A New Intactivist Technique...

A new intactivist technique consists of being a real caricature of proponents of circumcision, i.e claiming that all females should be circumcised as well as males. Or that male circumcision is exactly the same mutilation as female circumcision.
This is of course absolute bullshit. There is no relationship, unless you're blind, between a vulva and a penis. One is the external side of primarily internal female genital and sexual organs, and however much vulvas may be nice-looking, floral-looking, etc... the only really sensitive part is the tip of the ****. You can munch on pee lips for hours...the only thing it will do is generate boredom. Unless you lick the little pearl at the tip of the **** the lady's not going to get on the road to ******. That's because a high number of nerve endings are in the clitoral tip. If you snipped it (as in FGM) a number of nerve endings would remain in trhe shaft (under the mons pubis) but they will only generate mild pleasure, not an ******. The hood? it's basically the same as a male foreskin...a piece of skin, sometimes thicker, sometimes longer, sometimes thinner...but just like the male foreskin a rather insensitive piece of skin. Dehooding a female cannot be called FGM in any way. And it is an operation commonly performed to free the clitoris in cases where it would be beneficial to the woman to have it less «hooded».
The foreskin of a male is about as sensitive as the hood of the female...ie, not at all. No more than the skin on your nose, on your elbow, or your hand. Less than your ears. Actually the skin of the foreskin is similar to the skin of an eyelid. Rub your eyelids for hours and you'll see how much you ******...  I had one, I know what it feels like. In most instances, you wish you had none - its only use is in frenetic ************, which irritates the glans terribly, because the skin of an uncircumcised glans is overly sensitive in most cases. But the comparison is nonexistent between female hood and male foreskin. The **** doesn't go anywhere. Doesn't penetrate anything. The penis penetrates. Hits the cervix. And it has been proven without any doubt that ****** on the male glans is one of the factors that triggers the very long process by which the female ends up with cervical cancer cells - a cervix repeatedly hit with ****** cells will have a much higher danger of becoming cancerous. Some foreskin cells are also carcinogenic for the male. Plus the fact that that penetrating organ, due to the humidity maintained by the foreskin, is much more likely in its uncut state to transmit diseases of all kinds. Ever seen what a papilloma infection around an uncut **** and its «marvelllous» (in the eyes of intactivists) foreskin look like? Have a look...and you'll change your mind.
Circumcision, done correctly, with properly sterile conditions, a Gomco clamp, and possibly a minimum of local anesthesia, should be the norm for all males, in their interest as well as in women's interests. Dehooding females? Hygienically, it would make sense - most women never wash their hood, and end up with adherences because of accumulated ****** that may become very irritating or very painful. However, since they do not penetrate anyb ody with it, it's far less important. I personally consider that any adult female whose clitoral glans does not at least peek out of the hood in a non-excited state shoud consider having the hood removed. In adult females, however, it may leave the glans overly sensitive for some time. Unfortunately, most doctors do not pay attention to clitoral hygiene in their young female patients - and they should. Maybe they will now that more importance is given to the **** - unless they're afraid of being accused of ********** and improper behaviour if they touch a girls clithood and **** tip. There's still a way to go in considering normale sexual practices in medical practice...
****-cutting? The equivalent would be cutting off the glans of the penis, to make sure the individual has a much reduced sexual pleasure potential. That's what's called FGM. No relationship whasoever to circumcision.
Sekhmet96 Sekhmet96
61-65, M
Nov 29, 2012