female circumcision (for subs)

[ownedsubgal]

a similar topic currently on the board gave me the courage to finally post this here. for quite a while now i have been very interested in the subject of female circumcision, within the D/s lifestyle. it is rare, but not completely unheard of. submissives who have their clitoris altered, or perhaps removed entirely, by/for their Masters. i have read quotes from slaves who supposedly have had this done speaking of their sexual service being more "pure" since having the procedure done. how it's a completely unselfish act and frees them up to only better attend to their Master's needs. and i can very much relate to such desires, so i cannot say i would be horrified if my Master decided to do such a thing to me. actually i think it would be rather nice, no longer having those guilty feelings about being sexually aroused, no longer having to fight to push selfish thoughts of my own physical wants out of my mind.

i brought the subject up with my Master, and he was very interested in my thoughts/feelings, but says he would not such a permanent change. He even confessed that sometimes he actually enjoys me being physically aroused, so to never be able to do that again would bother him. so this slave won't be going under the knife. but have any other submissives here ever thought of this? or Dominants, have you ever considered it for your female submissives? i imagine most would find it to be a deplorable thing but are there any like myself that can see the potential beauty in it?

 

[Peregrinator]

I can certainly see the selflessness and self-sacrifice in the act on the part of the sub. I would never choose to do it to my subbie, though, because sometimes I take great pleasure in her surrender to my manipulation. Making her come and come and come is a particular delight. Overstimulating her clit is also. I'd miss that. You're playing with a huge, permanent sacrifice here. I would want to look into the physiology a little more, too; secretions are important, for example...what else would change?

 

[ShyGuy68]

I will be honest about this, and say that just the thought of somebody wanting to do this, scares bejeezes (sp?) out of me.

This kind of bodymodification is going to far in my opinion. Things like piercings can get taken out, and tattoos can almost be removed in our days. But the thought of cutting away a womans clit, no way. And you never know what happens in a relationship, so the women not being able to ever get pleasure from this, scares me as well.

I like for my sub to experience sexual pleasure a lot. I might tell her that she can't climax before I cum, or before I give her permission to, but I do want her to climax quite often, as a reward for serving me well.

 

[TaintedB]

Controversial topic you've raised there. 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.

What I wish is that there was a way that people could do this sort of thing (female circumcision or male eunuchism) in a reversible manner, so that if it wasn't something they found they could deal with ten years down the road or if their circumstances change they could have it undone. The permanancy of this operation isn't precisely what concerns me: it's the fact that it's permanent combined with the fact that it enacts a profound change on your body and possibly your personality as well.

Your master is like a lot of dominants I know: controlling a woman's pleasure--giving it, withholding it, teasing her with it, rubbing her nose in her own sluttiness--provides them with a heady rush. Not all are like that, but a whole lot are. By going with the flow and eagerly accepting this pleasure when he wants you to recieve it, you're serving him just as well (and in some ways, better) than if you were clitorus-less and just getting him off. I think that clitorous-less state would get old for a lot of dominants, because it makes the submissive a less responsive and interesting toy. Even the dominants who don't care to get their slaves off probably get a kick out of the fact that the latter are often frustrated as hell over being denied while having to serve them. If you couldn't be frustrated because you didn't have a way to get aroused, that would be just one less fun nasty thing for a dominant to do to you.

I understand the guilty feelings, I think every submissive's middle name is Guilt, that's just something that goes with the rest of the package. And it's very hard to get rid of that guilt, whatever it happens to latch onto.

I can't speak about the purity, as I don't know these women's psyches. Maybe they were sexual prudes and so their "purity" is actually a neurotic relief at having gotten rid of all those dirty messy animalistic desires that they feel are beneath them. Or just maybe some of these "pure" subs are secret control freaks who didn't like the fact that their sexual desires made them vulnerable to a certain kind of extreme control, control of their desires and lusts. Some women can't bear the lack of control associated with being so sexually aroused that they can be manipuated by the cravings of their cunts. Such women might embrace a clitidectomy, give lip service to the "purity" but actually be secretly relieved as hell that their masters didn't have yet another way to control them. Hard to say, I guess I am just naturally suspicious when I hear somebody talking about "Purity" in sexual relationships.

