Superior Culture?

[eots]

"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33. 1

"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26, from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)





Genesis 1:27 to 3:24: In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described as creating man, both male and female at the same time: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." 2 This might be interpreted as implying equality between the two genders.
But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man: "...the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term "helper" has historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role for Eve, although some modern interpreters believe that the word can mean a companion of equal status. "...the Hebrew word translated "helper" is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a superior." (3) In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his authority over Eve by naming her: "...she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." In ancient times, one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by naming it.

Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve: "...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The Living Bible uses the term "master". The Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.
A man could marry (literally "become the master of the woman") as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar: "Sarai said unto Abram...I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her." Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command.
Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women. More details on Genesis 19.
Genesis 21 A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: "...Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.
In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill all Jewish boys at birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the kingdom. "And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live." The girls, being considered less important, were not seen as a threat; they were allowed to live.
Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair of chapters in the Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of her father. At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her new husband: Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.
Exodus 21:2-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." A slaveowner was permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. After serving six years, he would leave, but his wife and children would remain slaves of the slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on this arrangement,
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever.
Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with restitution in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father's property - his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.

Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their act - not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child. The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: "...he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part in the feasts of unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: "Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD."



THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

 

[Anguille]

Because male circumcision doesn't utterly destroy a man's capacity to orgasm the way that excising a clitoris does for about 80% of the women who are circumcised.

Get your medical terms right.

 

[catzmeow]

really? you know what it is like to be an uncircumsized male?

Having had sex with a couple of men in my day (wink), I'd say that it never seems to have impaired their pleasure in sex, or ability to orgasm easily. If anything, I've found that the circumcized men I've been with had an easier time of it than the uncircumcized men, who sometimes have issues with pulling, scarring or tearing.

 

[FireGod]

I would say that they have not experienced what it is like to have a clitoral orgasm then, but who cares as that possibility has been taken away from them.

no honored givers of life..mothers..it is you and our culture that is devaluing the role of a woman

Really, you think so? The role of a woman in a heterosexual relationship is to be a partner, mate and friend of equal status to a man and vice versa, that is the only way in which balance can be maintained. There are women who are a lot smarter than I will ever be. It seems that you have a problem with sexuality, that is your loss.
BTW women need men to be givers of life, in case you forgot. Motherhood like fatherhood does not define a person, a part of the person yes definition NO.

 

[Sunni Man]

Personally I wouldn't want to be circumcized no matter how safe the practice. Plus, I would think it would make a woman more susceptible to arousal, all the time, if the clitoris is always exposed. Oh, maybe that's the real point...

Now you are getting close!

I hear people say that FC is done because the men don't want their women to enjoy sex. Pure non sense!

When in reality, sex is much better when the woman enjoys it. Every man Muslim or non Muslim knows that.

 

[Xenophon]

So, who here would rather live in a Muslim culture vs a western culture.

 

[Anguille]

Was directly a question to Sunni.

What? I'm not allowed to ask you questions?

 

[Annie]

What? I'm not allowed to ask you questions?

You asked what I meant, I said what I meant.

 

[catzmeow]

Get your medical terms right.

You first.

The WHO uses the term Female Genital Mutilation [for female circumcision], and classifies FGM into four major types[22] (see Diagram 1), although there is some debate as to whether all common forms of FGM fit into these four categories, as well as issues with the reliability of reported data.[23]
Diagram 1:This image shows the different types of FGM and how they differ to the normal female anatomy.

[edit] Type I

The WHO defines Type I FGM as the partial or total removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and/or the prepuce (clitoral hood); see Diagram 1B. When it is important to distinguish between the major variations of Type I mutilation, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only; Type Ib, removal of the clitoris with the prepuce.[22] In the context of women who seek out labiaplasty, Stern opposes removal of the clitoral hood and points to potential scarring and nerve damage.[24]

[edit] Type II

The WHO's definition of Type II FGM is "partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision). When it is important to distinguish between the major variations that have been documented, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type IIa, removal of the labia minora only; Type IIb, partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora; Type IIc, partial or total removal of the clitoris, the labia minora and the labia majora. Note also that, in French, the term ‘excision’ is often used as a general term covering all types of female genital mutilation.[22]

[edit] Type III: Infibulation with excision

The WHO defines Type III FGM as narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and repositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation)."[1] It is the most extensive form of FGM, and accounts for about 10% of all FGM procedures described from Africa.[25] Infibulation is also known as "pharaonic circumcision."[26]

