting and usually the girl has no aesthetic and is likely to be held down and still might move during her ordeal..

then they talk about the cutting season, it sounds like a harvest not a medical procedure...  

FUCK!...you are one ignorant, lost soul. I gather you still believe the earth is flat.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:


what a load of rubbish, it is nothing like circumcision, circumcision does have some valid medical reason and uses, especially if performed in a hospital..

we are talking about a woman who has progressed from a sharp nail to a razor blade, who will probably know zero about sterilising instruments, the place she does it, or the area she is cutting and usually the girl has no aesthetic and is likely to be held down and still might move during her ordeal..

then they talk about the cutting season, it sounds like a harvest not a medical procedure...  

FUCK!...you are one ignorant, lost soul.  I gather you still believe the earth is flat.  

lol I noticed the pompous verbosity you normally suffer from soon stops when you are proved wrong.....

lol quill its only moslems who believe the earth is flat

I've moved on. This thread lost all cognitive content. You guys are third-grade recess.

Original Quill wrote:I've moved on.  This thread lost all cognitive content.  You guys are third-grade recess.

lol don't sulk