FGM aka Female circumcision

Never Say Never Again

A small minority of muslim parents believe that female circumcision is a vital part of their culture, some of them are putting their daughters lives in danger with botched home circumcisions, how should we as an nation address this ?

PeterParker957

Never Say Never Again wrote: »

A small minority of muslim parents believe that female circumcision is a vital part of their culture, some of them are putting their daughters lives in danger with botched home circumcisions, how should we as an nation address this ?

Condemn It, kick them out of the country and jail anyone who did it.

splinter65

Well it’s a crime in this country to harm a child, so the parents and the “practitioner” need to be dealt with per se by AGS.
Tragically this will mean that the child will be returned to be “operated on” in some hell hole where it’s acceptable.
Social workers will confirm, if someone is determined to abuse their child, they won’t be deterred, unless the child is removed from them first.

Atlantic Dawn

It's their culture, why is nobody locked up when a lads flute is similarly butchered in the name of another religion?

Army_of_One

Im getting really fukking tired of threads about muslims.

judeboy101

Ok for boys to be genitally mutilated in Ireland but not girls. Typical.

Annasopra

Never Say Never Again wrote: »

A small minority of muslim parents believe that female circumcision is a vital part of their culture, some of them are putting their daughters lives in danger with botched home circumcisions, how should we as an nation address this ?

Make sure that the 2012 law banning it in Ireland is upheld firmly. In addition provide education and preventative support to the communities affected. Next.

SusieBlue

Circumcision of either gender for non medically necessary reasons should be illegal, regardless of religion.

PeterParker957

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's their culture, why is nobody locked up when a lads flute is similarly butchered in the name of another religion?

Oh that's just as wrong too in my opinion.

emo72

http://www.thejournal.ie/female-genital-mutilation-couple-accused-3765298-Dec2017/

this also appeared in the news today. we shouldnt really be cutting our children up.

King George VI

Ban them from entering the country. Nobody's tried that before so it should wor-..…. No wait. Nevermind.

Greybottle

It's not a Muslim thing, it's more of a cultural one. There's plenty of Christians and other religions/non-religions at it as well. Imprisonment for the parents/practicioners followed by deportation and rescinding citizenship is the only answer IMO. Anybody encouraging it should be treated as incitement to violence, or assaulting somebody.

LirW

Wasn't there this guy a while ago in a similar topic where he raved about his and his sons circumcision because his wife has some creepy obsession with it and even tried talking her friends into doing it? Was hilarious.

Jokes aside though, charge people who do that, charge practitioners who do. The more complicated thing though, what if they travel abroad to do it?
When my son was little he was at a childminder together with an African boy. At some point the childminder told me, he's gonna be abroad for 2-3 weeks because his grandfather planned to do a circumcision. That was weird.

Sonics2k

judeboy101 wrote: »

Ok for boys to be genitally mutilated in Ireland but not girls. Typical.

I'm no fan of circumcision, but you really can't compare it like for like with FGM.

Mrs OBumble

If you're going to compare FGM with circumcision, then im gonna say we should also ban (and enforce /penalise) ear piercing of children for the same reason.

SusieBlue

I just don't understand the logic of being handed your brand new heathy gorgeous baby, and then promptly arranging for a piece of their anatomy to be chopped off.

It makes no sense. There are no preventative health benefits. If we held the rest of the body to the same standard, we'd be removing the appendix and the tonsils at birth as well, *just in case* they were to cause any issues in the future.

As for the female mutilation, it's absolutely barbaric to say the least. Why anyone would voluntarily put their daughter through that agony baffles me, they frankly don't deserve to have their children. I don't care what their beliefs are.

PeterParker957

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If you're going to compare FGM with circumcision, then im gonna say we should also ban (and enforce /penalise) ear piercing of children for the same reason.

Agreed.

Wibbs

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If you're going to compare FGM with circumcision, then im gonna say we should also ban (and enforce /penalise) ear piercing of children for the same reason.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Agreed.

OK, then would you be OK with the ritual excision of the clitoral hood and part of the labia* of newborn girls? Because the anatomical and medical fact is that's what you're essentially saying you'd be OK with.