In a study of infibulation in the Horn of Africa, Pieters observed that the procedure involves extensive tissue removal of the external genitalia, including all of the labia minora and the inside of the labia majora. The labia majora are then held together using thorns or stitching. In some cases the girl's legs have been tied together for two to six weeks, to prevent her from moving and to allow the healing of the two sides of the vulva. Nothing remains but the walls of flesh from the pubis down to the anus, with the exception of an opening at the inferior portion of the vulva to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through; see Diagram 1D. Generally, a practitioner recognized as having the necessary skill carries out this procedure, and a local anesthetic is used. However, when carried out "in the bush," infibulation is often performed by an elderly matron or midwife of the village, with no anesthesia used.[27]

A reverse infibulation can be performed to allow for sexual intercourse or when undergoing labor, or by female relatives, whose responsibility it is to inspect the wound every few weeks and open it some more if necessary. During childbirth, the enlargement is too small to allow vaginal delivery, and so the infibulation is opened completely and may be restored after delivery. Again, the legs are sometimes tied together to allow the wound to heal. When childbirth takes place in a hospital, the surgeons may preserve the infibulation by enlarging the vagina with deep episiotomies. Afterwards, the patient may insist that her vulva be closed again.[27]

Women who have been infibulated face a lot of difficulty in delivering children, especially if the infibulation is not undone before hand, which often results in severe tearing of the infibulated area, or fetal death if the birth canal is not cleared (Toubia, 1995). The risk of severe physical, and psychological complications is more highly associated with women who have under gone infibulations as opposed to one of the lesser forms of fgm. Although there is little research on the psychological side effects of fgm, many women feel great pressure to conform to the norms set out by their community, and suffer from anxiety and depression as a result (Toubia, 1995). “There is also a higher rate of post traumatic stress disorder in circumcised females” (Nicoletti, 2007, p. 2). [28] [29]

This practice increases the occurrence of medical complications due to a lack of modern medicine and surgical practices.[citation needed]

A five-year study of 300 women and 100 men in Sudan found that "sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm are experienced by the majority of women who have been subjected to this extreme sexual mutilation, in spite of their being culturally bound to hide these experiences."[30]

Most advocates of the practice continue to perform the procedure in adherence to standards of beauty that are very different from those in the west. Many infibulated women will contend that the pleasure their partners receive due to this procedure is a definitive part of a successful marriage and enjoyable sex life.[citation needed]

[edit] Type IV: Other types

There are other forms of FGM, collectively referred to as Type IV, that may not involve tissue removal. The WHO defines Type IV FGM as "all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example, pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization."[22] This includes a diverse range of practices, such as pricking the clitoris with needles, burning or scarring the genitals as well as ripping or tearing of the vagina.[22] Type IV is found primarily among isolated ethnic groups as well as in combination with other types.[citation needed]

Female genital cutting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Anguille]

Well except the Magna Carta and other events managed to take a bit of the bite out of those verses, and the authority of 'god given domain' through rulers.

The Magna Carta didn't do anything for women in 18th century England. If their husband's divorced them, they didn't even have any right to thier children. No vote, no property, sometimes no right to travel without a male family member's permission.

 

[FireGod]

Female circumcision does not reduce sexual activity 12:30 24 September 02
NewScientist.com news service

Circumcised women experience sexual arousal and orgasm as frequently as uncircumcised women, according to a study in Nigeria.

The researchers also found no difference in the frequency of intercourse or age of first sexual experience between the two groups of women. These findings remove key arguments used to defend the practice, they say.

Friday Okonofua and colleagues at the Women's Health and Action Research Centre in Benin City studied 1836 women, 45 per cent of whom had been circumcised.

During the operation, all or part of the clitoris and the labia are removed. Proponents of female circumcision claim it makes virginity at marriage and marital fidelity more likely. Opponents condemn it as dangerous and painful.

The women filled in questionnaires, asking about their sexual history. The results show "female genital cutting cannot be justified by arguments that suggest it reduces sexual activity in women," write the team in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

Female Genital Mutilation and sex

Female Genital Mutilation and sex

You forgot the rest of the quote, nice try though. From the same page above.

Two million women

Circumcision is common in Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Nigeria and Sudan. It is often performed using crude, non-sterilised instruments.

