Capitulation to barbarism.

fatmammycat

Not content with slicing and dicing infant boys in the name of religion, the AAP has given the green light to the mutilation of infant girls too, this time under the guise of 'culture'.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-academy-of-pediatrics-aap-is-advocating-for-us-pediatricians-to-perform-certain-types-of-female-genital-mutilation-fgm-92871624.html

Unreal and disgusting. How long before people start making the same demands on our shores?

Morgase

Disgusting is right. I just don't understand how people supposed to "do no harm" are agreeing to this.

I must point out that I am against circumcision or mutilation being performed on minors of either gender.

seenitall

Well, words fail me

It's a topsy-turvy world we live in all right, even in the supposedly civilised countries.

Kanye

How is this different to circumcision of baby boys?

Perspective, like.

Bonito

Kanye wrote: »

How is this different to circumcision of baby boys?

Perspective, like.

AFAIK circumcision of a baby boy does not involve any sensitive tissues being snipped as it is the foreskin that is removed. On top of that they don't even remove the entire foreskin these days.

As for girls. Their clitoris is the most sensitive and intimate part of their body. Some could lose all sensations within it if it were "pricked" or "snipped". This would destroy their sex life when they're of age.

Also, a lot of babies will explore their anatomy when they're growing. They'll discover what spots are sensitive, sore, ticklish etc from a very young age. If a baby girl were to have no sensations down there they would never be able to be fully compatibale with their body as they get older. they'd have no idea what it was/is for.

Does it state in the report how much they want to "snip" or "prick" a baby girls' clitoris? If it did I missed it.

Kooli

Kanye wrote: »

How is this different to circumcision of baby boys?

Perspective, like.

I thought the OP was suggesting that neither should be allowed (which I would agree with).

Wreck

That's really shocking from the AAP.

Wreck

Actually I can't find any other confirmation of this, except the release from equality now reprinted elsewhere. The policy is still very much against it on the AAP website - http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;125/5/1088#SEC4

Rented Mule

I was circumcised as a child. It's not a big deal to me, but when I had the option of having my son circumcised, I made sure that he was not 'cut'.

DeVore

Bonito wrote: »

AFAIK circumcision of a baby boy does not involve any sensitive tissues being snipped as it is the foreskin that is removed. On top of that they don't even remove the entire foreskin these days.

I'm guessing you're female

DeV.

Wibbs

DeVore wrote: »

I'm guessing you're female

DeV.

yea, the oul turtle neck is defo not insensitive.

Ickle Magoo

Why anyone would want to mutilate their child's genitalia, have them undergo a potentially life threatening, life changing & completely unnecessary operation is beyond me. There seems to be a horrifically long list of really awful things that parents inflict on their offspring in the name of love, culture and tradition; genital mutilation has to be near the top...

Wibbs

I'm sorry if this is true, then its mad. Honestly? Sod "culture" when it causes any damage to children. Full FGM isnt in the islamic faith. It's mentioned by Mohammad AFAIR and he says you shouldnt, but if you have to only "nick" the area. Presumably where that angle comes from. I could never understand a god that required an upgrade to human 1.0.

fatmammycat

Infants, boy and girls, ought NOT to have pieces removed from their bodies at the behest of a religion or culture. It's as simple as that. And pandering to this kind of crap will open the door to normalising it, just as no one bats an eye lid to circumcision Stateside.

Bonito

DeVore wrote: »

I'm guessing you're female

DeV.

Wibbs wrote: »

yea, the oul turtle neck is defo not insensitive.

No no. I didn't mean it's insensitive but I'm sure you'd agree it wouldn't be as sensitive as a girls clitoris.

Truley

Bonito wrote: »

No no. I didn't mean it's insensitive but I'm sure you'd agree it wouldn't be as sensitive as a girls clitoris.

Foreskin is not a birth defect and I think the issue of male circumcision is an even bigger concern in this part of the world, especially the states because it's actually considered acceptable and from what I gather there is alot of social pressure put on parents, regardless of religion to have it done. It's sad really

Bonito

Truley wrote: »

Foreskin is not a birth defect and I think the issue of male circumcision is an even bigger concern in this part of the world, especially the states because it's actually considered acceptable and from what I gather there is alot of social pressure put on parents, regardless of religion to have it done. It's sad really

Wait, so, they're saying a clitoris is a birth defect and that's why they're pushing for female circumcisions?