Both are "genital mutilation". Both are done for similar reasons. Religion, tradition, "aesthetics", "cleanliness", "hygiene" and most of all "my fathers/mothers were done, so my sons/daughters should be. Just cos. Both are barbaric and ignorant blood rite sacrifices to non existent deities and ignorant tradition and clan affiliation and both should be wiped out from modern civilisation. And legally so.

The main difference between the two is that one is seen as more culturally acceptable compared to the other. Yes FGM is nearly always more brutal, but my point is that we in the West see women/girls bodily autonomy as being sacrosanct, but men/boys bodily autonomy as clearly less so. You've both agreed it is. And the other fact is boys/men are less "valued" in western culture than girls/women. Swap the genders around for other cultures. And how do we regard them? Exactly. There's a bit of pointing out the speck in one's brother's eye and ignoring the beam in our own.

I recall watching an Oprah Winfrey show where she came out against FGM, but another show had her pimping products made from the severed foreskins of newborn boys, with nary an insightful realisation going on.

So yeah, for me, if a Jew or Muslim or [insert whatever backward cultural reason here] wants to lop off a part of their child's genitals, boy or girl, they should be dragged in front of a court of law and good bloody sense and punished for it, until this bronze age nonsense is excised from informed thought.





*male circumcision involves the removal of the prepuce/foreskin, which is analogous to the female clitoral hood and some of the labia majora. Only more enervated tissue is involved. Like I say, would you be OK with that for cultural/religious/Hygiene/Ballsology purposes? I doubt it and you would be dead right.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's their culture, why is nobody locked up when a lads flute is similarly butchered in the name of another religion?

Very true.

Both practices should be condemned. Especially the ultra orthodox Jewish method of circumcision.

Odhinn

Never Say Never Again wrote: »

A small minority of muslim parents believe that female circumcision is a vital part of their culture, some of them are putting their daughters lives in danger with botched home circumcisions, how should we as an nation address this ?

It's illegal.

Widdershins

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's their culture, why is nobody locked up when a lads flute is similarly butchered in the name of another religion?

What other religion? Male Circumcision is practised by Muslims more than any other religion.

Also, since you are obviously under the mistaken impression it's a Jewish thing, do you know how few orthodox Jews there are in the world? Referring to something (people think) is a Orthodox Jew thing is a bit like talking about what uncontacted Amazonian tribes do. Pretty much irrelevant to the rest of the world, especially us.

end of the road

emo72 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/female-genital-mutilation-couple-accused-3765298-Dec2017/

this also appeared in the news today. we shouldnt really be cutting our children up.

if proven guilty hopefully they will receive a very long sentence. it would be 50 years or more if i was in charge.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If you're going to compare FGM with circumcision, then im gonna say we should also ban (and enforce /penalise) ear piercing of children for the same reason.

ear piercing of children should be banned actually. it's unnecessary and has no place.

Atlantic Dawn

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm no fan of circumcision, but you really can't compare it like for like with FGM.

You can, fecking around with your kids body before they have a right to decide if they want it or not, it's pure child abuse, what next an Iron Maiden tatoo at 4?

PeterParker957

Wibbs wrote: »

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If you're going to compare FGM with circumcision, then im gonna say we should also ban (and enforce /penalise) ear piercing of children for the same reason.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Agreed.

OK, then would you be OK with the ritual excision of the clitoral hood and part of the labia* of newborn girls? Because the anatomical and medical fact is that's what you're essentially saying you'd be OK with.

Both are "genital mutilation". Both are done for similar reasons. Religion, tradition, "aesthetics", "cleanliness", "hygiene" and most of all "my fathers/mothers were done, so my sons/daughters should be. Just cos. Both are barbaric and ignorant blood rite sacrifices to non existent deities and ignorant tradition and clan affiliation and both should be wiped out from modern civilisation. And legally so.

The main difference between the two is that one is seen as more culturally acceptable compared to the other. Yes FGM is nearly always more brutal, but my point is that we in the West see women/girls bodily autonomy as being sacrosanct, but men/boys bodily autonomy as clearly less so. You've both agreed it is. And the other fact is boys/men are less "valued" in western culture than girls/women. Swap the genders around for other cultures. And how do we regard them? Exactly. There's a bit of pointing out the speck in one's brother's eye and ignoring the beam in our own.

