1st UK prosecution for Female Genital Mutilation "imminent"
Discussion
onomatopoeia said:
I agree with all of this, but the fact that it is much worse for female children doesn't mean that it should not be stopped in male children as well. Obviously there are powerful religious lobbies that would be suitably outraged, but that's no reason for the government not to legislate.
Bishops in the Lords not withstanding (that needs to be sorted out as well), our government is supposed to be secular.
Don't start bashing the bishops. Oh, wait...Bishops in the Lords not withstanding (that needs to be sorted out as well), our government is supposed to be secular.
dave_s13 said:
I don't think the two things should even be part of the same debate. FGM is barbaric and removes a vital body function.
Bloody terrifying what people will do to an innocent child in the name of cultural beleif. Non comprendo!
I think they very much should be. Stop chopping bits off of babies, it's very simply and should be entirely banned.Bloody terrifying what people will do to an innocent child in the name of cultural beleif. Non comprendo!
Breadvan72 said:
Knob cheese? [/Inappropriate]
Hey I just mentioned cheese, others can make the innuendos.That said though (and hold with me here please Mods!) as I understand it the practice all starts off as having been done not to religious reasons but for the reasons of health and cleanliness when living in hot and sticky climates with lots of sand and little water. At some point, to get the masses on board, it was turned into a religious thing - as with the no porky pig, no shellfish and so on.
Now in the 21st century this might seem like an old thing that should have died out with the bubonic plague, yet the basic health benefits of not having a load of wasted skin for gunk and sand and nasty willy eating bugs to hide in still remains.
As it goes I’m not too shy and age 5 the extra skin wasn’t growing as fast as the rest was and so it was removed (there is rumour that I am 1/32 ‘Oivey!’ but this could be old family hearsay and had nothing to do with it!)
I do not put circumcision in the same league as FGM. In fact I intensely dislike the emotive and mis leading suggestion that it should be labelled MGM. FGM is horrific and utterly barbaric leaving the victim with significant pain and discomfort , often for life and almost always when engaging in intercourse. It also removes (depending on the level of FGM involved) any pleasure for the lady. Circumcision only even tends to result in a little loss of length (hardship
) and glands being exposed that are normally covered and so there can be a little loss of sensitivity ( all I know is that I find things just dandy thank you). There are medical and health benefits to the circumcision or men, none at all when it is applied to women that I have ever heard of.All of the above said I do not feel that there is any reason circumcision should be allowed on religious grounds. Ear lobes are fairly useless but I can’t see the removal of these from children, on religious grounds only, being allowable... If there is a medical reason and circumcision is recommended by a doctor then it should be done. If you are over 18 and want it done you should be allowed to, as should it be allowed if you have reached puberty and have the support of at least one of your parents.
To summaries – FGM is never acceptable. Circumcision is not MGM, and brings benefits but should not be allowed on pure religious grounds.
Zod said:
Breadvan72 said:
The non medically indicated circumcision of infant males is a disgraceful thing, but Female Genital Mutilation GM is, I have to say, even worse than what is done to boys in the name of stupidity. Even to read about FGM can be very harrowing.
I agree entirely. THe American non-religious mania for male circumcision is bizarre.That said, FGM is on a completely different level.
It was more the point of using the notion of religious traditions imposed on infants.
Dromedary66 said:
The Germans had a good effort a year ago to try and ban male genital mutilation, but tragically some high powered Jews and Muslims managed to prevent that happening.
The Swedes and the Danes will hopefully have more luck with this
http://www.jta.org/2014/01/26/news-opinion/world/s...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/02/d...
See the Mohel gazing intently into that baby's eyes? I wonder if he will be sucking the blood from its bleeding penis - http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-viru...
Frankly I am just appalled that we live in a world where this is even a debate that needs to be had.
The Americans are at least finally realising the error of their ways, the rates there have dropped from 80% to around 50% last time I checked. Still a long way to go of course.
There was a recent case where the Mohel slipped and got more than the foreskin, resulting in a requirement for microsurgery and potential nerve damage. This is one of those situations where it should be illiegal outside of a hospital and then work to get the religions to drop the practice, otherwise it will go underground after all it is going to be a damned difficult law to police and enforce. The Swedes and the Danes will hopefully have more luck with this
http://www.jta.org/2014/01/26/news-opinion/world/s...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/02/d...
See the Mohel gazing intently into that baby's eyes? I wonder if he will be sucking the blood from its bleeding penis - http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-viru...
Frankly I am just appalled that we live in a world where this is even a debate that needs to be had.
The Americans are at least finally realising the error of their ways, the rates there have dropped from 80% to around 50% last time I checked. Still a long way to go of course.
