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

Wibbs

Phimosis is a medical condition and a minority one at that. No one is suggesting that medical intervention is off the books in such a circumstance. That's got eff all to do with routine MGM. IT would be akin to removing the majority of girl's breast tissue in childhood to stave off breast cancer. And what's more, many cases of said condition can be resolved without lopping of a large part of the penile tissue that is the usual go to route, even among western doctors that should know better. For example. Use of steroid cream another option for the milder cases.

obplayer

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

There is actually some medical reason for male circumcision in that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer. The reason is that one of the big causes of cervical cancer is the genital HPV virus (causing genital warts) which in men is carried largely in the foreskin.
That said there is no reason for male circumcision before the age of puberty, and only then with informed consent, and no reason at all, as far as I can see for female circumcision at any age. Also female circumcision is vastly more harmful. I am not condoning either practice simply saying that FGM is far worse.

Wibbs

obplayer wrote: »

There is actually some medical reason for male circumcision in that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer. The reason is that one of the big cases of cervical cancer is the genital HPV virus (causing genital warts) which in men is carried largely in the foreskin.

Actually the jury is still way out on that one and condoms have a much higher protective function, as does the HPV vaccine.

That said there is no reason for male circumcision before the age of puberty, and only then with informed consent,

Agreed.

and no reason at all, as far as I can see for female circumcision at any age. Also female circumcision is vastly more harmful. I am not condoning either practice simply saying that FGM is far worse.

Again the least form of FGM is analogous to male circumcision. How come one is somehow beyond the Pale at all times and the other isn't? Again it's cultural and until it's seen in that vein and that angle is explored and countered, FGM will continue. Like I said for say an American woman to come out against the practice is laudable, but the same American woman might be resolute in her insistence that her newborn boy is mutilated and that circle is hard to square.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I don't think that saying that you find FGM as it is currently practiced (i.e. up to including the stuff venus in furs described) more objectionable than MGM as it is currently practiced (i.e. limited to removal of foreskin and most often carried out in hospital) should at all imply that you're OK with MGM or would/should be ok with milder FGM. The same cultural acceptability of MGM that you're on about means that in practical terms the two practices are apples and oranges. They're both horrible, but imo they're largely separate causes, at least in a western European or U.S context

obplayer

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually the jury is still way out on that one and condoms have a much higher protective function, as does the HPV vaccine.

Agreed. Again the least form of FGM is analogous to male circumcision. How come one is somehow beyond the Pale at all times and the other isn't? Again it's cultural and until it's seen in that vein and that angle is explored and countered, FGM will continue. Like I said for say an American woman to come out against the practice is laudable, but the same American woman might be resolute in her insistence that her newborn boy is mutilated and that circle is hard to square.

The jury is not out and has not been for at least 25 years.
Yes condoms have a higher protection but in their absence the male being circumcised helps. The HPV vaccine has only become available recently. Yes they are both culturally driven practices but FGM is much, much worse. If you are faced with two wrongs, one of which is manifestly worse than the other which do you turn your resources against? Anyway this is a thread about FGM, if you want to start one about MGM I will debate you there.

Wurzelbert

i think islam may indeed not be the main culprit for once...though i am pretty sure there may well be a connection, at least in the acceptance of the practice...i remember reading that over 90% of egyptian women are circumcised nowadays...now i would like to know whether that was also the case before muslims conquered and islamicized the country...do we have good sources on the history of fgm?
and while we are talking about mutilation, i recommend checking out male circumcision as practiced in yemen or among australian aborigines for example...shocking stuff as well...

conorhal

My only question is, if 500 cases have been detected, why are there not 500 sets of parents sitting in police holding cells waiting to be questioned?
If 500 children from any other comunity had a hot Iron held to their genitals or their nose sliced off by their parents they certiantly would be. People can dance around the issue all they like, but that figure suggest that the authorities are simply ignoring child abuse. End of story. Rotherham 2.0

Wurzelbert

Venus In Furs wrote: »

[...]
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).
[...]

remember reading about that and seeing pictures of it in my dad’s - he is a urologist - specialist books...shocking stuff indeed...

goose2005

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

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

There is no reason whatsoever for circumcision. There are some spurious arguments that it may make STDs less likely - but the same is true of FGM. The same is true of

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.