I recall watching an Oprah Winfrey show where she came out against FGM, but another show had her pimping products made from the severed foreskins of newborn boys, with nary an insightful realisation going on.

So yeah, for me, if a Jew or Muslim or [insert whatever backward cultural reason here] wants to lop off a part of their child's genitals, boy or girl, they should be dragged in front of a court of law and good bloody sense and punished for it, until this bronze age nonsense is excised from informed thought.





*male circumcision involves the removal of the prepuce/foreskin, which is analogous to the female clitoral hood and some of the labia majora. Only more enervated tissue is involved. Like I say, would you be OK with that for cultural/religious/Hygiene/Ballsology purposes? I doubt it and you would be dead right.

Why are you quoting me?

I agree with that! It's barbaric and should be banned.

Donald Trump

I've accidentally mutilated a few ladies with my massive willy back in the day. They all recovered eventually

silverharp

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If you're going to compare FGM with circumcision, then im gonna say we should also ban (and enforce /penalise) ear piercing of children for the same reason.

its wrong to compare ear piercing to circumcision

PeterParker957

silverharp wrote: »

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If you're going to compare FGM with circumcision, then im gonna say we should also ban (and enforce /penalise) ear piercing of children for the same reason.

its wrong to compare ear piercing to circumcision

I agreed both should be banned. I don't think theyre in any way equal.

suicide_circus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4yS08N0xeU

newport2

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I just don't understand the logic of being handed your brand new heathy gorgeous baby, and then promptly arranging for a piece of their anatomy to be chopped off.

It makes no sense. There are no preventative health benefits. If we held the rest of the body to the same standard, we'd be removing the appendix and the tonsils at birth as well, *just in case* they were to cause any issues in the future.

As for the female mutilation, it's absolutely barbaric to say the least. Why anyone would voluntarily put their daughter through that agony baffles me, they frankly don't deserve to have their children. I don't care what their beliefs are.

They're terrified their daughters might actually enjoy sex when they're older. God forbid like.

mad muffin

Hmmm…

I see a lot of people commenting who have no idea. No idea about circumcision. No idea what it is, and are certainly not circumcised themselves.

Let me say first. I don’t agree with circumcision for religious reasons, full stop.

Second you cannot equate fgm with male circumcision. Males just have a piece of skin removed. If you were to equate. It would be akin to removing the gland for males. That’s why for females it’s far worse.

Another thing. For someone who was circumcised at 6 for medical reason, you do, it lose any sensation, or pleasure. None.

silverharp

mad muffin wrote: »

Hmmm…

I see a lot of people commenting who have no idea. No idea about circumcision. No idea what it is, and are certainly not circumcised themselves.

Let me say first. I don’t agree with circumcision for religious reasons, full stop.

Second you cannot equate fgm with male circumcision. Males just have a piece of skin removed. If you were to equate. It would be akin to removing the gland for males. That’s why for females it’s far worse.

Another thing. For someone who was circumcised at 6 for medical reason, you do, it lose any sensation, or pleasure. None.

on the face of it missus , you dont know much yourself

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/complications/

Ronaldinho

Odhinn wrote: »

It's illegal.

It has been illegal in Sweden for decades too, but curiously few have ever been convicted for it.

There's a story in the Irish Times today that there was a case in the District Court yesterday, so it's good to see that the offence will not be simply ignored here in Ireland.

Wibbs

mad muffin wrote: »

Second you cannot equate fgm with male circumcision. Males just have a piece of skin removed. If you were to equate. It would be akin to removing the gland for males. That’s why for females it’s far worse.

Certainly(its glans BTW). However it's more than a "piece of skin". It's quite a complex set of tissues, with cells found nowhere else in the body and highly enervated with it. It also evolved to keep the glans protected and moist, not exposed and dried out.

It actually became popular in the 19th century among non Muslims/Jews as a way to reduce masturbation, which was seen as a terrible thing, (FGM was also practiced in the west for similar reasons at the same time, but died out as a practice) so even the reduction of pleasure thing seen in FGM was in play with the male version(didn't work mind you. Just like FGM doesn't stop women from having affairs and sex before marriage. Where there's a willy there's a way ).

