Female genital mutilation (FGM)

Cycling Dumbasses

On bbc news at the moment tough watching.

ardinn

Thats how I roll !!!

Cycling Dumbasses

ardinn wrote: »

Thats how I roll !!!

Not funny

ardinn

Its not - they hurt for days!

Cycling Dumbasses

ardinn wrote: »

Its not - they hurt for days!

Its a very serious issue

ardinn

I KNOW!!!!!!

Cycling Dumbasses

ardinn wrote: »

I KNOW!!!!!!

Whats your view on it?

old_aussie

Laurel and Hardy , Lets cut to the chase

tritium

How about sharing your views on it op? Do you feel there's a cultural aspect to be respected? Do you think all types of fgm are wrong or just the more extreme versions? How do you feel it compares to male genital mutilation as an issue? Etc etc....

martinedwards

without any anesthetic or medical care it is brutal abuse at it's worse.

even WITH anesthetic its brutal and denies the woman a fulfilling sex life when she's grown

as for cultural traditions?

not for me, but if you ARE going to do it, at least do the anesthetic

Chancer3001

Read up on dr kelloggs.

The guy who invented corn flakes.

He was big into this kind of thing.

An absolute freak of a man.

Karl Stein

Adults cutting bits of children's genitalia off.

Creepy shit.

keeponhurling

So we're all against this, right ? Assuming it's not racist to be against stuff in other cultures.

Down with this sort of thing, won't somebody please think of the children

Mike 1972

keeponhurling wrote: »

Assuming it's not racist to be against stuff in other cultures.

Has anybody seriously suggested such a thing outside of the realm of made up stories in the Daily Mail ?

UCDVet

I wonder how much of this is cultural?

If you came from a culture where everyone did it; you'd think it was normal.
If you came from a culture where nobody did it; you'd think it was barbaric.

Same could be said of the things we do to baby boys....

Vinz Mesrine

Let's do something about it, send in the UN or whatever was suggested in the China one child policy thread. Let's force western policies on everybody else.

Karl Stein

keeponhurling wrote: »

Assuming it's not racist to be against stuff in other cultures.

How the fuck is it racist to be against cutting bits off children's genitalia?

There are over a billion people who subscribe to this unnecessary adult on child violence. Many children die from infections and other complications because of this creepy practice.

Tiddlypeeps

UCDVet wrote: »

I wonder how much of this is cultural?

If you came from a culture where everyone did it; you'd think it was normal.
If you came from a culture where nobody did it; you'd think it was barbaric.

Same could be said of the things we do to baby boys....

What do we do to baby boys?

sparesandwich

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

What do we do to baby boys?

Nice try there, father.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Some Rabbis bite a child's foreskin off and then suck the childs penis until it stops bleeding.

Creepy.

kylith

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Some Rabbis bite a child's foreskin off and then suck the childs penis until it stops bleeding.

Creepy.

Not just creepy, babies have contracted herpes and died because of that practise.

Gbear

kylith wrote: »

Not just creepy, babies have contracted herpes and died because of that practise.

And it hasn't happened in some backwards ****-hole like one of the ultra-orthodox parts of Isreal, it was in New York.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/07/health/new-york-neonatal-herpes/

As someone pointed out above, it's not FGM; it's the genital mutilation of children. It's astonishing how some people can be so blasé about it but that's culture for you. At no stage do they actually stop and think about what they're doing.

UCDVet

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

What do we do to baby boys?

I'm not saying either is a good practice, nor am I saying either is a bad practice but....

Male circumcision is pretty common in many western cultures. The medical arguments for it are pretty weak (well, if they grow up and have unprotected sex with an HIV infected woman, he will have a smaller chance of catching HIV). Lots of guys have had it done and they think it is normal, they have wives and girlfriends (or boyfriends, whatever) and have sex, and they think it's just grand. No problem at all.

Female circumcision is pretty uncommon, except for a few places. The medical arguments for it are pretty weak. Inside those cultures, lots of women have had it done and think it's normal, and have husbands/boyfriends/sex and it seems to work pretty okay for them. Most of them *want* their daughters to have it done. It's grand. No problem at all.

But when we look at the practice, since we don't do it to our daughters we think it is barbaric. We even call it 'female genital mutilation' - but by what definition is removing a functional piece of skin from one of the most sensitive parts of a man's body not mutilation - by any textbook definition, it is. Just the naming issue alone shows a cultural bias. If we call it female circumcision, it feels like a reasonable thing, since we're cool with male circumcision - so we call it female GENITAL MUTILATION...so we can all, instantly, know that it is bad.