I am curious about this operation, though. If your clit is removed do you still feel sexual arousal but simply have no way to relieve it? Or does the sexual arousal go away too? I wouldn't think that lust would disappear as long as you still had organs within you producing hormones.

--Taint

 

[corkie2]

I can't see any Dom/me worth their salt wanting to have this done to their toy..........it would take away too much of their fun. That plus, to me, being both a woman and a submissive, I can't even imagine being without my clit! I mean..........OUCH!! The pain from such an operation along with the psychological reprecussions would really be too much for me.

That being said.............I don't that that removing my clit would cause me to not be sexually arroused. Much less stop me from cumming. When you honestly think about it a woman can become sexually arroused without clitoral stimulation. We can also cum without clitoral stimulation of any kind. I mean I can cum from having my nipples played with. So I fail to see how removing my clit would stop me from cumming or wanting sex.

Sexual arrousal for a woman is as much in the mind as the body. We get wet from thinking of being used by a Dom/me. We get turned on by for-play and "play" that does not include any kind of clitoral stimulation. As we do from giving bj's.

I think that to assume that it would make my service to Sir any better by removing my clit would be wrong for me. I would prefer to keep my little happy button! I have grown very attached to it and think that my Sir enjoys it very much and would not want to damage his toy that way.

Just my 2 cent's worth............

 

[Betticus]

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.

A womans body and all of it's parts are sacred to me. This kind of mutiliation that you are talking about pisses me off to the extent that I would gladly kidnap and torture to death anyone that forced a woman into a clitoral removal.

The nerve endings will still be there no matter what you do. The hormones that drive you will still be there.

This reminds me of a friend of mine. The girl was brutally raped when she was 12 years old and due to the damage inflicted to her during that she has no sensitivity in her clitoris. She can only orgasm through other means. I would gladly tear the liver out of the cocksucker that did that to her and I would with equal enjoyment force any piece of shit that did this to a woman to hold his own guts in his hands while he was dying.

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



Sorry for the rant. It's my protective alpha side. Deal with it.

 

[RavenSpirit2k4]

Sorry for the rant. It's my protective alpha side. Deal with it.

May I use that quote when I do that too?

 

[Betticus]

May I use that quote when I do that too?

Sure.

 

[RavenSpirit2k4]

Sure.

Thank you. I also tend to be protective of subs - too much, I've been told.

 

[Learn Humility]

My submissive is a beautiful and extremely valuable and important piece of property to me.

Why would I want to damage her in any way?

 

[Vixandra]

My eyes are wide, stomach clenching and I'm shocked as hell.
Why on Earth would ANYONE do this? I mean, you want to peirce lacings into your back and hang from them, go right on ahead.
But REMOVING a body part?
And having one's Dom/me do it?
That sounds like surgury to me- something people go to jail for performing if they're not Dr's, etc. Why- cause its illegal, its practicing medicine without a license or training. You KILL people that way (worst case, yes but still possible).

I find it morally terrifying- why would someone want to hurt and harm someone they're supposed to take care of like that?
How does being denied one of the greatest joys a couple can share make any kind of service more pure?
How do you explain that to a later lover if your relationship with your Dom/me (PYL) ends?
I'm sorry, but I can't see any value in this... sounds like an ancient practice that was an abomination then and is now.

If you want to do this, that's your right and I'll not stop you. *shudders*
Heck, I defend your right to do it, even if I don't understand why.

 

[AvaAdore]

Having a clitorectomy will not take away sexual desires. It's the hormones that do it, so you would have to remove the glands responsible for producing the hormones.

Heh, this just reminded me of something. Have you ever had sex when taking codeine? Codeine is one of those pain relievers that doesn't actually stop the pain, but just makes you happy and not give a shit that you are actually in pain. A few weeks ago, I took some for a headache, and after I felt better (but it didn't wear off yet), my bf and I were having a bit of fun, and it was very odd for me. I felt him in me, but it didn't really feel like anything; no sexual pleasure. So osg, you might want to experiment... in the US it's perscription only as far as I know. In NZ they put it in all sorts of over the counter stuff, but they take your name and address with ID when you buy it because you can make amphetamines out of it...

