female circumcision (for subs)

[ownedsubgal]

hmmmm im up early and not enough coffee yet but this thought just crossed my mind. Could it be that someone wanting to do this is not doing it "for Master" but doing it to fill her own masochistic needs using her devotion to her Master as justification for it?

maybe for some this is so and if that is the case it'd be a sad situation indeed. personally i don't see anything masochistic about having the desire to be circumcised...being unable to experience physical sexual pleasure is not my idea of suffering or pain.

now as i have said, circumcision is not something my Master desires for me. actually he had never heard of it before i mentioned it to him. and i had never heard of it within a D/s context before coming across a newspaper article on the subject, which led me to research it a bit. my Master allows me to research and have an interest in whatever subject i like (and of which he approves)...it doesn't mean whatever it is will happen or that i will ask of beg him for it. i still find it to be a highly interesting concept and yes i do find there to be a purity of service there when it is done by a Master who truly desires it, to a slave with the right training and submissive heart.

 

[Esclava]

<snip>

i still find it to be a highly interesting concept and yes i do find there to be a purity of service there when it is done by a Master who truly desires it, to a slave with the right training and submissive heart.

Interesting concept aside, can anyone present a convincing argument where removal of the clitoris makes a loving slave's service more pure?

How can a clitorectomy - done by a Master who truly desires it - "purify" said slave's service?

What "training" could possibly impact the submissivness in the heart of a slave?

Submission is not found in or connected to a body part. It dwells within the spiritual heart of the one who desires to submit. Removal of a clitoris no more purifies a slave's service any more than the right "training" enhances a submissive heart. Training teaches a slave what things "please" Master/Mistress/Dom.

When Master/Mistress loves his/her slave and cares for her/him, THAT love and care is what enhances the submissiveness in the heart of a loving slave. THAT love and care is what brings out the obedient respect which allows one to serve without hesitation or question.

IMO, therein lies "pure" service.

Esclava

 

[Betticus]

Another thing to consider is that removal of the clitoris would negate sexual feelings, wants, desires or motivators. It would not take away sex drive. It would still leave behind all of the nerve bundles, they would just be harder to reach.

It would make (in my opinion) the slaves ability to put sex out of her mind so much harder because it would be harder for her to achieve orgasm.

I would go the other way on this and say to just have a few nice orgasms before you are to serve him and then once you are balanced you can concentrate on his needs.

 

[SkyBluAngelEyes]

<snip>
What "training" could possibly impact the submissivness in the heart of a slave?

Submission is not found in or connected to a body part. It dwells within the spiritual heart of the one who desires to submit. Removal of a clitoris no more purifies a slave's service any more than the right "training" enhances a submissive heart. Training teaches a slave what things "please" Master/Mistress/Dom.

When Master/Mistress loves his/her slave and cares for her/him, THAT love and care is what enhances the submissiveness in the heart of a loving slave. THAT love and care is what brings out the obedient respect which allows one to serve without hesitation or question.

IMO, therein lies "pure" service.

Esclava

Esclava, eloquently said.

 

[Esclava]

Esclava, eloquently said.

Thank you very much...

Esclava

 

[bronntanas]

***bump in reference to Ms. Shadowsdream's malesub thread.***

 

[Private_Label]

The female version of this operation is so often associated with primitive African tribal atrocities that are often in the news that it's kind of hard to write about objectively.

As Tainted as put it what we hear on this in society is the negative aspect of this - Usually those we hear about subjected to this did so unwillingly.

I have to admit my gut reaction on reading your message, OSG was similar to what most guys I have know do when damage/removal of their testicles is mentioned; and that is to cringe and try to protect my little bits.

As has been mentioned there are some things that should be considered before undertaking this:

1.) It's irreversible - this is not like Tattooing or scarification that may be painful to endure but still leaves your body structure unchanged.

2.) Permanency of relationships. If humans were perfect then choosing a mate would be an easy thing and one where we could be assured the relationship would last for the rest of our lives if that was what we desired. Unfortunately, sometimes relationships break down. While the next master may not care what has been done previously to the sub's body, it takes away that master's rights without consideration. Much in the way of Tubal ligation and Vasectomies, what happens if your mate changes their mind down the road? What if you get a new or different partner that wants the functionality of the part that has been affected?

If you wish to remove the sexual element from service, there are herbal solutions that might work just as well, and don't cause permanent loss of function - for example: Chasteberry was used by monks to calm the libido down.