Personally, I don't care much either way. But I see a lot of parallels between the two and I really don't see how someone can be okay with one and not the other. Sure, one is more extreme than the other - but it's like saying stealing more than 100 euro is a crime, but stealing less than 50 euro is totally cool.

FGM can lead to severe incontinence particularly after giving birth

Women may experience chronic pain, chronic pelvic infections, development of cysts, abscesses and genital ulcers, excessive scar tissue formation, infection of the reproductive system, decreased sexual enjoyment and psychological consequences, such as post-traumatic stress disorder.
Additional risks for complications from infibulations include urinary and menstrual problems, infertility, later surgery (defibulation and reinfibulation) and painful sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse can only take place after opening the infibulation, through surgery or penetrative sexual intercourse. Consequently, sexual intercourse is frequently painful during the first weeks after sexual initiation and the male partner can also experience pain and complications.
When giving birth, the scar tissue might tear, or the opening needs to be cut to allow the baby to come out. After childbirth, women from some ethnic communities are often sown up again to make them “tight” for their husband (reinfibulation). Such cutting and restitching of a woman’s genitalia results in painful scar tissue.

and

During pregnancy there are many further complications that may occur as a direct result of the FGM. Labour may become obstructed and if early medical intervention is not provided this may lead to the death of both baby and mother. WHO estimates that many women giving birth die in the process, simply as a result of FGM 19. If the mother and baby survive there is the risk of damage to the vagina leading to the formation of fistulas into the bladder or bowel, which cause constant incontinence as a result of a vessico-vaginal fistula or recto-vaginal fistula. Women in this condition are often rejected by their family and become social outcasts.

At the onset of menstruation
Dysmeorrhoea: when the post-infibulation vaginal whole is too small there is a constant stagnation of menstrual blood and other vaginal secretions, causing bacteria to spread into the vaginal and uterine cavities. This is likely to increase the risk of chronic pelvic inflammation that might cause the severe abdominal cramps experienced by infibulated females during menstruation
Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection: because of the flap of skin obstructing the urethra after infibulation, urine does not jet out during micturition. Instead, it hits the flap of skin obstructing the vulva and is then sprayed back into the vagina and then trickles out in drops. This obstruction also prevents proper vaginal hygiene and drainage and causes urinary stasis which is likely to cause recurrent urinary tract infection
Possible Second FGM: because the small artificial opening that had previously permitted the passage of urine becomes insufficient to permit the drainage of the more viscous consistency of menstrual bleeding, doctors often have to convince the parents of these girls that the small vaginal opening be enlarged to permit the flow of menstrual blood.

http://www.ednahospital.org/hospital-mission/female-genital-mutilation/

It is absolutely disgusting and no cultural relativism will make me change my mind on that one.
Male version is still wrong imo save for informed adult medical necessity. I don't know if there are similar long term effects.

hatrickpatrick

I don't understand why mutilation of children has to be either a gendered issue or a "competition" between the sexes. Any and all unnecessary (IE, not medically essential / an emergency) modification of any child's genitalia is barbaric and wrong. Everyone should have the right to bodily autonomy until they are capable of making their own decisions, unless there's a medical urgency in performing a modification.

To give you an analogy: If a kid gets appendicitis, then it's absolutely right for the parents to make the call on removing the appendix.
If there's no medical issue, then removing it should be illegal until the child is an adult. The argument for circumcision because it might guard against future medical issues is absolutely ridiculous - I might develop leg cancer later in life, so surely removing my legs at birth is a good idea?

It makes me quite sad to see this issue being made into some sort of contest. All children should be entitled to full genital autonomy with the exception of absolute medical necessity. Anything less is barbaric.
Finally, justifying it on religious grounds is ridiculous - some religions mandate animal sacrifice as well, should we tolerate that on the grounds of religious freedom...? :mad:

Sleevoo

UCDVet wrote: »

I'm not saying either is a good practice, nor am I saying either is a bad practice but....

Male circumcision is pretty common in many western cultures. The medical arguments for it are pretty weak (well, if they grow up and have unprotected sex with an HIV infected woman, he will have a smaller chance of catching HIV). Lots of guys have had it done and they think it is normal, they have wives and girlfriends (or boyfriends, whatever) and have sex, and they think it's just grand. No problem at all.

