FGM conviction: about goddamn time

[lucasisking]

Mum guilty of girl's genital mutilation

Woman who had her three-year-old mutilated becomes first person convicted for FGM in UK

Most shocking thing about this is in the headline: the first person to be convicted, despite thousands of cases. Absolutely abhorrent practice for which there should be (and always should have been) zero tolerance.

 

[Lusankya]

This is a huge win, but as you say terrible it has taken so long.

 

[EarthRod]

Having lived in East Africa for many years I know FGM is common practice and accepted as part of a ritual. Has been carried out for thousands of years.

Removal of the male foreskin (circumcision) is also part of a ritual in many countries.

Of course if either of these operations are carried out by an amateur or done incorrectly then serious complications can develop.

 

[Sonic67]

Something that's passing through parliament. It was blocked by the same chopper who blocked the upskirting bill.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/christopher-chope-fgm-bill-blocked-details-explained/

Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill [HL] 2017-19 — UK Parliament

Sir Christopher Chope MP.

 

[IronGiant]

Has been carried out for thousands of years.

So has hanging, but both are illegal in this country, unlike male circumcision.

 

[Lusankya]

Having lived in East Africa for many years I know FGM is common practice and accepted as part of a ritual. Has been carried out for thousands of years.

Removal of the male foreskin (circumcision) is also part of a ritual in many countries.

Of course if either of these operations are carried out by an amateur or done incorrectly then serious complications can develop.

Are you suggesting FGM and circumcision are comparable?

 

[blackrod]

Are you suggesting FGM and circumcision are comparable?

I don't understand the need for either to be honest. FGM seems particularly barbaric though.

 

[rustybin]

Having lived in East Africa for many years I know FGM is common practice and accepted as part of a ritual. Has been carried out for thousands of years.

Removal of the male foreskin (circumcision) is also part of a ritual in many countries.

Of course if either of these operations are carried out by an amateur or done incorrectly then serious complications can develop.

There is absolutely no comparison.

Unless you happened to have an agenda, obviously.

 

[lucasisking]

Of course if either of these operations are carried out by an amateur or done incorrectly then serious complications can develop.

I'm not convinced that there's a 'professional' or 'correct' method of cutting off the labia & clitoris of a little girl, and sewing up her vagina. There is no benefit for her and a huge array of negatives.

I do know that in some cultures such as Somali the idea is that the husband gets to break open the sewn-up vagina with his penis, when he rapes his bride for the first time. The bloody bedsheets are proof of the girl's virginity.

In any case, the main point is it's illegal here and girls under the protection of UK law deserve justice. Good to see it being done in this instance.

 

[IronGiant]

I don't understand the need for either to be honest.

There are many medical reasons for male circumcision and it used to be done routinely in the UK along with tonsils and adenoids (in both sexes) to prevent possible issues in later life. None of these are routinely done for preventive medical reasons in the UK these days. There have never been any medical reasons to mutilate a woman's genitalia.

 

[EarthRod]

Are you suggesting FGM and circumcision are comparable?

Where in my post did I make such a suggestion?

All I'm saying is many countries (especially in Africa) continue to perform a ritual of cutting off the clitoris of very young girls.

Also, many countries perform circumcision ritual on very young boys. That is also a fact.

How on earth would you think I would suggest they are compatible?

Both these 'operations' are performed on young children for no medical reason other that it is a common and accepted ritual.

Sorry if I have upset your sensibilities.

 

[rustybin]

Where in my post did I make such a suggestion?

All I'm saying is many countries (especially in Africa) continue to perform a ritual of cutting off the clitoris of very young girls.

Also, many countries perform circumcision ritual on very young boys. That is also a fact.

How on earth would you think I would suggest they are compatible?

Both these 'operations' are performed on young children for no medical reason other that it is a common and accepted ritual.

Sorry if I have upset your sensibilities.

FGM is not an accepted ritual. You need to read up on it.

 

[Sonic67]

Are you suggesting FGM and circumcision are comparable?

Depends on what you are comparing.

Both are usually done while medically unnecessary. There may be a medical reason for male circumcision in which case fine.

Generally though it's down to "culture" or "religion" and medically unnecessary.

Both are done to children who have little or no say in it. If it's going to be done for cultural or religious reasons let people be an adult when they can decide for themselves.

Once done in either example that's pretty much it. Your body is changed forever.

So superficially comparable.

FGM is not an accepted ritual. You need to read up on it.

It's "accepted" in certain cultures, otherwise it wouldn't be done. It doesn't mean it's right.

See the "Cultural tradition" section:

BBC - Ethics - Female circumcision

 

[rustybin]

Depends on what you are comparing.

Both are usually done while medically unnecessary. There may be a medical reason for male circumcision in which case fine.

Generally though it's down to "culture" or "religion" and medically unnecessary.

Both are done to children who have little or no say in it. If it's going to be done for cultural or religious reasons let people be an adult when they can decide for themselves.

Once done in either example that's pretty much it. Your body is changed forever.

So superficially comparable.

It's "accepted" in certain cultures, otherwise it wouldn't be done. It doesn't mean it's right.

See the "Cultural tradition" section:

BBC - Ethics - Female circumcision

It's only accepted in so far as there are certain areas of this country where gang raping girls is an accepted practice. I'm not sure it's a legally accepted practice anywhere.

The point is though that it's illegal here. And that's all that matters.

 

[rustybin]

There's an absolutely insane correlation between where it's banned by law and where it's most prevalent.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) frequently asked questions

I think to use the cultural excuse is no different to excusing Tar and Feathering because 'that was culturally acceptable' in the Deep South.

