Charles Brown wrote:
>CB: But wouldn't a woman who has a clitoris removed be more dependent upon
>orgasm from vaginal stimulation for orgasm ? And wouldn't such a woman be
>more likely to seek orgasm from vaginal sex because she didn't have the
>capacity to have orgasm from clitoral stimulation ? So, we might predict the
>result below - that women with their clitoris's removed have more children.
>Why ? Because they seek more vaginal sex than women with clitorises intact,
>because vaginally stimulated orgasm is the only source of orgasm for women
>with clitorises removed.
>
You're playing with words. Imagine that someone gave you a vasectomy,
without anesthesia, at the age of 5. How likely would you be to get it
up after that? Also, remember that in addition to the cutting, there is
the sewing (shut) of the vagina and that intercourse is literally a
tearing apart of that....you think you'd be in for a little vaginal
orgasm at the end of all that?
> You would expect that cut women have fewer children than
>uncut women, if female orgasm were in any way linked to reproductive
>success, but such is not the case: "To date, no study has found an
>association between reproductive capability and FGC.
>
Again. For fuck's sake! In such societies marital rape is sex. Whether a
woman gets pregnant or not is not up to her but up to her husband. So,
naturally, there would be no correlation between cutting and
"reproductive success."
>If anything, diminishing or
>eliminating the capacity for female orgasm appears to make females
>more reproductively successful than leaving it intact.
>
>
No. Goddamn it. It just makes them more likely to accept the fact that
control of sexuality or reproduction does not belong to them.
Joanna