Female circumcision is pretty uncommon, except for a few places. The medical arguments for it are pretty weak. Inside those cultures, lots of women have had it done and think it's normal, and have husbands/boyfriends/sex and it seems to work pretty okay for them. Most of them *want* their daughters to have it done. It's grand. No problem at all.

But when we look at the practice, since we don't do it to our daughters we think it is barbaric. We even call it 'female genital mutilation' - but by what definition is removing a functional piece of skin from one of the most sensitive parts of a man's body not mutilation - by any textbook definition, it is. Just the naming issue alone shows a cultural bias. If we call it female circumcision, it feels like a reasonable thing, since we're cool with male circumcision - so we call it female GENITAL MUTILATION...so we can all, instantly, know that it is bad.

Personally, I don't care much either way. But I see a lot of parallels between the two and I really don't see how someone can be okay with one and not the other. Sure, one is more extreme than the other - but it's like saying stealing more than 100 euro is a crime, but stealing less than 50 euro is totally cool.

I doubt baby boys think its ok being tortured.

Grayson

Carlos Roca wrote: »

How the fuck is it racist to be against cutting bits off children's genitalia?

There are over a billion people who subscribe to this unnecessary adult on child violence. Many children die from infections and other complications because of this creepy practice.

It's grand to be accepting of other cultures. If we didn't we'd all be at war and constantly invading cultures we don't like. Err.. hang on a second.

Seriously though. You want to wrap a scarf around your head? Go ahead. You want to not eat meat on a Friday, go ahead. You want to chop off the bits of boys and girls. Well there's a line and you've crossed it.

Grayson

bluewolf wrote: »

Male version is still wrong imo save for informed adult medical necessity. I don't know if there are similar long term effects.

Well, you should read up on it then. Genital mutilation is not a gender issue. Chopping bits of boys is bad too. It's not rocket science to figure it out.


I hate the way stuff like this is politicised. It's like saying breast cancer is worse than prostate or testicular cancer.

hatrickpatrick

bluewolf wrote: »

Male version is still wrong imo save for informed adult medical necessity. I don't know if there are similar long term effects.

There are several.
You know the way guitar players eventually get thicker, toughened skin on their fingertips in order to guard against the strings damaging the original skin? When guys get circumcised at birth, because the extremely sensitive glans now has nothing to shield it from contact with material, clothes, sheets, etc it too develops a similar coating of harder skin. Since the glans is anatomically analogous to the clitoris, this essentially means that the most sensitive nerves of the penis are now buried under a layer of fibrous, tougher skin. It's pretty impossible to imagine that this doesn't lead to a significant decrease in the amount of sexual sensation. I know there have been adults who get circumcised for medical reasons and report no such loss of sensation but you have to bear a couple of things in mind there:
1: Adults who get circumcised have fully matured and developed penii. The effect is probably less than on a developing, growing organ.
2: A lot of adults who have to get circumcised have to do so because of a condition known as phimosis, whereupon the foreskin is too tight to retract at all, meaning the glans has never been able to be exposed to anything whatsoever. To such guys, an exposed glans is probably going to be more sensitive than they've experienced before when it was impossible to expose it, meaning that it's difficult to get an accurate comparison since most guys with healthy foreskins won't get circumcised in adulthood, so you're never comparing a healthy uncircumcised sensation with a circumcised one.

The crucial factor here is that no child's foreskin can retract before puberty, and before puberty is complete there's no way to tell whether natural young phimosis (which every guy has) is going to be permanent. So circumcising for that reason before the end of puberty is a complete and total waste.

Among other complications is the loss of the frenelum, which is another extremely sensitive band of skin that connects the foreskin to the glans. Also, depending on how it heals up, it's possible to have further complications with scarring etc, causing anything from decreased sensation to difficult urinating.

The bottom line is that this is really sad, because making genital modification of infants a gendered issue causes pointless tension and arguments - you can see this absolutely anywhere online. Surely most people would agree that regardless of degrees of severity, all babies should have the right to genital autonomy excepting medical emergencies?

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Surely most people would agree that regardless of degrees of severity, all babies should have the right to genital autonomy excepting medical emergencies?

