Why Islam falls short of globally sanctioning FGM

 So far as one section of our species can go to devalue, abuse, and oppress another section, the selfish motives, more often than not, call for a limit to oppression. A master can cane its slave as much as one wants to, but will mostly refrain from permanently damaging the slave’s organs of labor, the hands and the legs. Acute impulses to dominate an individual or a group of individuals are thus limited in intensity by the rationale to persistently dominate them.

Here is why “I think” female genital mutilation (FGM) is not popular, rejected or even condemned by the majority of muslim populations, even though they already are the most misogynist sections (I use “sections of people” and not religion, because pick any group, based on whatever differences, nothing get more misogynist than muslim “section&rdquoEye-wink on the planet and possess the capacity to go worse.

  1. historically, one of the main reason for FGM is to prevent masturbation. But FGM is clearly useless for this purpose to the patriarchal structure of a typical muslim family. This is perhaps only one section of people where there is research and publication about the islamic methodology of physical punishment for the wife (independent of the law). So when muslim females have lived in threat right from their childhood, why do you need to cut off their most sexually sensitive parts? Just threaten them to death if they masturbate, simple!
  2. FGM is dangerous and carries risk of death. While muslim men are known for raping minor girls till they bleed and die. (not to be confused with “raping and subsequent murdering&rdquoEye-wink, FGM is of no sexual advantages to the man. Why try cutting the clitoris or labia and lose all the curves a muslim woman is thought to be about?
  3. finally, the most important and obvious one. An uncut women enjoys sex more than a cut woman. Muslim wives are primarily kept for two purposes, one being the livestock reproductive machine and the other being sexual pleasure, and I feel the latter is more important (marrying multiple uteri doesn’t make sense but investing on multiple vaginas, pretty much, yes). So why would you cut them and make the the sex any less enjoyable? After all, you have a “peaceful” cult to populate the world with. 

 

PsychSATANi

Sapient's picture

We need a "like" button or

We need a "like" button or something similar.  I would've liked your first two blog posts.  Glad you're posting blogs here now.

 

The site restructure is planned for this fall.  *fingers crossed*

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

 thanks Brian. We also need

 thanks Brian. We also need options to share elsewhere on the internet. 

PsychSATANi

Vastet's picture

I always figured the logic

I always figured the logic behind it was to reduce the chances of a woman cheating by removing pleasure from the act. If sex isn't enjoyable, there's little reason to seek it out from another male, thus helping (though not guaranteeing) to ensure any children are indeed that of the husband.

Immoral and disgusting and sexist as it is, there is a certain twisted logic to it. That's why most religions and cultures have restricted the rights of women throughout history, even if not all of them have participated in actual mutilation of the genitals.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Raelians being constructive

The hope is that social changes will eventually help phase out FGM. We will see.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/25/surgery-for-female-genital-mutilation

extract:

Campaigners hope FGM will be phased out within a generation, to join Chinese foot-binding as a horror of history. "The idea of reducing women's sexual pleasure with FGM so they can be controlled is falling apart because men are having sex outside their communities and seeing the difference, and it's creating problems within relationships, here but also in Africa," says Efua Dorkenoo, of Equality Now.