Okonofua's team also found that the circumcised women were more likely to have lower abdominal pain, genital ulcers and urinary tract infections.

An estimated two million women and girls undergo genital mutilation every year. But in some regions, it is the women themselves who must be persuaded the practice is undesirable, say local health workers.

Circumcision brings women respect from other members of the community, points out Sudanese women's health rights campaigner Nahid Toubia.

Journal reference: BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (vol 109, p 1089)

Emma Young

FGM (like MGM) is a human rights outrage regardless of its effect on sex, if any.

When FGM seems to have no effect on sexual response, this is seen as an argument not to do it, yet the self-same "fact" in the case of the male is used in the US as an argument for doing it. In fact, however, this result (like that of such work as has been done on the effect of MGM) is probably just an artifact of using too crude a measure of sexual response, ability to have intercourse and reach orgasm.

Someone responded to the above article that a woman circumcised before puberty learns her erotic response with whatever erogenous tissue she is left, such as her nipples. (In the same way, paraplegics gain an inordinate sensitivity in the parts of their bodies still wired to their brains.) So it would be quite wrong to say that her sexual response was unchanged.

While the quantity of women's arousal and orgasm may be undiminished by FGM, the loss of erotic tissue inevitably degrades its quality.

It may be true that most sexual activity happens in the brain, but the response of the brain depends on the quality of the stimulation it receives. All music appreciation happens in the brain too, but the quality of the music depends on the quality of the instruments as well as the performance.

The same is true for circumcised men.

 

[catzmeow]

So, who here would rather live in a Muslim culture vs a western culture.

Sunni, I'm sure. I keep encouraging him to relocate, but he seems peculiarly attached to Texas. God help him.

 

[Sunni Man]

Sunni, I'm sure. I keep encouraging him to relocate, but he seems peculiarly attached to Texas. God help him.

Ye Haw!!!!

 

[Anguille]

Now you are getting close!

I hear people say that FC is done because the men don't want their women to enjoy sex. Pure non sense!

When in reality, sex is much better when the woman enjoys it. Every man Muslim or non Muslim knows that.

You're still speaking from a man's point of view. I don't think I would enjoy sex as much missing that part covering my clitoris. I'm sensitive enough as it is. But if any woman says she happy that way, I'm sure she is. But do you think it should be done to children? Shouldn't it be a personal choice?

 

[Annie]

The Magna Carta didn't do anything for women in 18th century England. If their husband's divorced them, they didn't even have any right to thier children. No vote, no property, sometimes no right to travel without a male family member's permission.

I didn't say it did. In fact was only referring to the inherent premise that undermined divine right of kings.

 

[Anguille]

Sunni, I'm sure. I keep encouraging him to relocate, but he seems peculiarly attached to Texas. God help him.

So much for reading comprehension.

 

[FireGod]

The sad thing about this thread is that people are going on and on attributing horrors to Muslims, ( kind of like when Jews ate babies) when those horrors are indeed happening. They just aren't Muslim in nature.

There is so little outrage in what is done to poor women in that part of Africa. They are just pawns for the anti Islam bigots.

I don't care why it is being done. It should stop no matter why it is being done. BTW that part of Africa is mostly Muslim.
Muslim World Map ( a distribution) compare to
Spinifex Press - female genital mutilation - map

 

[Shogun]

Thinking about your earlier post about female circumsiscion
becoming a fad. At least it would be done by choice on the woman choosing it.

So Shoog, are you cut or uncut??

to be honest, i'm quite glad im not sporting the ole turtleneck. but I think there is a point to me made about how accepting our culture is for little boys to have their dicks cut on versus cultures that have the same kind of genital mutilation for gals. There is a similar debate about sexual gratification for those who are snipped and those who are not.


I think it should also be considered that women go have reconstructive surgeries on the ole vajayjay these days.. up to and including labia reconstruction. Im not defending FC, and removing the clitoris is just plain fucked up, but who is to say that im not missing out just because our culture is a big fan of male circumcision.

 

[Anguille]

Does anybody here actually care that children OF ALL FAITHS are being mutilated?

 

[Annie]

Does anybody here actually care that children OF ALL FAITHS are being mutilated?

Pray tell. Are you now going through the doors of child abuse, meaning parents that burn, scald, torture their children? Equating those sadists with those that profess to be practicing their faith?