Wibbs

While male newborn circumcision is a far less invasive and damaging procedure, the mindset when its embedded in the culture is similar to the female version and you hear similar reasons. It's cleaner, it's tradition, it reduces masturbation(one of the biggest reasons for the male version taking off in america), it looks better, his/her father/mother had it done, its a religious duty etc. Thats the mindset going on. Look in the US concerning the male version. Over 90% of male babies are snipped. It's part and parcel of the post birth world for a male baby and a natural penis can be considered "odd" and wrong. A mate of mine had a child in the US with an american woman and he had to really fight(in fact waved solicitors in the medics faces) to stop them doing it as a matter of course. They then put the pressure on his wife, but she's got a lot of backbone and basically told them to feck off.

Thats in the "enlightened" west. Now imagine the same scenario with more traditional cultures? Uphill struggle to stop them practicing FGM. That's what you're up against. If they pull the religious angle people can often back down as they feel dubious about the "its their culture" angle. Guess what, some cultures are less valid in some of their practices. Simple as, even if that can be a hard pill to swallow for the live and let live brigade. In some cultures its fine to beat your wife, even advised, or leave her without any social support. We would rightfully go batshít about that so why stop there?

If they pull the religious angle then you can bring in scholars to put them right. I recall seeing a Muslim scholar in Africa making it his duty to inform the locals that FGM wasn't on and against Islam. His biggest obstacle were the older women. In the US as much the men continue the practice in their sons as the women so no shock there. Even some Jewish scholars are questioning the religious reason. Before about the 1 century AD jewish boys had very little tissue removed. It was a "nick" more than anything. It was only after jewish men entered the greek games and hid their jewishness(as the greeks considered cut men disgusting), that the fundy headmen decided on the more extreme version of circumcision we have today. So that tradition is invented BS, just like FGM.

FGM has been practiced for 1000's of years as a way to control women in certain cultures. It's not Islamic, though it was practiced by some of the tribes in early Islam. It's a dangerous cultural fossil and should be stamped out(ditto for automatic non medical male circumcision too).

Hellrazer

Hope the mods dont mind me posting this but its an article on FGM from a Body Mod book that I just read--The book is called the "Encyclopedia of Body Modification" and covers every aspect of body mods from Tattoos/Piercings right up to this.Its an interesting article and really shows the in my opinion small mindedness of the procedure and its barbaric nature especially the bit about the so called tools used in carrying it out.Its a good read if you can put up with reading the whole article.