Regardless, would you be OK if the exact same tissue was removed in girls? Of course you wouldn't. Albeit far less tissue would be removed. There are FGM practices that pretty much do this(remove the clitoral hood and some of the labia).

Another thing. For someone who was circumcised at 6 for medical reason, you do, it lose any sensation, or pleasure. None.

With respect, given you were 6 when it was done you've equally no idea how a penis with a functioning foreskin feels by way of sensation.

I have no issue with medical reasons for the practice. Far better to have a functioning willy minus the foreskin, than a non functioning, oft painful one with(though having read the thread on the matter in tGC forum, it seems Irish doctors are all too quick to lop it all off as a first response to any issues in the area).

Like yourself I do take issue with religious and cultural reasons for it. Bronze Age ignorance.

mad muffin

silverharp wrote: »

on the face of it missus , you dont know much yourself

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/complications/

Reading comprehension… do you have some?

mad muffin

Wibbs wrote: »

Certainly(its glans BTW). However it's more than a "piece of skin". It's quite a complex set of tissues, with cells found nowhere else in the body and highly enervated with it. It also evolved to keep the glans protected and moist, not exposed and dried out.

It actually became popular in the 19th century among non Muslims/Jews as a way to reduce masturbation, which was seen as a terrible thing, (FGM was also practiced in the west for similar reasons at the same time, but died out as a practice) so even the reduction of pleasure thing seen in FGM was in play with the male version(didn't work mind you. Just like FGM doesn't stop women from having affairs and sex before marriage. Where there's a willy there's a way ).

Regardless, would you be OK if the exact same tissue was removed in girls? Of course you wouldn't. Albeit far less tissue would be removed. There are FGM practices that pretty much do this(remove the clitoral hood and some of the labia).

With respect, given you were 6 when it was done you've equally no idea how a penis with a functioning foreskin feels by way of sensation.

I have no issue with medical reasons for the practice. Far better to have a functioning willy minus the foreskin, than a non functioning, oft painful one with(though having read the thread on the matter in tGC forum, it seems Irish doctors are all too quick to lop it all off as a first response to any issues in the area).

Like yourself I do take issue with religious and cultural reasons for it. Bronze Age ignorance.

Haha, autocorrect strikes again!

Do you need a foreskin? Sure.

Is it critical for the 100% normal function. No.

Have males who have had it removed properly had any adverse effects? No.

Could the same be said about fgm? No

Hector Savage

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's their culture, why is nobody locked up when a lads flute is similarly butchered in the name of another religion?

In fairness it's very different, I agree boys shouln't be just for the sake of it - but its hardly a comparison, FGM basically removes the clitoris and any sexual enjoyment for her future.

Male circumcision doesn't affect this.

Ralf and Florian

It seems to be largely an East African thing, Sudan, Somalia, Ethopia that part of the world.

All unnecessary genital surgery is a crime, or should be, and no religious tradition should expect or tolerate the harming of a child.

However, one is not (generally speaking) the equal of the other in terms of effect or affect.

jackofalltrades

Hope the couple in question have the book thrown at them.

mad muffin wrote: »

Haha, autocorrect strikes again!

Do you need a foreskin? Sure.

Is it critical for the 100% normal function. No.

Have males who have had it removed properly had any adverse effects? No.

Could the same be said about fgm? No

I'm guessing if you genuinely believed this then you wouldn't be on this thread making flawed and frankly bizarre arguments.

Hector Savage wrote: »

In fairness it's very different, I agree boys shouln't be just for the sake of it - but its hardly a comparison, FGM basically removes the clitoris and any sexual enjoyment for her future.

Male circumcision doesn't affect this.

This was already addressed by Wibbs in this post.

mad muffin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Hope the couple in question have the book thrown at them.


I'm guessing if you genuinely believed this then you wouldn't be on this thread making flawed and frankly bizarre arguments.

This was already addressed by Wibbs in this post.

What’s you talkin bout there Willis?

Hector Savage

jackofalltrades wrote: »

This was already addressed by Wibbs in this post.

And I agree with that post, but I think there is gradations of "worseness" here and FGM is worse.


