Almost 500 cases of female genital mutilation identified in just one month in England

RobYourBuilder

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

Apologies, so if, and that's a big if, its all Muslims who are the involved in these cases, its represents 0.2% of all female Muslims in the UK, that it is likely then a cultural issue, with sfa to do with Islam?

Your maths are a bit off there, bud.

It's a mixture of both. For example, Islam condones the sunna circumcision.

obplayer

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Almost 500 cases of female genital mutilation identified in just one month in English hospitals - Independent.ie



http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/almost-500-cases-of-female-genital-mutilation-identified-in-just-one-month-in-english-hospitals-30935618.html

French Muslims are sending their girls to the UK for the practice to be carried out;



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/female-genital-mutilation-a-huge-problem-in-u-k-1.2439423

FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1986 yet only one person has been brought to trial, a trial that's happening right now. Evidently, it's an issue that isn't taken very seriously.

It's horrendous that people do this to their children in the name of religion. I hope that the British can stamp it out there, but I'd also hope that we can help stop the barbaric practice occurring in Africa and the Middle East too. Perhaps we can insist that education on the issue is provided to the people as a stipulation on foreign aid and development given to the countries where it's practiced.

I can see nothing in the article which mentions Muslims. What is said is

"So if in your country of origin, you cut your girl, then it’s possible in England as well.’’

JaseBelleVie

Can't we all just agree that FGM is one of the most horrible "operations" known to humanity? Whether it is performed for cultural or religious reasons is totally irrelevant. It is deplorable in any case and should be stamped out everywhere it is being performed.

reprise

bodice ripper wrote: »

Is this the "Look What The Muslims Did Now" forum?

Seriously?

It's LGBT for months!

Even Joeytheparrot had to move in.

BlaasForRafa

porsche959 wrote: »

You only start threads on 'delicate' issues that reflect badly on Muslims or brown-skinned peoples.

As I've asked you before, how come nothing from you on the Roman Catholic Church or British establishment child abuse scandals?

If you want threads on the Roman Catholic Church or British establishment child abuse scandals then YOU go and start them!

Otherwise quit it with your whataboutery and trying to deflect from the subject of the thread.

Gatling

Absolute animals

obplayer

bodice ripper wrote: »

But, if cases were found, they must have been reported? I don't follow you.

Sorry, I'll clarify. They have not been reported to the police or if they have then they have been ignored, either by the police or the DPP.

bodice ripper

reprise wrote: »

Seriously?

It's LGBT for months!

Even Joeytheparrot had to move in.

No, I meant your analogy only made sense if this was the MuslimWatch forum.

Venus In Furs

RonanP77 wrote: »

What's the reason for FGM or the logic behind it ? Is it meant to make them less appealing or take the fun out of things for them?

Yeh, following is grossly graphic:

The vagina is sewn up apart from a tiny opening and the clitoris damaged so as not to yield pleasure. The "tightening" up is to make things more pleasurable for the man while simultaneously less pleasurable for the woman.
Then there's childbirth, and non stop problems urinating. The practice is often carried out in filthy conditions (and, it has to be said, often carried out by, and staunchly endorsed by, women).

Still you'll get the "What about men"-ers though on these debates, which blows the mind.

bodice ripper

obplayer wrote: »

Sorry, I'll clarify. They have not been reported to the police or if they have then they have been ignored, either by the police or the DPP.

There are a whole bunch of factors then.

It's not that I don't think FGM is a major problem, I am just cynical about why it was brought up.

obplayer

bodice ripper wrote: »

There are a whole bunch of factors then.

It's not that I don't think FGM is a major problem, I am just cynical about why it was brought up.

Why-ever it was brought up I'm glad it is getting much needed attention in Britain.

BlaasForRafa

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Still you'll get the "What about men"-ers though on these debates, which blows the mind.

If that's so it's a pity. I think male circumcision is pointless except in cases of medical need but there really is no comparison to the long-term damage and misery caused by FGM.

Raging_Ninja

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If that's so it's a pity. I think male circumcision is pointless except in cases of medical need but there really is no comparison to the long-term damage and misery caused by FGM.

Theres utterly no comparison whatsoever. One is a valid medical procedure, the other is mysoginistic barbarism.

reprise

bodice ripper wrote: »

No, I meant your analogy only made sense if this was the MuslimWatch forum.

No it doesn't. AH is not bound to a specific topic but does discourage posting of topics where there is a dedicated forum.

You, like everyone else, are not compelled to read or contribute to any thread that is not to your taste on AH. You are of course free to start your own that are.

Venus In Furs

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If that's so it's a pity. I think male circumcision is pointless except in cases of medical need but there really is no comparison to the long-term damage and misery caused by FGM.

I actually staunchly object to male genital mutilation being carried out on a baby or a young boy against his will - it's ****ing barbaric IMO.
There are grown men (not just Jewish men) who choose it though, whether rightly or wrongly. I don't agree with them doing so, but they still do choose to. Catholic lads in Ireland like, not the Upper East Side or Tel Aviv.

The "what about men" argument in this regard is that discussions about genital mutilation should be non gender specific, which is just bizarre. There are differences between the two.
Nothing wrong with a discussion about the two together IMO, but nothing wrong with a discussion about only FGM or only MGM. To see that as gender discrimination is just cracked.

Annasopra

reprise wrote: »

No it doesn't. AH is not bound to a specific topic but does discourage posting of topics where there is a dedicated forum.

You, like everyone else, are not compelled to read or contribute to any thread that is not to your taste on AH. You are of course free to start your own that are.

Indeed. We are also perfectly free to point out that the OP has an agenda and is obsessesed with pointing out any and all flaws of muslims and immigrants.

bodice ripper

reprise wrote: »

No it doesn't. AH is not bound to a specific topic but does discourage posting of topics where there is a dedicated forum.