3.) Operational mistakes. While this may not be a big concern... As the clitoris has many nerve endings in it, it is possible that one could be left with the nerves damaged in such a way as to cause constant pain that medication may not be able to calm and healing not cure. It may not happen often, it may not be a severe pain, but it is just one more thing to add to the list of considerations.

Again, my gut response to such a request for myself would be no, and a hard no at that

 

[FurryFury]

Wha???

No.

Wouldn't do it. Never considered it.

Course it's not my job to judge others.

Damn.

Fury

 

[sarah thorne]

There is a definate line that is being crossed with this kind of body modification. If you feel that removing your clitoris will in any way make you a better submissive I would have to say that you should seek professional help and not from any kind of master that advocates this.


Seriously, get some help if you are even considering this.

I have to agree wholeheartedly.

For me, I know that my own Dom derives great personal pleasure from being able to control mine. The clitoris plays a big part in that pleasure (tho definitely not all!).

Other than that, the answer would be nononononnonononooooooooooo.......

sarah

 

[fsmepls]

In my experience ........ Unless you man is hung like Einstien, women cum from both clitoral and vaginal (g spot) stimulation. Am I wrong? So removal of the clit and so forth to become less selfish is pointless. Honey go buy yourself a g spot vibrator or and find out what real orgasms are like. You can thank me later!

 

[serijules]

I haven't read all the replies so if I'm repeating something already said, apologies.

I personally feel that removing sexual desire is less of a show of devotion and submission than feeling aroused and being forced to control it and focus the mind elsewhere. It seems more like an easy way out. I have never understood deep shows of devotion that involve taking away one of the very things that likely makes a slave or submissive appealing in the first place. Nice fantasy. Rather lame reality I think.

Part of what makes my submission to D so intense is that I put her needs before my own, even when that is really really hard to do. Arousal is a form of expression that I think most Tops find appealing and is something they enjoy creating and controlling.

If you want a temporary way of numbing clit responses, try orajel for babies gums.

 

[ownedsubgal]

wow, i had almost forgotten about this one. i have to say, my feelings on this subject haven't changed. i still find the idea of female circumcision within a D/s relationship, particularly a M/s union, fascinating and beautiful in its own way. it's not something that is likely to ever be done to me, but i can understand why a Master would desire such a thing be done to his slave and why a slave or submissive may desire such a thing for themselves.

personally, i have never had any trouble with putting my Master needs, desires, whims, fancies, likes, etc., before my own. likewise, i have never had to struggle to suppress my own sexual desires or urges so that i could focus on his. i have always had a rather low sex drive, and rarely get sexually aroused physically to the point where it's noticeable to the person using my body. i rarely orgasm, and orgasm control is not a part of my Master's training of me, since he has absolutely no desire to intentionally bring me any pleasure sexually. so, i was not looking at the idea of female circumcision from the perspective of a sexually vivacious submissive fighting to set aside their own desires in order to properly serve their Master. rather it is the idea of removing all possible physical release, permanently, which (in addition to training and conditioning from the Master) would/could create a certain mindset in a slave, that i find appealing. i wasn't thinking of purely the physical aspects of this. i was thinking also of the psychological and emotional state of a slave who is not only trained and conditioned by her Master to be purely an object to be used for the Master's pleasure, with no thought or concern on the Master's part for the slave's physical pleasure, ever (as i am), but who is also modified physically so that a physical release or full experience of arousal is next to impossible. with the circumcision itself serving only as reinforcement of what already is...sort of like shackles on a person who is already locked behind bars.

...my Master has a long-established rule that i must never leave the house unaccompanied, either by him or by someone he has put in temporary charge of me. i understand this and would never think of attempting to break this rule. at the same time, for my own personal reasons, i have no desire whatsoever to ever leave the house on my own. nonetheless, whenever my Master leaves the house, he locks me inside, so that there is no possible way i can open the doors from the inside. it's not truly "necessary" for him to lock me in...after all, he has commanded me to stay inside, and i wish to stay inside. being locked in is more of a symbolic gesture, a reminder of my place and powerlessness. so i was thinking of female circumcision in that light: the submissive/slave is not permitted (or desired by the Master) sexual release, the submissive/slave does not desire sexual release, and then finally sexual release is made physically impossible. it's hard for me to put into words exactly, but basically i was thinking of it as one more link in the circle...that circle of a Master's power in which a slave is (hopefully) forever entrapped.

 

[ShyGuy68]

Just the thought of this send cold shivers down my spine. I can understand why masters want to mark their subs with a tattoo or something like that. But I would never want to do anything like this to my sub.