Only because comparison tends to involve the most extreme cases of FGM vs. the least extreme examples of male circumcision. In many cultures circumcision is carried out without sterile instruments and mutilation/death happen all the time.

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/male-and-female-circumcision-are-equally-wrong/

jank

So, why are the parents not in court facing prosecution? Or would that be too un-PC?

BeerWolf

I'm baffled as to WHY the parents of girls that underwent FGM aren't being prosecuted ... ?

Wurzelbert

obplayer wrote: »

There is actually some medical reason for male circumcision in that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer. The reason is that one of the big causes of cervical cancer is the genital HPV virus (causing genital warts) which in men is carried largely in the foreskin.
That said there is no reason for male circumcision before the age of puberty, and only then with informed consent, and no reason at all, as far as I can see for female circumcision at any age. Also female circumcision is vastly more harmful. I am not condoning either practice simply saying that FGM is far worse.

can the supposed link between male circumcision and any form of cancer (cervical or penis) be seen as proven beyond doubt by now? i used to think of it as just a theory, but i might not be up-to-date...what proof is there? any good scientific studies with unambiguous results? or do fully circumcised countries like israel have significantly fewer such cancer cases in the age groups in question? would be interesting to know...

qt3.14

obplayer wrote: »

There is actually some medical reason for male circumcision in that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer. The reason is that one of the big causes of cervical cancer is the genital HPV virus (causing genital warts) which in men is carried largely in the foreskin.

There's potential medical benefit to FGM too.

General population study in Tanzania found in "Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17320788

Study on Senegalese prostitutes found that those who had had fgm performed had a "significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755

Doesn't make FGM any less of a barbaric practise. Mutilating any infant, for non present threat medical reasons, should be outlawed.

Grayson

obplayer wrote: »

The jury is not out and has not been for at least 25 years.
Yes condoms have a higher protection but in their absence the male being circumcised helps. The HPV vaccine has only become available recently. Yes they are both culturally driven practices but FGM is much, much worse. If you are faced with two wrongs, one of which is manifestly worse than the other which do you turn your resources against? Anyway this is a thread about FGM, if you want to start one about MGM I will debate you there.

It still involves mutilating the genitals of little boys. can you honestly imagine anyone excusing FGM because it provides a minimal health benefit?

Wurzelbert

porsche959 wrote: »

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

the difference is that fgm and mgm are the norm in certain cultural and religious communities, and none of them originate from europe...while child abuse of any kind has never been more than a number of cases in the western world...i’d wager over 99% of catholic priests in europe have never touched an altar boy...

o1s1n

Wurzelbert wrote: »

...i’d wager over 99% of catholic priests in europe have never touched an altar boy...

And where are you getting this statistic from?

Wurzelbert

o1s1n wrote: »

And where are you getting this statistic from?

just my own guess...have you seen serious statistics on that?

spikeS

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

conorhal

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

Or a compromise deal perhaps? How about, you can slice off your daughters clitoris with a razorblade, but if she feels resentful about it later in life she's entitled cut the head off your penis with the same?

shalalala

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

Political correctness gone insane. I cannot even begin to comprehend how you think this is logical.

There was a channel 4documentary about FGM about a year ago. 4OD it and get yourself educated.

Wibbs

Heavenly Mammoth Earphone wrote: »

I don't think that saying that you find FGM as it is currently practiced (i.e. up to including the stuff venus in furs described) more objectionable than MGM as it is currently practiced (i.e. limited to removal of foreskin and most often carried out in hospital) should at all imply that you're OK with MGM or would/should be ok with milder FGM. The same cultural acceptability of MGM that you're on about means that in practical terms the two practices are apples and oranges. They're both horrible, but imo they're largely separate causes, at least in a western European or U.S context

Hang on, so because one form is more culturally acceptable that means it's somehow lesser, even OK in a cultural context? Many people in those cultures that practice FGM would be in agreement with you, including the women who have been mutilated. That's the thing, just as circumcised men in cultures like the US are more usually insistent that their own sons are surgically altered at birth, circumcised women in those cultures insist on the same for their daughters. It's the women who perform the "surgery" in the majority of cases. As one Muslim Imam lad in Tanzania IIRC found out. He was dead set against the practice and was pointing out that it is not a requirement of Islam and the men in the culture were coming around, but headway with the women was much more difficult. Cultural biases and pressure run strong.