Rude-boy said:
Hey I just mentioned cheese, others can make the innuendos.
That said though (and hold with me here please Mods!) as I understand it the practice all starts off as having been done not to religious reasons but for the reasons of health and cleanliness when living in hot and sticky climates with lots of sand and little water. At some point, to get the masses on board, it was turned into a religious thing - as with the no porky pig, no shellfish and so on.
Now in the 21st century this might seem like an old thing that should have died out with the bubonic plague, yet the basic health benefits of not having a load of wasted skin for gunk and sand and nasty willy eating bugs to hide in still remains. No it doesn't, we have soap now
As it goes I’m not too shy and age 5 the extra skin wasn’t growing as fast as the rest was and so it was removed (there is rumour that I am 1/32 ‘Oivey!’ but this could be old family hearsay and had nothing to do with it!)
I do not put circumcision in the same league as FGM. In fact I intensely dislike the emotive and mis leading suggestion that it should be labelled MGM. FGM is horrific and utterly barbaric leaving the victim with significant pain and discomfort , often for life and almost always when engaging in intercourse. It also removes (depending on the level of FGM involved) any pleasure for the lady. Circumcision only even tends to result in a little loss of length (hardship ) and glands being exposed that are normally covered and so there can be a little loss of sensitivity ( all I know is that I find things just dandy thank you). There are medical and health benefits to the circumcision or men, none at all when it is applied to women that I have ever heard of.
All of the above said I do not feel that there is any reason circumcision should be allowed on religious grounds. Ear lobes are fairly useless but I can’t see the removal of these from children, on religious grounds only, being allowable... If there is a medical reason and circumcision is recommended by a doctor then it should be done. If you are over 18 and want it done you should be allowed to, as should it be allowed if you have reached puberty and have the support of at least one of your parents.
To summaries – FGM is never acceptable. Circumcision is not MGM, and brings benefits but should not be allowed on pure religious grounds.
If there are health benefits, allow people to choose as an consenting adult to have it done. Do not force your decision on others.That said though (and hold with me here please Mods!) as I understand it the practice all starts off as having been done not to religious reasons but for the reasons of health and cleanliness when living in hot and sticky climates with lots of sand and little water. At some point, to get the masses on board, it was turned into a religious thing - as with the no porky pig, no shellfish and so on.
Now in the 21st century this might seem like an old thing that should have died out with the bubonic plague, yet the basic health benefits of not having a load of wasted skin for gunk and sand and nasty willy eating bugs to hide in still remains. No it doesn't, we have soap now
As it goes I’m not too shy and age 5 the extra skin wasn’t growing as fast as the rest was and so it was removed (there is rumour that I am 1/32 ‘Oivey!’ but this could be old family hearsay and had nothing to do with it!)
I do not put circumcision in the same league as FGM. In fact I intensely dislike the emotive and mis leading suggestion that it should be labelled MGM. FGM is horrific and utterly barbaric leaving the victim with significant pain and discomfort , often for life and almost always when engaging in intercourse. It also removes (depending on the level of FGM involved) any pleasure for the lady. Circumcision only even tends to result in a little loss of length (hardship
) and glands being exposed that are normally covered and so there can be a little loss of sensitivity ( all I know is that I find things just dandy thank you). There are medical and health benefits to the circumcision or men, none at all when it is applied to women that I have ever heard of.All of the above said I do not feel that there is any reason circumcision should be allowed on religious grounds. Ear lobes are fairly useless but I can’t see the removal of these from children, on religious grounds only, being allowable... If there is a medical reason and circumcision is recommended by a doctor then it should be done. If you are over 18 and want it done you should be allowed to, as should it be allowed if you have reached puberty and have the support of at least one of your parents.
To summaries – FGM is never acceptable. Circumcision is not MGM, and brings benefits but should not be allowed on pure religious grounds.
You have neatly over looked all the complications that can and do occur when being circumcised.
Also: Mutilate
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
So yes, it is MGM, it is not emotive to accurately describe it.
Rude-boy said:
I intensely dislike the emotive and mis leading suggestion that it should be labelled MGM.
MGM- Male genital mutilationMale- it's done on those who are male
genital- that's the part it's done on
mutilation- change, from the same root as mutate. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutate
How is it emotive & misleading?
Robb.
Just as I neatly left out the potential complications when the procedure goes wrong you neatly missed this bit:-
[quote] All of the above said I do not feel that there is any reason circumcision should be allowed on religious grounds. Ear lobes are fairly useless but I can’t see the removal of these from children, on religious grounds only, being allowable... If there is a medical reason and circumcision is recommended by a doctor then it should be done. If you are over 18 and want it done you should be allowed to, as should it be allowed if you have reached puberty and have the support of at least one of your parents.