You, like everyone else, are not compelled to read or contribute to any thread that is not to your taste on AH. You are of course free to start your own that are.

Your analogy made no sense.

I am also free to say "chap's got an agenda".

RobYourBuilder

If you don't like my threads;click on my username and go four down. Click on it. When it asks if you are sure that you want to put RobYourBuilder on your ignore list, click yes.

Problem solved. You'll never have to read them again.

reprise

bodice ripper wrote: »

Your analogy made no sense.

I am also free to say "chap's got an agenda".

And he's free to say you've a massive chip on your shoulder. Riveting.

Sonderkommando

obplayer wrote: »

We have plenty of threads attacking Christianity, this one is about FGM and why Britain seems to tolerate it.

The very same posters highlighted this hypocrisy in the Rotherdam case by trying to bring the Catholic church in at every opportunity.

One religion is a punch bag and the other a sacred cow to some people on these boards it would seem.

obplayer

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I actually staunchly object to male genital mutilation being carried out on a baby or a young boy against his will - it's ****ing barbaric IMO.
There are grown men (not just Jewish men) who choose it though, whether rightly or wrongly. I don't agree with them doing so, but they still do choose to. Catholic lads in Ireland like, not the Upper East Side or Tel Aviv.

The "what about men" argument in this regard is that discussions about genital mutilation should be non gender specific, which is just bizarre. There are differences between the two.
Nothing wrong with a discussion about the two together IMO, but nothing wrong with a discussion about only FGM or only MGM. To see that as gender discrimination is just cracked.

As a man I have to say that I completely accept that FGM is a vastly more severe procedure and deserving of first attention.

reprise

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Indeed. We are also perfectly free to point out that the OP has an agenda and is obsessesed with pointing out any and all flaws of muslims and immigrants.

And you don't have an unholy obsession or an agenda with LGBT?

Who are you to dictate or moralise on what people have an interest in?

Annasopra

reprise wrote: »

And you don't have an unholy obsession or an agenda with LGBT?

Who are you to dictate what people have an interest in?

Im not dictating anything.

bodice ripper

reprise wrote: »

And he's free to say you've a massive chip on your shoulder. Riveting.

Why have I got a chip on my shoulder?

reprise

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Im not dictating anything.

Then join in and stop derailing the thread.

bodice ripper wrote: »

Why have I got a chip on my shoulder?

I'm not your shrink.

JaseBelleVie

Yes, routine infant circumcision performed on baby boys and young boys is awful. But the fact of the matter is that a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised penis function pretty much the same way. There are slight differences, but circumcised guys experience sexual pleasure and can urinate without difficulty, just as uncircumcised guys can.

Women who have had FGM inflicted upon them are mutilated and their sexual functionality and urinary functions are completely, deliberately and detrimentally affected permanently.

I am vehemently opposed to routine/cultural male circumcision (I even went to great lengths personally to avoid getting a circumcision for a medical ailment), but FGM is far more serious and is in need of far more direct action than male circumcision.

bodice ripper

reprise wrote: »

Then join in and stop derailing the thread.



I'm not your shrink.

So, not going to back it up?

Wibbs

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

Rob, do you accept FGM has nothing to do with Islam?

Well that's a complex area. It is mentioned in some Islamic texts, specifically among the various stories of the life of Muhammed. In it he doesn't ban the practice, but does say not to take too much away. Nice of him. It was quite the thing among what the Greeks and Romans would have seen as "barbarians". The reason Christians alone among the Abrahamic faiths don't have it as a given is because the Greco Roman world considered it beyond the Pale and only for primitives. It's also why Christians can eat lovely lovely bacon.

RonanP77 wrote: »

What's the reason for FGM or the logic behind it ? Is it meant to make them less appealing or take the fun out of things for them?

Like male circumcision it's another a bronze age blood sacrifice/rite to a bronze age god. In the Jewish faith it's a covenant with their god, to mark them as separate culturally. Both got traction back in the day and were codified later and became ingrained in various societies. Both for the exact same reasons and excuses. Indeed even today the notion that the male form protects against HIV infection is also used as an excuse/reason for the female form as statistically women who have suffered FGM are less at risk from HIV. Both are mostly utter bollocks statistically BTW. The male form does reduce HIV transmission to some degree, mainly because the head of the penis constantly exposed becomes toughened and grows a layer of keratinised skin which makes it harder for the virus to penetrate. Agin that is the fact that the US of A with a majority of mutilated men has a far higher incidence of HIV than say Sweden where the practice is applied to a tiny minority.

Wibbs

obplayer wrote: »

As a man I have to say that I completely accept that FGM is a vastly more severe procedure and deserving of first attention.

OK, well then would you be OK with the lesser forms of FGM which are analogous to the male form? IE removal of the clitoral hood. Can you imagine the uproar if a culture had 80% of baby girls clitoral prepuces removed? And if it was medically supported and backed by medical insurance and the like?

The fact is that this stuff is incredibly culturally based and biased. EG Oprah Winfrey came out as a staunch advocate for banning FGM, yet in another episode happily touted oul wan skin cream that had ingredients based on discarded baby boys foreskins. Her culture sees MGM as part and parcel of the culture and not such an issue, but FGM is done by the barbarians, the "fuzzy wuzzies" out there(irony of ironies). To those cultures that practice it they see it as a requirement of their culture, just like many in the US(though it's slowly changing) see the male version as equally required. And again for the exact same reasons; religion, his/her father/mother had it done, the opposite sex prefer it, it reduces over sexuality and masturbation, it looks "better", it's "our" culture.

Raging_Ninja

For male circumcision, please google 'phimosis' and look at the images.