It really boils down to this; FGM of any form takes away the right to the bodily integrity of women and removes part of their genitals erogenous tissue and that is wrong. MGM takes away the right to bodily integrity of men and removes part of their genital's erogenous tissue and that is wrong. Severity between the practices is certainly a part of it, but both remove the right to bodily integrity entirely because of cultural reasons and as such both are equally and objectively wrong. To dismiss one type as not culturally relevant is subjective cultural bias.

Grayson

conorhal wrote: »

Or a compromise deal perhaps? How about, you can slice off your daughters clitoris with a razorblade, but if she feels resentful about it later in life she's entitled cut the head off your penis with the same?

You just made me cross my legs.

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

It's not a Muslim thing. It's not mentioned in the Koran and there are no Muslim councils that encourage it.
A lot of Muslims do it but so to a lot of Christians. And as Wibbs points out, in a lot of these cultures it's ironically the women who do it. Women who were circumcised want the same for their children. A lot of them believe it make them more hygienic.

qt3.14

Wibbs wrote: »

Hang on, so because one form is more culturally acceptable that means it's somehow lesser, even OK in a cultural context? Many people in those cultures that practice FGM would be in agreement with you, including the women who have been mutilated. That's the thing, just as circumcised men in cultures like the US are more usually insistent that their own sons are surgically altered at birth, circumcised women in those cultures insist on the same for their daughters. It's the women who perform the "surgery" in the majority of cases. As one Muslim Imam lad in Tanzania IIRC found out. He was dead set against the practice and was pointing out that it is not a requirement of Islam and the men in the culture were coming around, but headway with the women was much more difficult. Cultural biases and pressure run strong.

It really boils down to this; FGM of any form takes away the right to the bodily integrity of women and removes part of their genitals erogenous tissue and that is wrong. MGM takes away the right to bodily integrity of men and removes part of their genital's erogenous tissue and that is wrong. Severity between the practices is certainly a part of it, but both remove the right to bodily integrity entirely because of cultural reasons and as such both are equally and objectively wrong. To dismiss one type as not culturally relevant is subjective cultural bias.

Add to that the fact that mgm in the west isn't always the clinical process many imagine. In the orthodox jewish community there's a high rate of hep infection in infant males because of the way circumcision is performed. Again though, that gets a get out of jail free because of muh cultural context!

Wurzelbert

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, [...]

you would not mind young girls getting forcibly held down, cut up and mutilated in a horrible way? in your neighborhood? just for the sake of not interfering with another culture?

MrPudding

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

You know it actually is ok to say something is wrong, even if it is someone's culture...? And this is clearly wrong. If it is their culture, then their culture is wrong.

MrP

crockholm

A poster starts a thread about a large number of Girls being exposed to an illegal and dangerous practice and our resident spawn of "old hippy" just complain about Crocodile tears from the guy who starts it. Wonderful.

Indeed,some of AH better known contributers only contribution to this thread is to thank posts which attack the OP.

Back on topic-This is now a test of how seriously the authorities are going to deal with FGM.

Akrasia

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

F*ck that sh1t!

Let adult women volunteer to cut bits off themselves as much as they like. But FGM is the mutilation of children. No 'respect for culture' should allow this practice.

jimgoose

spikeS wrote: »

I am torn on this FGM is awful but I don't think we should be interfering with Muslim culture either, maybe we should try to discuss it with them and eventually they will change their mind on FGM over time without us forcing our ways on them.

C'mere, FGM is not the buffalo and the people who practice it are not the Sioux. Mutilating children in the name of "culture" is objectively wrong and that's the end of it.

Wurzelbert

crockholm wrote: »

[...]This is now a test of how seriously the authorities are going to deal with FGM.

yup, and with that also a test of how far down the drain europe already is...

JaseBelleVie

shalalala wrote: »

There was a channel 4documentary about FGM about a year ago. 4OD it and get yourself educated.

"The Cruel Cut" it was called. I remember watching it when it was on TV. It is horrendous watching, but should nearly be required watching for everyone.

Also, the Penn & Teller: BULLSH*T! episode surrounding Circumcision (of boys) should also be required viewing.

Just shows how horrible and barbaric both of these "operations" are.

If you are an adult and want these things done to you. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. Be happy.

But when adults inflict these mutilations on children. Nope. No. No way. F*ck that. Religion or culture be damned. Do not mutilate your children's genitals, for f*ck sake!