[/quote]
Also as you will have read it wasn’t exactly me decision, nature made it a requirement.
As for your definitions of mutilate I would suggest that this is a question of those who like Picasso and those who favour Monet. I’m straight so not really bothered about the appearance of anyone’s other than mine but 1. It is not essential, nor crippling. It is not disfiguring (if I had to say so I think things are much better trimmed,) and most certainly it does not make things imperfect. Indeed some have it done to try to cure them of their PE issues. This is all fairly subjective though and hence I consider use of the word ‘mutilation’ to be emotive BS. The word adds no value, only indication of the stance of the writer/speaker in the same way that no extra money for the NHS is called a cut in budget.
Engineer – If I were to try to make a widget making machine I would likely get close but doubt that would be a ¼ as good as one you had made. Likewise I am not a fan of Rabbi Roseberg’s razor and think that, on balance, circumcision should only be carried out by a properly qualified professional in a medical environment (ie hospital or doctors surgery if that is considered acceptable.) It is also not just UTI it helps prevent but it can stop sores, things getting stuck, snapping and damage during sex, helps reduce the chances of STIs. On balance if I had the choice I’d be cut tomorrow if I wasn’t already!
We have heard an lot about why people should not have it done from the “They could cut your willy off!1!!1! OMGZ LOZS” to the potential complications. Yet very little of what, if any, benefits there are to keeping it. Indeed I have yet to see a positive other than that it avoids a very minor procedure with a miniscule risk of complications if it is done properly in the right environment. Please can someone enlighten me as to what I am missing out here (other than a ¼”)
Just as I neatly left out the potential complications when the procedure goes wrong you neatly missed this bit:-
[quote] All of the above said I do not feel that there is any reason circumcision should be allowed on religious grounds. Ear lobes are fairly useless but I can’t see the removal of these from children, on religious grounds only, being allowable... If there is a medical reason and circumcision is recommended by a doctor then it should be done. If you are over 18 and want it done you should be allowed to, as should it be allowed if you have reached puberty and have the support of at least one of your parents.
[/quote]
Also as you will have read it wasn’t exactly me decision, nature made it a requirement.
As for your definitions of mutilate I would suggest that this is a question of those who like Picasso and those who favour Monet. I’m straight so not really bothered about the appearance of anyone’s other than mine but 1. It is not essential, nor crippling. It is not disfiguring (if I had to say so I think things are much better trimmed,) and most certainly it does not make things imperfect. Indeed some have it done to try to cure them of their PE issues. This is all fairly subjective though and hence I consider use of the word ‘mutilation’ to be emotive BS. The word adds no value, only indication of the stance of the writer/speaker in the same way that no extra money for the NHS is called a cut in budget.
Engineer – If I were to try to make a widget making machine I would likely get close but doubt that would be a ¼ as good as one you had made. Likewise I am not a fan of Rabbi Roseberg’s razor and think that, on balance, circumcision should only be carried out by a properly qualified professional in a medical environment (ie hospital or doctors surgery if that is considered acceptable.) It is also not just UTI it helps prevent but it can stop sores, things getting stuck, snapping and damage during sex, helps reduce the chances of STIs. On balance if I had the choice I’d be cut tomorrow if I wasn’t already!
We have heard an lot about why people should not have it done from the “They could cut your willy off!1!!1! OMGZ LOZS” to the potential complications. Yet very little of what, if any, benefits there are to keeping it. Indeed I have yet to see a positive other than that it avoids a very minor procedure with a miniscule risk of complications if it is done properly in the right environment. Please can someone enlighten me as to what I am missing out here (other than a ¼”)
Rovinghawk said:
MGM- Male genital mutilation
Male- it's done on those who are male
genital- that's the part it's done on
mutilation- change, from the same root as mutate. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutate
How is it emotive & misleading?
See above.Male- it's done on those who are male
genital- that's the part it's done on
mutilation- change, from the same root as mutate. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutate
How is it emotive & misleading?
If you really want to use the word mutilate go ahead. It just detracts form the discussion, as does even having it in the same thread as FGM. One is horrific and barbaric, the other has bugger all negative and much positive about it if done properly.
Personally (and I am not trying to turn this into an religious thing) I really do think that many who object to circumcision are doing so only because of the religious angle. If it were looked upon without religion being involved I reckon it would be as hotly debated as ear piercing.
Rude-boy said:
Personally (and I am not trying to turn this into an religious thing) I really do think that many who object to circumcision are doing so only because of the religious angle. If it were looked upon without religion being involved I reckon it would be as hotly debated as ear piercing.
Sure it is... http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/23912521/mother-...Personally I think the only reason FGM is seen as worse than MGM is because women matter more in our society.
