>>1704

>Now you took it too serious
Not really. *g*
I just tried to show, that whatever weired scenario people can come up with, somebody else already did it. Even the aftermaths of your "peanut idea" is not new enough. Round about one half of the most wealthiest women made it into the list by heritage. LOL.

>"However the custom originated, [...]"
>This is pretty obviously wrong [...]
You realized, that I literally cited a paragraph from Gerry Mackie's article? I ask, because you contradict him, although you recommended his text. This is basically ok, I only want to make sure, that I understand it right.

I think his description is correct:
A man does not accept an unmutilated women, because he thinks she could cheat on him; and a woman accepts mutilation, because she thinks a man could think she could cheat on him, if she is not mutilated. As soon as this continued reflection is established, the same applies to the convention - no matter from where it originated.
That is what the paragraph says.

Its a "vicious circle" or a "self-fulfilling prophecy" which cannot be broken easily. Even if you want to marry you can't without a partner, who accepts you. And this is, where the critical mass comes into play. But this was already mentioned.

(My) Conclusion:
Except for your three sentences concerning "obviously wrong", "almost impossible" and "only question" I can more or less agree with your post. Well, may be more "more" and less "less". :D