I'm not advocating making amphetamines or taking pain killers every time you have sex, but it might be something to try for a new experience with no harm.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Controversial topic you've raised there. 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.

What I wish is that there was a way that people could do this sort of thing (female circumcision or male eunuchism) in a reversible manner, so that if it wasn't something they found they could deal with ten years down the road or if their circumstances change they could have it undone. The permanancy of this operation isn't precisely what concerns me: it's the fact that it's permanent combined with the fact that it enacts a profound change on your body and possibly your personality as well.

Your master is like a lot of dominants I know: controlling a woman's pleasure--giving it, withholding it, teasing her with it, rubbing her nose in her own sluttiness--provides them with a heady rush. Not all are like that, but a whole lot are. By going with the flow and eagerly accepting this pleasure when he wants you to recieve it, you're serving him just as well (and in some ways, better) than if you were clitorus-less and just getting him off. I think that clitorous-less state would get old for a lot of dominants, because it makes the submissive a less responsive and interesting toy. Even the dominants who don't care to get their slaves off probably get a kick out of the fact that the latter are often frustrated as hell over being denied while having to serve them. If you couldn't be frustrated because you didn't have a way to get aroused, that would be just one less fun nasty thing for a dominant to do to you.

I understand the guilty feelings, I think every submissive's middle name is Guilt, that's just something that goes with the rest of the package. And it's very hard to get rid of that guilt, whatever it happens to latch onto.

I can't speak about the purity, as I don't know these women's psyches. Maybe they were sexual prudes and so their "purity" is actually a neurotic relief at having gotten rid of all those dirty messy animalistic desires that they feel are beneath them. Or just maybe some of these "pure" subs are secret control freaks who didn't like the fact that their sexual desires made them vulnerable to a certain kind of extreme control, control of their desires and lusts. Some women can't bear the lack of control associated with being so sexually aroused that they can be manipuated by the cravings of their cunts. Such women might embrace a clitidectomy, give lip service to the "purity" but actually be secretly relieved as hell that their masters didn't have yet another way to control them. Hard to say, I guess I am just naturally suspicious when I hear somebody talking about "Purity" in sexual relationships.

I am curious about this operation, though. If your clit is removed do you still feel sexual arousal but simply have no way to relieve it? Or does the sexual arousal go away too? I wouldn't think that lust would disappear as long as you still had organs within you producing hormones.

--Taint

actually, my Master is NOT the kind of Dominant who gets any special little kick out of controlling a woman's sexual pleasure. i'm not a very sexually expressive person (just my nature) and also never have been the type to orgasm more than once in a very great while. in the 4 years i've been with my Master now, i've maybe had 3 orgasms. this is not seen as a problem by either myself or my Master. when he uses me sexually, the point is for him to be pleased, to be satisfied. if in the process of him doing whatever it takes to please himself, i experience physical pleasure also, he does not have an issue with it, but that is never a goal or desire of his. what came as a surprise to me was when he told me that sometimes he actually finds pleasure in me being physically aroused by him, which is primarily why he would be opposed to a circumcision.


i'm going to look more into just how a female circumcision would effect one's physical response. i imagine lusty feelings would still be there, but nothing physically could ever match up. and likely in time that lack of stimulation could perhaps cause even the sexual feelings/emotions to fade or even die as well.


also from what i've read at least these procedures are usually done by a medical professional and not just a Dominant with a sharp blade.

 

[TaintedB]

Originally posted by Betticus
...she has no sensitivity in her clitoris. She can only orgasm through other means.

You helped answer my medical question. Now that I'm thinking about it, the stuff I read about the African tribal atrocities also mentioned that some the women without clits still had vaginal orgasms.

--Taint

 

[Vixandra]

also from what i've read at least these procedures are usually done by a medical professional and not just a Dominant with a sharp blade.

I didn't know there were dr's that would perform this. Looking back, should have realized that some could and would do it.

If you're going to do it please be very careful. Check the dr's name you decide on with the state board to see if he's been reported for any problems before, etc.

I don't mean to sound judgemental or overly harsh. Just a rather topic.

And yes- its possible to have a vaginal orgasm. G-spot stimulation, amoung other things, can help that along nicely.

 

[TaintedB]

Originally posted by Vixandra
My eyes are wide, stomach clenching and I'm shocked as hell.
Why on Earth would ANYONE do this? I mean, you want to peirce lacings into your back and hang from them, go right on ahead.
But REMOVING a body part?
And having one's Dom/me do it?

There's a huge fetish community into exactly that. Most of them are not bdsm and do self removal (sticking toes and legs and fingers in dry ice is a common way--after a while the afficted parts get necrotic and have to be removed by a doctor to save the person's life). They're very passionate about it. I can get into this kind of thing in fantasy very strongly, but I don't think I'd ever pursue it in real life. I've heard of a very few women advertising in fetish venues for someone to remove their breasts, but they are very extreme cases and I don't know if they ever actually carried through with it with anybody. They certainly got a lot of attention though, there's a lot of men out there with heavy de-breasting fantasies.

Those are extreme examples. We've been conditioned by popular culture to see lesser bodymods, like back lacings, in a blase way but it wasn't that long ago when these, too, would have been seen as horrific mutilations and clear symbols of disturbed self-hatred. It's hard to define where a change to a body becomes a harmful multilation. A lot depends I think on how the person feels about it, and that isn't easy to know, no matter what they say about it. I'm personally very mixed on the subject.

 

[TaintedB]

Originally posted by AvaAdore

Heh, this just reminded me of something. Have you ever had sex when taking codeine?

Mind drugs are unpredicatable. When I am happy and relaxed, C. enhances my desire. So does pot, although a lot of people in that potheads thread in the General forum claim it does the opposite for them.

I know of only one absolutely failsafe libido killer and I only wish it upon my worst enemies. Extreme prolonged stress.

Thanks for the answer about the desire/hormone issues. I was guessing that was the case but wasn't sure. Wouldn't it be a kicker if a woman got her clit removed so she wouldn't feel desire but then discovered she was still intensely horny all the time, but couldn't ever do anything about it, because she couldn't even have vaginal orgasms? Talk about a living hell.

--Taint

 

[TaintedB]

Originally posted by ownedsubgal
i'm going to look more into just how a female circumcision would effect one's physical response.

By all means, report back here with what you learn. This is a very interesting subject.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I didn't know there were dr's that would perform this. Looking back, should have realized that some could and would do it.

In Australia it is outlawed in at least 3 states and one territory with moves to make it nation wide as far as I know. There used to be some doctors in Western Australia which advertised their services and attracted clients from throughout the country who believed this was still an okay thing to do according to their religious, cultural, or health reasons. It has long been a practoce of some Islamic factions, though it is not mentioned in the Koran as something which is necessary or even suggested.

It can cause serious medical complications, and death in some, and does not necessarily end sexual desire or pleasure contrary to the beliefs of some. In an Amnesty International report on female genital mutilation which may or may not include removal also of the labia, or sewing up of the vaginal opening, it is noted it is thought the mind compensates for the loss by developing other paths to achieving sexual desire and pleasure. Interesting info on this page I managed to find in my bookmarks. http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm#a11

Catalina

 

[s'lara]

Biased opinion since i don't believe the removal of sexual pleasure somehow serves to purify the sub's sexual service.

i can see the interest in terms of the need to further move into the mindset of full service without regard to ones physical reactions. If this surgery is to focus or purify the sub's sexual service so that she can move beyond stimulus, then i believe that is one step in a direction toward not objectification, but rather total disregard for the things that makes one human.

After the removal of the ability to have sexual pleasure (from what i've read, a cliterctomy doesn't remove all feelings of sexual pleasure), what's next? If this procedure purifies sexual service, why not have a procedure that removes all other "inconveniences" that may detract from our service? Such as a menstrual cycle (for those squeamish about using sub's during this time), or pregnancy, or any other events that may disrupt or contaminate the sub's ability to serve? How about the pleasure a submissive receives from serving period? Isn't that pleasure somehow distracting and/or impure when what should be of primary interest is the Dominants feelings/pleasure? How does one eliminate that pleasure if we're going for the fully devoted service sub?

i admit that it is an enticing thought to be subjugated to the point of a vessel for sexual use without the ability to enjoy such use, however, i think a cliterctomy is the first step towards obliterating all the things that makes someone an enjoyable piece of property. Once you begin to remove the natural responses, what else is there?

i believe there is merit in working to overcome certain responses in order to better serve the Dominant. That struggle is work in itself, so i personally see the surgery as a way to make sexual service easier by removing the chance of difficulty with self sexual arousal. While i don't believe every act performed by the sub should be fraught with hurdles, i do believe challenges should be present. It keeps you from feeling apathetic about a task that would become rote-like.