Robb F said:
If there are health benefits, allow people to choose as an consenting adult to have it done. Do not force your decision on others.
You have neatly over looked all the complications that can and do occur when being circumcised.
Also: Mutilate
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
So yes, it is MGM, it is not emotive to accurately describe it.
According to that criteria (number 3) I underwent MGM last saturday morning when I had a vasectomy.You have neatly over looked all the complications that can and do occur when being circumcised.
Also: Mutilate
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
So yes, it is MGM, it is not emotive to accurately describe it.
Does this now mean I need a cuddle or something.
ADM06 said:
...Personally I think the only reason FGM is seen as worse than MGM is because women matter more in our society.
Err....the reason I see FGM as worse than "MGM" is that the former deprives someone of all sexual pleasure and can cause chronic pain.The latter, on the whole, just means your bell end gets a bit more air time!
dave_s13 said:
According to that criteria (number 3) I underwent MGM last saturday morning when I had a vasectomy.
Does this now mean I need a cuddle or something.
I would assume that by being able to use a computer or smartphone to make that post, you are also old enough to understand the risks and make an informed decision to consent to that operation.Does this now mean I need a cuddle or something.
ADM06 said:
Personally I think the only reason FGM is seen as worse than MGM is because women matter more in our society.
b
ks. FGM is by far worse.It's horrific mutilation on usually extremely vulbnerable people.
To compare it to having your foreskin cut off is exceptionally crass. I suggest you read the details of what full FGM is.
There has been a lot of coverage on the guardian lately, I cannot read the articles without getting massively upset and angry. People caught doing it should be banged up for life.
I cannot fathom in my head how a father or mother could let that happen to their daughter. It's so far out of my thought range to be imcomprehensible.
vonuber said:
bks. FGM is by far worse.
It's horrific mutilation on usually extremely vulbnerable people.
To compare it to having your foreskin cut off is exceptionally crass. I suggest you read the details of what full FGM is.
There has been a lot of coverage on the guardian lately, I cannot read the articles without getting massively upset and angry. People caught doing it should be banged up for life.
I cannot fathom in my head how a father or mother could let that happen to their daughter. It's so far out of my thought range to be imcomprehensible.
I know exactly what it is. I've seen the show with the Muslim girl, who insisted that it wasn't a religious problem despite all the victims and perpetrators belonging to one religion.ks. FGM is by far worse.It's horrific mutilation on usually extremely vulbnerable people.
To compare it to having your foreskin cut off is exceptionally crass. I suggest you read the details of what full FGM is.
There has been a lot of coverage on the guardian lately, I cannot read the articles without getting massively upset and angry. People caught doing it should be banged up for life.
I cannot fathom in my head how a father or mother could let that happen to their daughter. It's so far out of my thought range to be imcomprehensible.
She then went on to say that people shouldn't be so PC, and if it was white vaginas people would actually care.
You probably didn't even click the link I posted. Too late for him anyway.
It's not a competition between whether FGM or male circumcision is worse.
The fact that people are now being prosecuted for FGM is excellent news and long overdue. It doesn't mean that all the men need to jump up and down pointing at their cocks and shouting, 'But what about the men!? What about the men!'. The two things don't need to be set against each other to try and attain some weird kind of equality.
The fact that people are now being prosecuted for FGM is excellent news and long overdue. It doesn't mean that all the men need to jump up and down pointing at their cocks and shouting, 'But what about the men!? What about the men!'. The two things don't need to be set against each other to try and attain some weird kind of equality.
I agree that calling weither "mutilation" does not advance the debate, it's a bit like demanding abortion is called murder.
You can object to the practice of either male or female circumcision without using emotive language, language designed to evoke a response.
Personally I think both should be unaccetpable in children. If when they grow up they want the process, they should be allowed to have it done.
WRT it being a religious practice, I believe the woman stated that it was done by Christians as well as Muslims, so it's a cultural practice adopted into faith, rather than vice versa. Either way it is objectionable of course.
You can object to the practice of either male or female circumcision without using emotive language, language designed to evoke a response.
Personally I think both should be unaccetpable in children. If when they grow up they want the process, they should be allowed to have it done.
WRT it being a religious practice, I believe the woman stated that it was done by Christians as well as Muslims, so it's a cultural practice adopted into faith, rather than vice versa. Either way it is objectionable of course.
ADM06 said:
Sure it is... http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/23912521/mother-...
Personally I think the only reason FGM is seen as worse than MGM is because women matter more in our society.
That botched male circumcision - that is pretty much what a routine FGM amounts to.Personally I think the only reason FGM is seen as worse than MGM is because women matter more in our society.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff