I am a victim of FGM

bodice ripper

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/18/vaginal-piercings-classed-fgm-new-nhs-guidelines_n_6892376.html

Women in Britain with genital piercings are being classed as having suffered female genital mutilation (FGM), it has emerged.
The NHS compulsory reporting regulations are intended to protect women and girls from the sometimes fatal practice of intentionally altering or causing injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985, though recent studies suggest some 170,000 women and girls have undergone the procedure, while the NSPCC says 70 women a month seek treatment for the crime.
But under a directive which follows the World Health Organisation's (WHO) definition of FGM, the term also applies to any women who has consented to having her clitoris or labia pierced for fashion or sexual reasons, meaning medical professionals will be obliged to record such adornments as such.

way to render the term FGM meaningless. Plus it is a bit police statey. But the UK has been getting that way for a while.

kowloon

Where the UK goes we have a habit of following.

bodice ripper

not to go tinfoil hat, but I don't like the idea of a government either using this to inflate figures to crack down on certain immigrant groups, or to compile a list of miscreants.

Augmerson

kowloon wrote: »

Where the UK goes we have a habit of following.

Can't wait to invade a load of countries and make colonies out of them.

Faroe Islands you are ****ed.

Generic Dreadhead

You are? Well Hello there Bodice Ripper

ScumLord

kowloon wrote: »

Where the UK goes we have a habit of following.

Guess I'll have to go get a spike put through me vag first.

One eyed Jack

bodice ripper wrote: »

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/18/vaginal-piercings-classed-fgm-new-nhs-guidelines_n_6892376.html



way to render the term FGM meaningless. Plus it is a bit police statey. But the UK has been getting that way for a while.

Christ.

I thought the thread headline was a bit sensationalist, but upon reading the story, I really don't know what to make of such a bizarre...

Not even sure how to finish that. Speechless, speechless and utterly misguided actions by both the WHO and the NHS. There must be thousands of women in the UK alone that have their genitalia pierced (do these guidelines also mention nipple piercings?).

I'm really just not sure what the objective is here tbh.

Tombi!

I sort of understand why it would be considered FGM because it's well, shoving metal in that area but to actually call it that and seriously consider it, if done of your own free will is a bit... bizarre. It's like saying being tied up during sex willingly means you were raped.

One eyed Jack

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I sort of understand why it would be considered FGM because it's well, shoving metal in that area but to actually call it that and seriously consider it, if done of your own free will is a bit... bizarre. It's like saying being tied up during sex willingly means you were raped.

That's the thing I'm wondering too, is will there be a distinction made between consensual cosmetic procedures, and non-consensual and unnecessary procedures done for cultural reasons?

I read further down the article and at least one campaigner seems to be of the opinion that consensual procedures are also only the product of social pressure on women!

bodice ripper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the thing I'm wondering too, is will there be a distinction made between consensual cosmetic procedures, and non-consensual and unnecessary procedures done for cultural reasons?

I read further down the article and at least one campaigner seems to be of the opinion that consensual procedures are also only the product of social pressure on women!

if you are having your labia trimmed, it probably is.

One eyed Jack

bodice ripper wrote: »

if you are having your labia trimmed, it probably is.

But the difference surely is that no different to piercing, such procedures are also consensual? I understand the whole idea of 'designer vaginas' and so on, but I think suggesting that women only undergo these procedures due to social pressure is massively overstating or exaggerating the effect of social pressure on women to conform to some "'ideal' for men".

bodice ripper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But the difference surely is that no different to piercing, such procedures are also consensual? I understand the whole idea of 'designer vaginas' and so on, but I think suggesting that women only undergo these procedures due to social pressure is massively overstating or exaggerating the effect of social pressure on women to conform to some "'ideal' for men".

Oh, I believe they should be able to do it if they choose. and I believe social pressure and men are not one and the same thing.

its is a much bigger event than piercing though. a clit hood piercing heels very quickly and can be removed with little evidence it ever happened. i pierced my own labia years ago, and there is zero sign it ever happened now.

Mesrine65

I've a PA, does that make me a victim of MGM?

bodice ripper

Mesrine65 wrote: »

I've a PA, does that make me a victim of MGM?

nope, you can do what you like to little boys genitals.


the cynic in me thinks that might be because one religious group is more interesting to demonize than another in the current climate.

Thespoofer

Pics or gtfo

bodice ripper

Thespoofer wrote: »

Pics or gtfo

sorry, cash upfront like everyone else.

Rosie Rant

bodice ripper wrote: »

i pierced my own labia years ago, and there is zero sign it ever happened now.

Holy moly! Some woman .

bodice ripper

Rosie Rant wrote: »

Holy moly! Some woman .

it wasn't too bad.

libelula

That completely undermines a horrendous crime.

kowloon

ScumLord wrote: »

Guess I'll have to go get a spike put through me vag first.

Get in while you can.

JupiterKid

FGM is a serious issue and that OP example is not FGM.

Maximus Alexander

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I read further down the article and at least one campaigner seems to be of the opinion that consensual procedures are also only the product of social pressure on women!

The subtext here being that women are incapable of doing anything of their own free will and are just vacuous little lambs waiting to be led by 'society'.

If you follow that logic through to its conclusion, nobody does anything consensually.

jackofalltrades

bodice ripper wrote: »

nope, you can do what you like to little boys genitals.

the cynic in me thinks that might be because one religious group is more interesting to demonize than another in the current climate.

I think you're trying to create an anti-Islam angle where one doesn't exist.
FGM happens for both religious and cultural reasons.
And both Christians and Muslims carry out the procedure.
Regardless of the groups involved it should be stamped out.

Annasopra

How bizarre. How can choosing to have a piercing be fgm?

circadian

Mesrine65 wrote: »

I've a PA, does that make me a victim of MGM?

I was thinking the same thing.

circadian

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

How bizarre. How can choosing to have a piercing be fgm?

Yeah, freewill and all that. Seems a bit misguided alright since one scenario is a persons choice and the other forced against their will.

mrkiscool2

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I think you're trying to create an anti-Islam angle where one doesn't exist.
FGM happens for both religious and cultural reasons.
And both Christians and Muslims carry out the procedure.
Regardless of the groups involved it should be stamped out.

No, I took it that he was pointing out that it's perfectly fine to vilify Christianity in Ireland and complain about it saying abortion is bad "You can't decide what women do with their bodies!" but to even suggest male circumcision is bad and you have people coming down on you saying "But parents have a religious right!" and it's Judaism that is the culprit, not Islam

That's what I gathered from it anyway. I'm also atheist, so don't say I'm sticking up for one religion either. It's ok for men to be the victim of religion, but not females clearly.

Frank O. Pinion

Quick question, if a girl has done a bit of FGM to herself and has metal down there, will it hurt my fillings while eating her out, like biting down on tinfoil?

Wacker The Attacker

bodice ripper wrote: »

not to go tinfoil hat, but I don't like the idea of a government either using this to inflate figures to crack down on certain immigrant groups, or to compile a list of miscreants.

That's what I call "to the point".

Wacker The Attacker

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Quick question, if a girl has done a bit of FGM to herself and has metal down there, will it hurt my fillings while eating her out, like biting down on tinfoil?

ATM

One eyed Jack

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, I took it that he was pointing out that it's perfectly fine to vilify Christianity in Ireland and complain about it saying abortion is bad "You can't decide what women do with their bodies!" but to even suggest male circumcision is bad and you have people coming down on you saying "But parents have a religious right!" and it's Judaism that is the culprit, not Islam

That's what I gathered from it anyway. I'm also atheist, so don't say I'm sticking up for one religion either. It's ok for men to be the victim of religion, but not females clearly.

I disagreed with it when bodice ripper said it, and I disagree with it here. Nobody is suggesting that it's ok for men to be victims of religion, but this thread is about female genital mutilation.

I think this idea of classifying voluntarily cosmetic procedures as female genital mutilation, while that's what it is, the difference is consent, and I think this idea is coming less from a religious perspective, and more from a feminist one.

Even bodice ripper herself tried to suggest that women having designer vaginas done was due to social pressure -

bodice ripper wrote: »

if you are having your labia trimmed, it probably is.

By that logic, as Maximus pointed out, you're suggesting that "women can do what I like, with their own bodies", which is weird, because that's the same social pressure you're claiming is oppressive upon women?

It's the whole "Page 3 or not Page 3" debacle among feminists again, and it seems the only thing they can agree on, is that it's men's fault, again... somehow!

Weird.

DoYouEvenLift

That's actually supposed to be a professional news article yet they managed to confuse 'women' and 'woman' lmao. What's with the sudden increase in people confusing simple plurals? We learn these things when we're children.

mrkiscool2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I disagreed with it when bodice ripper said it, and I disagree with it here. Nobody is suggesting that it's ok for men to be victims of religion, but this thread is about female genital mutilation.

I think this idea of classifying voluntarily cosmetic procedures as female genital mutilation, while that's what it is, the difference is consent, and I think this idea is coming less from a religious perspective, and more from a feminist one.

Even bodice ripper herself tried to suggest that women having designer vaginas done was due to social pressure -

Oh no, this isn't directly about the FGM thing. Another poster was talking about circumsion and he was jumped on for apparently making it "an anti-muslim thing" and that "Christianity doesn't have it that bad". Which I argued against.

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm really just not sure what the objective is here tbh.

It's probably to block those adults who may consent to FGM (or female circumcision, given the term has now become meaningless, thanks to this). After all, if people are happy to consent to have spikes driven through their clitoris, labia or penis, it's not so daft to think that some will consent for the religious practice. They want to protect them from themselves.

Most anglophone countries appear to be adopting a nanny state approach to most things nowadays and so this is ultimately where it's likely coming from.

Crooked Jack

I've always found that hood piercings tend to rap off my teeth when im trying to greedily chow down on the bounty of a lady garden.
Bloody irritating.

bodice ripper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I disagreed with it when bodice ripper said it, and I disagree with it here. Nobody is suggesting that it's ok for men to be victims of religion, but this thread is about female genital mutilation.

I think this idea of classifying voluntarily cosmetic procedures as female genital mutilation, while that's what it is, the difference is consent, and I think this idea is coming less from a religious perspective, and more from a feminist one.

Even bodice ripper herself tried to suggest that women having designer vaginas done was due to social pressure -



By that logic, as Maximus pointed out, you're suggesting that "women can do what I like, with their own bodies", which is weird, because that's the same social pressure you're claiming is oppressive upon women?

It's the whole "Page 3 or not Page 3" debacle among feminists again, and it seems the only thing they can agree on, is that it's men's fault, again... somehow!

Weird.

Ah now, I did explicitly say that I believe they should be allowed to do it if they want, and that there was a difference between social pressure and men. At no point did I blame men. It didn't even cross my mind.

And I can be uncomfortable with and/or disagree with the concept of cosmetic genital surgery whilst defending their right to do so. Such discomfort about female genital piercing has been expressed on thread - and that's ok too.

RDM_83 again

Post your reply here.
IMO what they should do is make all unnecessary or cosmetic surgery illegal for any person below the age of majority, that way any anti-religious motivation would be hard to argue, if they want to do it after that is it fair to judge when you allow people to carry out scarification and tongue bifurcation and thats ok.


Devils advocate here: Doesn't moves like this risk pushing the practice even deeper underground putting lives at risk, at least in the short term.

The Corinthian

RDM_83 again wrote: »

IMO what they should do is make all unnecessary or cosmetic surgery illegal for any person below the age of majority

Well, if nothing else it'll bring the Jews and Muslims together with a common cause to fight against.

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Post your reply here.
IMO what they should do is make all unnecessary or cosmetic surgery illegal for any person below the age of majority, that way any anti-religious motivation would be hard to argue, if they want to do it after that is it fair to judge when you allow people to carry out scarification and tongue bifurcation and thats ok.

I'm reminded of a programme I was watching last night, one of those programmes that cynically, ehh, "highlights" the "plight" of people living in socially deprived areas (Benefits Britain or some shìte, no, actually it was "The Estate", about families living in Darndale). Anyway, the narrator was going on how this one particular child was "preparing for their communion, but had one last important thing to do". In he walks into some shop to get a great big dirty looking diamond stud.

Now I know it's not circumcision, but like circumcision in the US, it's not just religious motivations that have them do it, but cultural. That's where the whole left-leaning ideology falls in on itself when they're afraid to criticise cultural practices for fear of being perceived to be racist. It's acceptable to be intolerant of religion though... apparently.

That sort of compartmentalision ignores the fact that in many cultures, religion and culture are intrinsically intertwined, and if people cannot understand that much, they're unlikely to change attitudes to the practice of mutilation for any reason, whether they consider it unnecessary or otherwise.

Devils advocate here: Doesn't moves like this risk pushing the practice even deeper underground putting lives at risk, at least in the short term.

No need for Devil's advocate, that's exactly what it does, no different to the way many people in the UK are having their children circumcised in France, or here where women travel to the UK for abortions rather than force politicians to address the issue properly and put proper support structures in place here in this country.

jackofalltrades

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, I took it that he was pointing out that it's perfectly fine to vilify Christianity in Ireland and complain about it saying abortion is bad "You can't decide what women do with their bodies!" but to even suggest male circumcision is bad and you have people coming down on you saying "But parents have a religious right!" and it's Judaism that is the culprit, not Islam

That's what I gathered from it anyway. I'm also atheist, so don't say I'm sticking up for one religion either. It's ok for men to be the victim of religion, but not females clearly.

I took it that the OP was talking about Muslims mainly from the following comments.

bodice ripper wrote: »

not to go tinfoil hat, but I don't like the idea of a government either using this to inflate figures to crack down on certain immigrant groups, or to compile a list of miscreants.

one religious group is more interesting to demonize than another in the current climate.

RDM_83 again

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, if nothing else it'll bring the Jews and Muslims together with a common cause to fight against.

At least at a blanket statement like that has a moral/philosophical grounding that makes it harder to argue against
-that of the right to bodily integrity-.
Some of the minor forms of FGM are likely to be less harmful than male procedures, this means people can rightly argue that its their cultural values that are under attack not simply harm reduction.