I have 2 boys, one is circumcised - he had to be , he had some issue with urine being backed up in his penis when he was a baby - so this was necessary.

Other lad didn't need it and he hasn't had it, but have no doubt there will be no adverse side effects on the one who has.

suicide_circus

mad muffin wrote: »

Haha, autocorrect strikes again!

Do you need a foreskin? Sure.

Is it critical for the 100% normal function. No.

Have males who have had it removed properly had any adverse effects? No.

Could the same be said about fgm? No

I don't think anyone is arguing that mgm is as gruesome as fgm. It is the principle of slicing off functional pieces of baby that is the issue regardless of sex

mad muffin

suicide_circus wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing that mgm is as gruesome as fgm. It is the principle of slicing off functional pieces of baby that is the issue regardless of sex

I agree it should never be done for religious reasons but…

The male baby will never remember if it’s done correctly. It will not bother him one bit, and will not change his life in any meaningful way.

On the other hand, the female baby will live with the effects of having fmg done to her, for the rest of her life.

Potatoeman

mad muffin wrote: »

Hmmm…

I see a lot of people commenting who have no idea. No idea about circumcision. No idea what it is, and are certainly not circumcised themselves.

Let me say first. I don’t agree with circumcision for religious reasons, full stop.

Second you cannot equate fgm with male circumcision. Males just have a piece of skin removed. If you were to equate. It would be akin to removing the gland for males. That’s why for females it’s far worse.

Another thing. For someone who was circumcised at 6 for medical reason, you do, it lose any sensation, or pleasure. None.

You should watch a video of one, its pretty horrific. There are also deaths form it. Rabbis preforming it have passed herpes on to boys that died from the infection.

suicide_circus

mad muffin wrote: »

I agree it should never be done for religious reasons but…

The male baby will never remember if it’s done correctly. It will not bother him one bit, and will not change his life in any meaningful way.

Yeah see youre not really condemning it there.
There is no "but". Any medically unnecessary cutting of children is abuse and those who carry it out are scumbags and those who legitimise it by saying it's not that bad are enablers of child abuse. It's a disgusting barbaric practice and should be stamped out.

mad muffin

Potatoeman wrote: »

You should watch a video of one, its pretty horrific. There are also deaths form it. Rabbis preforming it have passed herpes on to boys that died from the infection.

Again people need to learn how to read.

mad muffin

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yeah see youre not really condemning it there.
There is no "but". Any medically unnecessary cutting of children is abuse and those who carry it out are scumbags and those who legitimise it by saying it's not that bad are enablers of child abuse. It's a disgusting barbaric practice and should be stamped out.

I disagree. When you equate one with the other, your are diminishing what fgm is.

suicide_circus

mad muffin wrote: »

I disagree. When you equate one with the other, your are diminishing what fgm is.

It's impossible not to equate them. They are both the medically unnecessary mutilation of a baby's genitals. It's not that complicated.

Boom_Bap

mad muffin wrote: »

Again people need to learn how to read.

Quit making jabs at other posters 'reading comprehension', perhaps you should read the forum charter, particularly this part:

Grammar nazis not welcome
Not everybody is as perfect as you are. Some people have learning difficulties. Some people are dyslexic. Some people are stupid and finally some people just don't care about their spelling and grammar. It's not your job to police them.

mad muffin

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Quit making jabs at other posters 'reading comprehension', perhaps you should read the forum charter, particularly this part:

It’s not my fault people can’t comprehend what they read? Plus it’s not a jab. Just a simple statement of fact.

Maybe you should read back at what I have posted? Then tell me I’m wrong?

Also reading comprehension does not equate grammar nazi.

seamus

mad muffin wrote: »

I agree it should never be done for religious reasons but…

The male baby will never remember if it’s done correctly. It will not bother him one bit, and will not change his life in any meaningful way.

Then why do it?

If it will not change anything, then why do it?

Have a think about how many different procedures one could apply this line of thinking to; piercings, tattoos, branding.

One can even make the argument that you could easily remove a baby toe and it will not bother him one bit nor change his life in any meaningful way.

Yet if I suggested that I lop off my baby's baby toes or put a small tattoo on her arse, I'm sure you'd have some words to say about it.

The effect is irrelevant. It is mutilation, one way or another.