Oh, I do, anyway
I just genuinely didn't know if there was much beyond the desensitising bit. But on principle it's still wrong of course

hatrickpatrick

bluewolf wrote: »

Oh, I do, anyway
I just genuinely didn't know if there was much beyond the desensitising bit. But on principle it's still wrong of course

The problem is as I said, it's almost impossible to compare like with like. You'd have to take someone who always had a fully functioning foreskin post-puberty and then he'd have to get circumcised and give it a couple of months to see if calluses developed and so on - almost nobody would actually do this willingly

There's another important point to bear in mind actually, which in my view is a little more serious - the glans is extremely sensitive, and the foreskin is there to shield it from being constantly stimulated. I can't imagine what it would be like to walk around with an exposed glans in contact with my pants all the time but I can only imagine it would be mind bogglingly uncomfortable, and for infant boys, until those calluses develop, it's not hard to imagine several months of near constant stimulation and thus irritation. Actually just thinking about what that would feel like gives me the willies (hehe couldn't resist) so that's potentially another argument against it. And of course, infants are too young to tell anyone if it hurts just walking around like that until it heals

clairefontaine

Any mutilation of infants without medical justification should be illegal.

Unfortunately people have this insane right to practise their insane religions on their poor kids. And by insane rituals, I'm looking at you Judaism and Islam.

Then we have the weirdo puritanical strains in American medicine which make male circumcision the default choice, (though this is changing) and seriously obnoxious cultural attitudes to the uncircumcised penis like eewww yuck, which oddly motivates fathers into encouraging circumcision so their sons don't grow up feeling reviled.

It is so ignorant its hard to believe it crosses all stratosphere a of educated people.

clairefontaine

UCDVet wrote: »

I wonder how much of this is cultural?

If you came from a culture where everyone did it; you'd think it was normal.
If you came from a culture where nobody did it; you'd think it was barbaric.

Same could be said of the things we do to baby boys....

That's an excuse.

I come from a culture where male circumcision is the default choice and I know its barbaric.

Forgotten about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Although that godawful "therapy" surely didn't help

hatrickpatrick

clairefontaine wrote: »

Any mutilation of infants without medical justification should be illegal.

Unfortunately people have this insane right to practise their insane religions on their poor kids. And by insane rituals, I'm looking at you Judaism and Islam.

Then we have the weirdo puritanical strains in American medicine which make male circumcision the default choice, (though this is changing) and seriously obnoxious cultural attitudes to the uncircumcised penis like eewww yuck, which oddly motivates fathers into encouraging circumcision so their sons don't grow up feeling reviled.

It is so ignorant its hard to believe it crosses all stratosphere a of educated people.

As I said overleaf I've never really understood this one - some religions mandate absolutely barbaric stuff - hell, "honour killings" are an absolute scourge on the UK it would seem - and nobody ever suggests that we should let that slide on "tolerance" grounds.

One thing that's interesting to note is the similar motivations - I've heard many times that for women the motivation is to try and repress sexuality from an early age, and I've also heard that in the Victorian era the main reason it was practised on boys was to discourage the "evil" of masturbation. It has also been claimed that circumcision originated in ancient Egypt as a way of differentiating between captured slaves and citizens, sort of like branding.

To be honest, when you really start looking into this whole issue, both with regard to boys and girls, you come away with your faith in humanity seriously dented

clairefontaine

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I said overleaf I've never really understood this one - some religions mandate absolutely barbaric stuff - hell, "honour killings" are an absolute scourge on the UK it would seem - and nobody ever suggests that we should let that slide on "tolerance" grounds.

One thing that's interesting to note is the similar motivations - I've heard many times that for women the motivation is to try and repress sexuality from an early age, and I've also heard that in the Victorian era the main reason it was practised on boys was to discourage the "evil" of masturbation. It has also been claimed that circumcision originated in ancient Egypt as a way of differentiating between captured slaves and citizens, sort of like branding.

To be honest, when you really start looking into this whole issue, both with regard to boys and girls, you come away with your faith in humanity seriously dented

Absolutely. It's incredible to me that otherwise educated enlightened people practise these, and then even more incredible the tolerance encouraged to show for these barbaric cruelties because "it's their culture" and we have to show tolerance. Why its even legal or the default setting in paediatrics in the US is seriously beyond me. Penis hatred is all I can come up with.

**** tolerance.

Examine what you tolerate, you may be part of the problem.

kylith

clairefontaine wrote: »

Absolutely. It's incredible to me that otherwise educated enlightened people practise these, and then even more incredible the tolerance encouraged to show for these barbaric cruelties because "it's their culture" and we have to show tolerance. Why its even legal or the default setting in paediatrics in the US is seriously beyond me. Penis hatred is all I can come up with.

**** tolerance.

Examine what you tolerate, you may be part of the problem.

One theory on why it's done as a matter of course in US hospitals is that it's another procedure they can charge for. This is one of the problems when healthcare is a profit making enterprise.

clairefontaine

kylith wrote: »

One theory on why it's done as a matter of course in US hospitals is that it's another procedure they can charge for. This is one of the problems when healthcare is a profit making enterprise.