 

[IronGiant]

Sorry if I have upset your sensibilities.

You are clearly suggesting that the removal of a girl's external genitalia is perfectly acceptable. As is Sonic. Be careful how you tread. Because I'm hovering over the ban button.

 

[IronGiant]

Once done in either example that's pretty much it. Your body is changed forever.

So superficially comparable.

You have to be joking. If a foreskin is removed,you still have a fully functional penis and can enjoy sex. Tell that to a woman who has all her external genitalia scraped off with a rusty knife and had her vagina sown up. Only to let her future husband know she won't ever enjoy sex and is his alone.

 

[Sonic67]

I understood where Earthrod was coming from on a superficial level. Hence why I said "superficially comparable."

BBC - Ethics - Male circumcision: Cultural and health aspects to circumcision

Disadvantages
Evidence that the foreskin has a large proportion of sensitive nerve endings has led critics to say that circumcised men experience less pleasure during sex, although there is no conclusive proof for this.

Opponents also argue that potential post-operative complications, such as excessive bleeding and infections, overshadow any possible benefits.

They say that circumcision is an unnecessary procedure.

Another criticism is that the procedure tends to happens when a boy is too young to make an informed decision about whether he should be circumcised.

Some also refer to circumcision as genital mutilation.

Note, my partners boy was circumcised. It was screwed up and has lead to several hospital visits to put right. He's now sorted.

So it caused a medical issue when there shouldn't have even been one.

You are clearly suggesting that the removal of a girl's external genitalia is perfectly acceptable. As is Sonic.

If you think that, you are way, way, off the mark. I personally don't think either is acceptable and I thought I'd made it very clear in the previous posts.

Female circumcision I think everyone knows why it is unacceptable in civilised society.

Male circumcision has some controversy.

Circumcision controversies - Wikipedia

I actually read through the posts several times to try to be certain I was making the point right and wouldn't be misinterpreted.

 

[lucasisking]

You have to be joking. If a foreskin is removed,you still have a fully functional penis and can enjoy sex. Tell that to a woman who has all her external genitalia scraped off with a rusty knife and had her vagina sown up. Only to let her future husband know she won't ever enjoy sex and is his alone.

I don't think that's where Sonic was going. He's pointing out that both are (in most cases) unnecessary procedures performed on non-consenting children for religious/cultural reasons. Hence they have something in common. One is much worse than the other, but I'd still like to see the end of both (except where male circumcision is medically necessary).

It is also true that badly performed jewish rituals have led to injury and death for boys that have had it done to them. Let's just stop mutilating children for the sake of superstition.

But I agree FGM is utterly repugnant and needs to be ejected from planet Earth tout suite.

 

[rustybin]

I don't think that's where Sonic was going. He's pointing out that both are (in most cases) unnecessary procedures performed on non-consenting children for religious/cultural reasons. Hence they have something in common. One is much worse than the other, but I'd still like to see the end of both (except where male circumcision is medically necessary).

It is also true that badly performed jewish rituals have led to injury and death for boys that have had it done to them. Let's just stop mutilating children for the sake of superstition.

But I agree FGM is utterly repugnant and needs to be ejected from planet Earth tout suite.

What about these parents who get their children's ears pierced?

 

[Sonic67]

I don't think that's where Sonic was going. He's pointing out that both are (in most cases) unnecessary procedures performed on non-consenting children for religious/cultural reasons. Hence they have something in common. One is much worse than the other, but I'd still like to see the end of both (except where male circumcision is medically necessary).

Yep. You can't have a tattoo until you are 18. How can it be the case you can't have a tattoo but you can make such a decision like this for a child?

What about these parents who get their children's ears pierced?

How about them? Chavs.

 

[IronGiant]

I actually read through the posts several times to try to be certain I was making the point right and wouldn't be misinterpreted.

I don't think that's where Sonic was going.

Thanks, got it
The main point though, is that male circumcision is never done with the sole intent of reducing sexual pleasure when the child becomes an adult.

 

[Trollslayer]

Agreed.

 

[gIzzE]

But in parts of the world it is done to males for religious reasons only, which is wrong.
And we still have quite a few children die from it each year, many from Herpes from oral circumcision. I mean...seriously?



Haha, this reminds me, on New Years eve we were sat up in the early hours talking after many bottles of red and for some reason we got chatting about the above.
My mate said he was quite old, around 12/13 when he realised he might 'need' the snip.
He spoke to the doctor and they said they could either remove the whole foreskin, or, if he preferred, just half of it.
To which he replied "What, and leave me with a f**king turtle neck? No thanks!"

That had us all in stitches.

 

[Toko Black]

Thanks, got it
The main point though, is that male circumcision is never done with the sole intent of reducing sexual pleasure when the child becomes an adult.

I agree - it's two seperate arguments essentially.

1 - that the majority of people recognise that female circumcision is an abhorrent practice founded in the cultural desire to suppress and mutilate young girls in a effort to make them more sexually compliant/docile to a prospective husband.

2 - that many people question/condemn the practice of circumcision as a whole when not done for genuine, legitimate and pressing medical needs.
While male circumcision is not close to as damaging to an individuals sexual health and welbeing as is female circumcision, both are carried out needlessly in the majority of cases for males and virtually all for females.
Both are the act of mutilating young childrens sex organs for cultural and religious reasons(many cultural beliefs on circumcision originate from religious beliefs that have become and transformed into cultural norms) and therefore should be illegal and stopped.

My personal position is of supporting both 1 & 2, but I can somewhat understand that there will be far more people that support 1 while having contrary views on 2.