 

[catalina_francisco]

wow, i had almost forgotten about this one. i have to say, my feelings on this subject haven't changed. i still find the idea of female circumcision within a D/s relationship, particularly a M/s union, fascinating and beautiful in its own way. it's not something that is likely to ever be done to me, but i can understand why a Master would desire such a thing be done to his slave and why a slave or submissive may desire such a thing for themselves.

personally, i have never had any trouble with putting my Master needs, desires, whims, fancies, likes, etc., before my own. likewise, i have never had to struggle to suppress my own sexual desires or urges so that i could focus on his. i have always had a rather low sex drive, and rarely get sexually aroused physically to the point where it's noticeable to the person using my body. i rarely orgasm, and orgasm control is not a part of my Master's training of me, since he has absolutely no desire to intentionally bring me any pleasure sexually. so, i was not looking at the idea of female circumcision from the perspective of a sexually vivacious submissive fighting to set aside their own desires in order to properly serve their Master. rather it is the idea of removing all possible physical release, permanently, which (in addition to training and conditioning from the Master) would/could create a certain mindset in a slave, that i find appealing. i wasn't thinking of purely the physical aspects of this. i was thinking also of the psychological and emotional state of a slave who is not only trained and conditioned by her Master to be purely an object to be used for the Master's pleasure, with no thought or concern on the Master's part for the slave's physical pleasure, ever (as i am), but who is also modified physically so that a physical release or full experience of arousal is next to impossible. with the circumcision itself serving only as reinforcement of what already is...sort of like shackles on a person who is already locked behind bars.

...my Master has a long-established rule that i must never leave the house unaccompanied, either by him or by someone he has put in temporary charge of me. i understand this and would never think of attempting to break this rule. at the same time, for my own personal reasons, i have no desire whatsoever to ever leave the house on my own. nonetheless, whenever my Master leaves the house, he locks me inside, so that there is no possible way i can open the doors from the inside. it's not truly "necessary" for him to lock me in...after all, he has commanded me to stay inside, and i wish to stay inside. being locked in is more of a symbolic gesture, a reminder of my place and powerlessness. so i was thinking of female circumcision in that light: the submissive/slave is not permitted (or desired by the Master) sexual release, the submissive/slave does not desire sexual release, and then finally sexual release is made physically impossible. it's hard for me to put into words exactly, but basically i was thinking of it as one more link in the circle...that circle of a Master's power in which a slave is (hopefully) forever entrapped.

You present an argument for your position osg, but it is limited and also seems to apply to a slave unlike yourself as you point out here and elsewhere you have little to no sexual desire, so any move made to remove that as an option would not impact on you except for the visual proof of such, thus I would think rendering it as little more than a token gesture for someone so unmoved by those things sexual. In fact, as also mentioned by some, it could be seen as actually making life easier for the slave in a variety of ways, including the removal of the need to put up with those men/women who might ordinarily feel a need to push the pleasure boundaries she herself admits to not enjoying. I would think it would be more of a sacrifice and show of pure service for a slave who not only physically enjoyed and thrived on sex, but also psychologically had a strong need to be pleasing in such a way...removing such a big part of who they were would be an enormous tribute to their ability to put their own needs aside for the needs of the Master IMHO mre so than if it did nothing to alter their present sate of being/comfort zone.

That being said though, as others have pointed out, there are other ways to achieve orgasm without clitoral stimulation, so unless everything, nerves included were removed, there is really no guarantee that sexual pleasure would not be possible or experienced. Then also, for most men, Masters and otherwise, they derive a large part of their pleasure sexually from being able to excite and/or control their slaves desire and pleasure, and from the physical sensations of the slave which enhance their physical pleasure as well....so to remove that part of the slave would not only deny her pleasure, but also the others she is said to serve for their sexual pleasure. It is a rare man who gets much pleasure from someone who lays there and accepts her lot all the while making it obvious she does not like it but does it out of duty....ask any amount of cheating husbands/lovers who cite this as their reason for seeking pleasure elsewhere.

As to locking you in when he leaves, and you have told us of this before I know, one hopes there is never a fire or other disaster whereby it might be necessary for you to be able to get out or be rescued....but then I imagine he has thought of that and decided it is not something which requires concern? Different strokes for different folks I know, and am under no illusion I could not desire someone who does not thrive on pleasure to the fullest simply because I love to see him feel such passion and pleasure in all its glory and beauty.