Clitoridectomy refers to the partial or full removal of the clitoris. While it sometimes goes by the name of female circumcision, this is a misnomer, and technically refers to the practice of removing the clitoral hood. Many opponents of the practice of clitoridectomies refer to it as female genital mutilation (FGM).
While clitoridectomies were performed by doctors during the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries to controlmasturbation and other signs of “excessive”sexuality in women, the practice is most associated with Arab, Muslim, and NorthAfrican countries.
Today, clitoridectomies and infibulation, in which the clitoris and labia minora
are removed and the labia majora is sewn together, are commonly performed on young girls around the world. West Africa, North Africa, East Africa, and the Arab Peninsula are the areas in which it is most commonly practiced, although it is also found in any country with large immigrant populations from these areas, such as France or the United States. Among the Muslim populations in Somalia, Egypt,Sudan, Ethiopia, and Mali, as many as 95 percent of all women are reported to have undergone the procedure, and in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq, it is also common. It is more commonly practiced in Sunni Muslim cultures than in Shia communities; Shia Muslims often remove instead a piece of the clitoral hood.
In total, the World Health Organization estimates that 100 million women have
undergone genital mutilation procedures while Amnesty International estimates
that 130 million women have been operated on, over 2 million each year.
Girls are typically operated on during their early childhoods, and always prior
to the onset of puberty. By removing the clitoris, the mothers and grandmothers who typically perform the surgeries ensure that their daughters can experience no sexual pleasure; this is done to ensure that they will be virgins upon marriage and will remain faithful to their husbands after marriage. A girl who has had her clitoris removed is considered to be a good candidate for marriage, whereas one who has not is often considered unmarriageable, or at the very least, she will not fetch a very high brideprice.
In many Arab and Muslim cultures, women are said to be sexually dangerous,
and female genital mutilation is a way to control their sexuality. Because a woman’s behavior can bring shame or honor on her family and her husband’s family, by ensuring that she does not stray there is no danger of her shaming her family. In addition, a woman who does not stray in marriage will only bear children who are legitimate heirs to her husband’s lineage, which is also critical in the patrilineal societies in which clitoridectomy is practiced. Finally, the clitoris is seen as a masculine organ in some cultures so a girl with a clitoris is seen as masculine, not to mention dirty.
In Africa, the practice is often associated with traditional initiation rites, and
sometimes occurs at the same time that boys’ circumcision rituals do, and in some non-Muslim cultures, such as among the Masai, it is not intended to control female sexuality, but simply to mark a girl as a woman, although the result is the same.The surgery itself is performed typically outside of a hospital and by women who are not medical practitioners. Tools include scissors, knives, or pieces of glass, and sterilization is not practiced, nor is anesthesia used. Because of the conditions, the practice, which is quite painful, commonly results in infections, excessive bleeding, scarring, and sometimes death, and long-term problems include urinary and reproductive difficulties, including, ironically, sterility. The most common result, however, is the intended one, which is the elimination of a woman’s main organ of sexual pleasure, and thus is opposed by feminists as a human rights
violation.
While Western and non-Western feminists as well as health and human rights
organizations are opposed to female genital mutilation, women continue to perform the procedure on their daughters and granddaughters. For them, there are a great many benefits. When women’s only opportunity in life, for example, is tied to getting married, then a procedure that ensures marriageability and increases the odds of finding a higher status husband will certainly be a powerful force. Also in countries where adultery for a woman is punishable by death, or at the very least where a woman who strays from her marriage is ostracized forever, then ensuring chastity by any means is certainly an important concern. A promiscuous girl in these cultures is often a girl who is risking her life.In African countries without as great a focus on a girl’s sexuality, clitoridectomies are performed as part of a rite of passage that makes a girl a woman, raising her status and demonstrating her maturity, submissiveness, and ability to withstand pain (which will be needed in childbirth). It is also often seen as an important community ritual in which the girl receives moral instruction from her elders and is bonded to the generations before her who have undergone the procedure.
Advocates also note that girls who undergo the procedure will have a stronger
bond with their husbands since there will be no risk of her cheating on him, that he will treat her better knowing that she will not stray, and that she will love him even more because her love will not be based on sexual passion.
Female genital mutilation is prohibited throughout the West, and some African
countries prohibit it as well, such as the Central African Republic, the Ivory Coast,Ghana, Guinea, Senegal, Tanzania, and many countries, such as Indonesia and Egypt, have been attempting to eradicate it through education. Others are trying to ensure that the procedure is only done in a hospital. Thanks to outreach work by health officials and to the United Nations’ condemnation of the practice, many countries have seen a drop in the practice.
In 2006, the United States saw its first criminal case against female genital mutilation go to court, when an Ethiopian immigrant was charged and convicted with cutting off his 5-year-old daughter’s clitoris with a pair of scissors. There are well over one hundred thousand girls living in the United States whose parents come from countries that practice female genital mutilation, so this will no doubt not be the last case.
Some African and Arab feminists who oppose female genital mutilation also oppose Western attempts to abolish it, and instead are working to educate women and to create alternative initiation rituals for girls. Women’s health organizationsin Kenya, for example, have come up with a ritual called Ntanira Na Mugambo, which means circumcision by words, as a replacement for traditional rituals.
Another issue which would need to be addressed is to change the economic
circumstances that only allow a woman economic and social mobility through
marriage.
In the West, a small number of modern body modification practitioners
choose to have their clitorises removed in order to negate their sexuality. Some women elect to have their clitorises removed, and others remove the clitoral hood and often the labia as well, resulting in just a vaginal and urethral
opening.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Ugh nothing annoys me more than respecting culture in itself no matter what the content.

Even here and the UK there's less obvious gruesome stuff thats potentially just as bad.

Like peopel being allowed to have kids with their cousins. Multiplys chances of horrific genetic diseases. But no one will criticise because they might offend someone's culture.

What's bizarre about this case is there doesn't seem to be any reason for AAP to come out with it.

Wreck

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What's bizarre about this case is there doesn't seem to be any reason for AAP to come out with it.

I looked into this a little more and I really don't think the AAP did come out with this. There's certainly nothing official from the AAP, and the only mentions of it I can find are based on the press release by Equality Now. It would be a really wierd volte-face from the AAP, so I'm guessing it's either a mistake or something take out of context.