what's commonly referred to by the acronym f.g.m. -
i.e. female genital mutilation -
           it's hard to see the same definition being applied
to males. why?
                   the former is a much more ancient practice
than the latter - and for that matter, if working out why
the latter is practised so fervently, and without a single
regret, is perhaps because the former is misunderstood.
the misunderstanding enters the dimension of
the book of genesis. why?
by a simple quote: and your women will give birth in
agony, and your men will strive in vain.
          now, that really is peculiar.
                   you snip off the ******* of a phallus,
what do you get? an increased pleasure for men during
*******, since there is no obstruction of "excess" skin
to obstruct the ******* encounter with the *******;
but that also means that men become cocky as **** -
a bit like seeing a streaker at a football match,
who's oozing a:    oh look at me! oh look at me!
                       it's the garden of eden, all over again!
now, this whole female gential "mutilation"?
i once read an article in a newspaper that cited an egyptian
politician stress, that egyptian men have a low libido,
a low *** drive, just as asians have a low alcohol tolerance.
(a) i think that's a quasi argument, given that islam
     introduced male gential "mutilation" to the egyptian
society, as a rule of thumb...
but more importantly
    (b) and this refers back to what moses could have
appreciated in his day... why cut off "excess" skin of
a woman's genitals?
      how about that quote, once more?
and your women will give birth in agony.
           well... before the romans invented the c-section,
i.e. a caesarean way of giving birth, what, what could
have possibly done... to ease a woman's burden of childbirth?
if a man can have more pleasure from ***,
by having his "excess" skin cut off...
    could this: female genital "mutilation" have the same
effect in childbirth?
            i'm just wondering, because the arguments i hear
against this practice, which is, well ****** ancient
is given by women who either haven't had it done to them,
or who have, but haven't given birth to child.
         personally? i believe         f.g.m = caesarean;
the only problem comes, when, well you have the two
paired up, i.e. male circumcision and female circumsion,
i think that's a terrible move.
comparison... you know how a ******* puts a ******
onto your *****? she gets a ******, sticks it in her
mouth and slowly puts it on, while doing *******.
   now try imagining a non-circumcised ancient egyptian
working a woman's ****** that has been circumcised -
well, would you look at that, the ****** thing is so tight,
that it pulls back the skin on the phallus right off -
so why would you need to circumcise, if the circumcised
****** pulls back the *******?
     but these are ancient times, god knows if this is accurate,
but i really do wonder if f.g.m. was the precursor to
the roman practice, of alleviate a woman's suffering
during childbirth... after all: less skin to strech, right?
    less skin to stretch, less pain, a pin-hole, and the pressure
building up... pop! or ****! and it just drops out
like out of a deer's ***; but if you have so much skin,
it streches and streches and streches... that's blood on the bedsheets
hanged on a washing line.