Catalina

 

[Private_Label]

As to locking you in when he leaves, and you have told us of this before I know, one hopes there is never a fire or other disaster whereby it might be necessary for you to be able to get out or be rescued....but then I imagine he has thought of that and decided it is not something which requires concern? Different strokes for different folks I know, and am under no illusion I could not desire someone who does not thrive on pleasure to the fullest simply because I love to see him feel such passion and pleasure in all its glory and beauty.

Catalina

Yes, that was my concern as well when I read osg's statement. I can only hope there are windows (or a key in a drawer near the double cylinder deadbolt) that could be used in cases of emergency.

 

[serijules]

Some of the stuff described in this thread is what draws the line for me between a fantasy M/s relationship and one based in reality. I think that is where a lot of people are having trouble accepting this idea and some other ideas mentioned...they just have too many loopholes and too many instances of "that makes no sense". Gestures like locking an obedient slave in the house even when common sense dictates that it is not really a very wise thing to do for reality safety reasons....that just doesn't sit well with me. Gestures like permanently mutiliating the body when the slave has the control to focus where her Master desires her focus to be...whats the point? That question in my mind still hasn't been answered. To me, it comes across as a big, dangerous fantasy.

However, that is just based on my ideas and my experience. I don't have the insight that OSG does, and I never will because I have no desire to be that kind of slave. So I can't really expect to understand her reasons and whatnot. I just know that for MYSELF, those things make little sense and hold no where near the weight that they obviously would for her. It's kind of like religion...if you are not of that faith, usually it is rather hard to truly understand the things that are involved in that faith.

Interesting discussion.

 

[Private_Label]

To me, it comes across as a big, dangerous fantasy.

However, that is just based on my ideas and my experience. I don't have the insight that OSG does, and I never will because I have no desire to be that kind of slave. So I can't really expect to understand her reasons and whatnot. I just know that for MYSELF, those things make little sense and hold no where near the weight that they obviously would for her. It's kind of like religion...if you are not of that faith, usually it is rather hard to truly understand the things that are involved in that faith.

Interesting discussion.

<chuckles> A few months ago I could have said the same about getting involved in any way in D/s... and I'm certain a lot of "vanilla" people do too... I know my mom thinks I am getting involved in a dangerous area, and she just thinks I'm kinky for getting vibrators. If she knew the rest of it, there would be a lot of voices raised in discussion. Note: I have a very good relationship with my mother. If I have a problem - any problem - that I need her help or advice on, I can and do tell her. I don't talk to her about this, because I am taking my time and moving forward in a safe manner. I don't want her to feel stressed out from worry over nothing.

 

[sosniagara]

That's....that's.....well I'm speechless.

I'm not going to condemn it like others here since I'm a big believer in the whole "your kink is ok thing" aslong as it's consenting adults however perhaps there's somesort of medium that you could do.

Surely there must be somesort of female version of salt peter. Something that's not dangerous and that's short term. Then your Master could control when you get arousal and it doesn't involve acually removing...gulp...a part of you.

There's a varient of this for male subs with castrating them. Even tho I'm just into serving and not actual sex that's toooo much for me. Way too much. I'd be much more into taking something safe like salt peter and only being allowed to go off of it with Her approval. Short term, not actually a medical thing and it gives the Owner a whole new level of control.

Be safe and *seriously*, *seriously*, *seriously*, think about something like this before doing it.

 

[Masters_aphrodite]

OSG this is a topic that we have discussed briefly from another group. Although, i am very thankful Master has no interest in this (just as i am aware that your Daddy seems not to) i can understand where you are coming from when you speak of psychological. i realize that suppressing your sexual desires have never been a problem for you (99% of the time), and i can i imagine the psychological and emotional pull you see in it. Although this is still an extreme form of body modification i think i can understand. Much like some people consider branding more extreme than a tattoo and as such branding holds more of a psychological and emotional pull to them. i liken this to the fascination that female circumcision has for you (at least a part of the fascination).

i could be wrong osg, and if i am then please correct me. i think that is why there is someone for everyone. It is good that your Daddy has no desire to sexually satisy you it is yet another thing that makes Him, and you, a very good match for one another.

 

[rcuhljr]

Lot of good posts, but basically I could just never see wanting to remove such a large part of a persons life, and thinking it would somehow make them a more interesting individual. Especially since the change is permanent, and you can't really know what it will be like until it's done. It's kind of liking getting a full face tattoo, just you don't know what the tattoo will be. ( a weak example )

 

[ownedsubgal]

i think that is why there is someone for everyone. It is good that your Daddy has no desire to sexually satisy you it is yet another thing that makes Him, and you, a very good match for one another.

yes, that is very true.