That is possibly very true.

It's been pointed to as a Victorian hangover also.

Fighting Irish

Cycling Dumbasses wrote: »

Its a very serious issue

:rolleyes:

Amirani

I really struggle to understand how this is still legal in supposedly civilised countries. This is one of the things I feel that people will look back on in 100+ years and say; "how backwards were people back then?"

Femme_Fatale

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

Let's do something about it, send in the UN or whatever was suggested in the China one child policy thread. Let's force western policies on everybody else.

How is criticism of a sadistic practice "forcing western policies"?

UCDVet wrote: »

But when we look at the practice, since we don't do it to our daughters we think it is barbaric. We even call it 'female genital mutilation' - but by what definition is removing a functional piece of skin from one of the most sensitive parts of a man's body not mutilation - by any textbook definition, it is. Just the naming issue alone shows a cultural bias. If we call it female circumcision, it feels like a reasonable thing, since we're cool with male circumcision - so we call it female GENITAL MUTILATION...so we can all, instantly, know that it is bad.

You clearly don't know what it is so. And it is barbaric, it's nothing to do with us not wanting to do it to our daughters. It's just barbaric, end of. It involves slicing off the clitoris and sewing up the vaginal opening in order to make it tighter, thus making sex more pleasurable for the man and more painful for the woman. It is often carried out in communities where there is no access to sterile devices, causing a high risk of severe infection. This results in recurring infections and pain throughout life. Something as simple as urinating is beset by issues. And childbirth... doesn't bear thinking about.
So please... do a bit of research before throwing out uninformed stuff.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't understand why mutilation of children has to be either a gendered issue or a "competition" between the sexes.

I'm not sure anyone here made it into that... apart from you? Male circumcision, especially on non anaesthetised infants, is obviously barbaric also

hatrickpatrick

Cycling Dumbasses wrote: »

Its a very serious issue

Anyone else read this in Fran Da Man (Love/Hate)'s voice?

"I've a bone to pick with you. It's a very serious matter. A VERY serious matter"

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone here made it into that... apart from you? Male circumcision, especially on non anaesthetised infants, is obviously barbaric also

I guess I just take issue with taking an issue which can affect anyone and inserting a specific label in front of it to exclude others it might affect.

It's akin, in my opinion, to making a thread about burglary but calling it "burglary of white people's homes".

The thread was about a specific tv programme in fairness... Apparently

Femme_Fatale

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I guess I just take issue with taking an issue which can affect anyone and inserting a specific label in front of it to exclude others it might affect.

It's akin, in my opinion, to making a thread about burglary but calling it "burglary of white people's homes".

Well it very much is gendered - quite literally.

clairefontaine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Well it very much is gendered - quite literally.

I think its beyond gender, more about to what extent to you get to abuse your kids and have it legitimised by the state?

clairefontaine

http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/07/how-11-new-york-city-babies-contracted-herpes-through-circumcision/

In any other circumstance you put your mouth on a baby's penis and you will be arrested.

Yet this is normal in rabbis when conducting a briss.

Wibbs

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yet this is normal in rabbis when conducting a briss.

While I am 100% against infant circumcision for anything but medical reasons utterly backward and daft, I have to point out it's not "normal" for rabbis to do this. It's a tiny number in a small sect of Judaism.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

While I am 100% against infant circumcision for anything but medical reasons utterly backward and daft, I have to point out it's not "normal" for rabbis to do this. It's a tiny number in a small sect of Judaism.

Right it's orthodox. As you know Wibbs, with the exceptions of God and circumcision, I am a Judeophile, but in NYC, and maybe other cities too, this particular sect is not that small.

And the smallness of it is somewhat besides he point. They are allowed to practise it because their religion legitimises it, and is therefore backed up by the state,me hen if anyone else did this they'd be arrested on some serious grounds, imprisoned with an automatic felony and straight onto the sex offenders list.

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Male circumcision, especially on non anaesthetised infants, is obviously barbaric also

I find this distinction between anaesthetised and non anaesthetised utterly sickening and appalling. One rule for girls and another for buys. I never give any money to charities who have any involvement in fighting genital mutilation unless they apply their morals equally.

Femme_Fatale

Piliger wrote: »

One rule for girls and another for buys.

Oh go away. I've seen your woman-hating elsewhere. I said nothing of the sort and you know it. Go worship Paul Elam or something.