To look at it in another way, there could be plus to this for some. i guess if having sexual pleasure was a burden rather than a joy, i could see how this procedure would be attractive. Could fix a lot issues where the head is mixed up because of the body. Quick fix for sexual confusion in one surgical procedure. Sexual lobotomy as it were. Eh.

lara

 

[RavenSpirit2k4]

Not surprisingly, I agree with many of the opinions expressed here. Medical details aside, removing a sub's (male or female) ability to orgasm would ruin a lot of my pleasure from his or her service, not the other way around.

Orgasm control is one of my major kinks. Hell, you might say it's my utmost kink. I want every orgasm my sub has to be at my will. When the sub has an orgasm (with permission) because of what I'm doing to him or her, it's a confirmation of my power.

This is why cumming without permission is such a grave offense - once you're mine, your orgasms belong to me. I deny orgasms to intensify the sub's authorized orgasms as much as possible, not just to prolong my own pleasure.

 

[Pure]

owned sub said,


i think it[circumcision] would be rather nice, no longer having those guilty feelings about being sexually aroused, no longer having to fight to push selfish thoughts of my own physical wants out of my mind.

[subsequently osg said,]
---
i'm going to look more into just how a female circumcision would effect one's physical response. i imagine lusty feelings would still be there, but nothing physically could ever match up. and likely in time that lack of stimulation could perhaps cause even the sexual feelings/emotions to fade or even die as well.
====

I agree with several posters, like Ava, that the circumcision operation (even in radical form, removing the clit and inner labia) will not extinguish desire. Nor 'selfish' (sensual) thoughts. Nor do I think it would take away the ability to come to orgasm.

Sex drive is a function of estrogen, and testosterone, etc.

Removing a clit, is like removing, say, the part of a penis that extends beyond the body.

To extinguish sex drive, you'd have to counteract the existing hormones, and/or administer others. In surgical terms, that might involve removing the ovaries. (Just as male desire is dimished by testicle removal.)

Even that is not sufficient, however; some castrated males have erections and 'come.' And have sensual desires (desire is mostly 'in the mind').

Sexuality is in the brain, nervous system, body; removing a bit of plumbing (other than ovaries or testicles) does not have that much effect.

=====
It's a different question why a master/mistress might want to extinguish desire (with consent). Perhaps to increase docility?

Yet another questing is of the reasons a sub might want to make that 'offering' to the master/mistress. Certainly some male subs have offered their testicles.
-------

As several posters mention, however, a sub with desires and needs, and orgasmic capacity is potentially "trainable" and moldable because of those desires. I.e., the orgasm can be a reward for a few weeks of housework and cooking.

Further, clit and penises, intact (not to speak of testicles) are possible objects of torture, another reason for leaving them; the tiny floggings that the clit makes possible are possibly a treat for the master/mistress.

 

[Learn Humility]

I would hope that most would agree with me when I say that it increases my pleasure and my feelomg of power over another to know that my submissive is deriving pleasure from whatever means I am using to stimulate her.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I would hope that most would agree with me when I say that it increases my pleasure and my feelomg of power over another to know that my submissive is deriving pleasure from whatever means I am using to stimulate her.

This is most certainly the majority view, and nothing wrong with it. However, I know exactly what OSG is talking about and she's not alone in her kinkage.

 

[Pure]

rr:This is most certainly the majority view, and nothing wrong with it. However, I know exactly what OSG is talking about and she's not alone in her kinkage.

By no means, is she alone. The extinction of the sub's sexual desires and/or pleasures is possible goal, roughly legal, if there is consent.

The main point I was making was that, to get there would require more than removal of a couple external items, in a woman.