 

[Technodivinitas]

I've bee avoiding this thread...

For several reasons. First of them being that my feelings of those who inflict this upon young women in certain cultures are almost as strong as Betticus'. And no, it's not simply obscure African bush tribes who do this- it's not uncommon at all among extremist Muslims. The reasoning being that once a woman reaches a certain age, she becomes vulnerable to attack by lusts, which, should she yield to them, makes her far less marriageable, and less valuable to her family. LIkewise, once she yields to those lusts, she becomes a threat to men who feel that womens' sexuality only exists to tempt men away from the path of Allah. (Don't get me wrong- that is only a smaller chunk of the Muslim population- more I've spoken with feel that womens' beauty and ability to create life places them closer to angels or God, and that men cannot handle the feelings that exposure to such creates in them, thus covering the women is for their own protection as well as that of weak-willed men.) And I believe there are still quite a few Muslim medical pros who perform this ritual willing, just as there are Rabbis who perform the Bris.

Anyhoo- A third reason I've avoided the topic is, there's just too damned much to say about it, and too little time and space to say it all. Gratefully, the other contributors to this thread have said most of it for me, so I don't have to: That it's dangerous, that it's cruel, that it's results are unpredictable, and that without the feelings you get form your clit, your world, and thus your relationship would be a very different place. (I'm inclined to think that if I didn't have that undercurrent of constant sexual energy, I'd lose all interest in being a slave, but maybe I'm just a slut who needs more discipline. *L*)

All that said, from a submissive/debasement standpoint, I can see a certain appeal... in the fantasy of it, just as in the fantasy of being bound up, closed off, and used for eternity as a sexual object alone, asin some Bishop illustrations, or, as in Dulcett's drawings, killed for the sake of a Master's amusement. But that's fantasy, and I do feel that there are just some things which should remain in the fantasy realm. Never the less, I'm getting moist just sitting here, imagining my Master demanding this because, "It's not about your pleasure, slut, and I'm going to be certain that it's never about your pleasure again..."

Really, the feelings that these thoughts produce are just extremes of the sexual denial fantasy, I imagine. To be changed in this way would be like a branding, only deeper. Like a depersonalization of extreme proportions. You are not You, you are it. You exist to be used, and your pleasure is not only irrelevant, but entirely to be denied. You are only alllowed to enjoy the Master's pleasure, never your own. Sounds a bit like Hell. And it's definitely nastyhot, but no. Not for reality. Never that. Not for me, anyways.

 

[Etoile]

I personally am not an advocate of unnecessary surgical procedures. That said, though female nullification is not unheard of in the western world. (Yes, that link has pictures, more if you follow to the "clitoral removal" link.)

osg's Islam-Online link has something that surprised me though:

Infibulation (4th degree circumcision) -or Pharaonic circumcision- consists of removal of all the external genitalia, the whole of the clitoris and the entire labia minora.

I thought infibulation is when you sew the labia together...?
(Temporary infibulation is actually a hot fantasy for me...ahem.)

 

[ownedsubgal]

Etoile, thanks so much for posting that link...i had been searching for a site on FGM in relation to the D/s lifestyle but without much luck.

oh, and you're right, infibulation is a complete closing off/obstructing of the gentials, usually by sewing in females. maybe they mean all the external genitalia is removed in addition to the opening being sewn up??

 

[catalina_francisco]

I personally am not an advocate of unnecessary surgical procedures. That said, though female nullification is not unheard of in the western world. (Yes, that link has pictures, more if you follow to the "clitoral removal" link.)

osg's Islam-Online link has something that surprised me though:

I thought infibulation is when you sew the labia together...?
(Temporary infibulation is actually a hot fantasy for me...ahem.)

Infibulation comes from the Latin word 'fibula' which means pin or clasp used for closing. The medical useage of the word in it's truest sense is as you thought Etoile, and means the closing of (usually by sewing all but a small opening) the labia majora over the vaginal opening and may or may not include clitoridectomy which is the removal of the clit. The inner surfaces of the labia are actually cut to allow them to heal surface to surface to form a solid barrier. The later additions of mutilation which removes both labia minora and majora, as well as the clit, is not considered medically as true infibulation in that through removing the labia majora, there is no way left of effectively closing the vaginal opening. The several practices such as clitoridectomy and infibulation are grouped together under the name of female circumcision, and many of the forms of Type iv female circumcision such as practiced by indigenous Australians were actually aimed at opening the vagina through cutting or tearing to make it bigger.

Like you, there was enough fascination for me to include it in one of my stories.

Catalina