nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Man arrested after suspected genital mutilation on two-year-old girl

The flying mouse

AN AFRICAN MAN was arrested in Dublin this week after reports that a two-year-old girl had been genitally mutilated.The Irish Mirror reports that the man is Somalian and that forensic teams had searched an apartment in Crumlin yesterday.

Sources confirmed that the assault had been on a young girl who is recovering in hospital. It is believed she had been the victim of female genital mutilation.

http://www.thejournal.ie/arrest-over-fgm-crumlin-2994388-Sep2016/

WTF, This is done on some so called religious grounds ?

About 130 million women in the world are circumcised, which practically always occurs among in cultures that are also circumcising all the males. In contrast, far more men worldwide are circumcised: approximately 30 percent of all males in the world, which accounts for at least a billion males, or 9 to10 times as many males as females are circumcised today.

So AH what's your opinion's on children, male and female being circumcised ?

My opinion is unless its medically necessary, is leave the body alone...

Find more posts tagged with

mattress mick

i ♥ rashers

Quick Links

Comments

Samaris

Grayson wrote: »

The vast majority of muslims don't practice it so it's not common amoungst them. It's common in certain parts of africa. In those parts the majority happen to be muslim. However people of other religions practice it too. It's a regional cultural practice, not a religious one.

That's just FGM of course. MGM is practiced by all muslims and jews as a religious practice. It's also practiced by a lot of people in the US who don't do it for any religious reasons. Most happen to be christian but it's got nothing to do with christianity. In that way the reasons for practicing MGM in the US are similar to the reasons for practicing FGM in africa. It's because it's always been that way, their parents do it and want their child to do it. Stupid non existent hygiene reasons too.

Either way, both are barbaric and if I could I'd ban both.

It is rather bizarrely common in the US, I've never quite been sure why. I have heard those hygiene arguments you mention, but no idea if there's anything in it or not. Even if it's just those arguments, the risks of circumcision seems rather like overkill.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I would think male circumcision is popular enough in Ireland, at least with guys in their late 20s/early 30s, ime.

It is barbaric that someone (untrained as well) would carve away at a small child. If there's no need for it then it shouldn't be done.

judeboy101

And yet the legal genital mutilation young boys for cultural and religious reasons continues

livedadream

There's also a huge difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation
From my understanding male circumcision isn't necessary but can be done at any age for hygiene or religious reasons chopping off the foreskin is one thing I do think though that if lads up and down the country were having their willies sown up or cut off it would be a different story
FGM is where the clitorus is cut off and the lips of the vagina and or entry to uterus sown up. It's used for no other reason than to maintain a woman's virginity and to ensure male sexual pleasure.

Gatling

Horrific for any young girl to be put through and there's usually years of pain and suffering involved in the aftermath,

The scum should be jailed and deported immediately

endacl

Gatling wrote: »

The scum should be jailed and deported immediately

That'd be tricky. Deporting a jail.

Harvey Normal

Wibbs wrote: »

Much of why you think it's not "on the same planet" G is because of your culture point of view. Let me come at it a slightly different way; would those saying there's a massive difference between the two be OK with removing the exact same analogous tissue in baby girls as is removed in boys for cultural/religious reasons? I'll bet the farm they wouldn't. All removal of genital tissue for cultural or religious reasons is barbaric, retarded and borne of primitivism and mindless habit.

It beggars belief that cultures who practice it don't see it. OK some hill farmer from the arse end of nowhere with zero education and belief in spirits and shít I can understand, but something like Jewish culture rightly highly regarded for scaling the heights of intellectual pursuit thinks it's good too? I knew a Bahraini lad years ago who was in final year of medical school, serious brainiac and he reckoned the male version was welcome and to be encouraged and the female version in its least invasive form was harmless. Da fuq? Just goes to show how culture is so deeply engrained, when you have extremely bright people and cultures that see this kinda thing as OK.

I've been circumcised as an adult. It's fine. Relax. There's no reduction in any pleasure and a gain in general tidiness.

It's not FGM.

Harvey Normal

Vic_08 wrote: »

Yes, it was the jury's decision but with the judge saying "they had to shake off their Western values and put themselves in the place of Osagie here." he was clearly giving them a strong message that it was OK to let him off because of his culture.

I wonder what part of Irish law that instruction comes under, last time I checked the principle of treating people equally still held sway, at least on paper. I guess this is positive discrimination so that's grand.

It's not very positive for the dead child.

Wibbs

Samaris wrote: »

I can be more outspoken on FGM because I have never seen any argument that can even pretend that it's not appalling in practice and deeply physically damaging to the victim.

Again because of your cultural position S. Ask women from the culture who have had it done and clamour to continue their tradition. Hell, even women doctors from such cultures can support the practice. There are even a couple of studies just as bogus as the ones for male mutilation that claim some benefit.

livedadream wrote:

There's also a huge difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation
From my understanding male circumcision isn't necessary but can be done at any age for hygiene or religious reasons chopping off the foreskin is one thing I do think though that if lads up and down the country were having their willies sown up or cut off it would be a different story
FGM is where the clitorus is cut off and the lips of the vagina and or entry to uterus sown up. It's used for no other reason than to maintain a woman's virginity and to ensure male sexual pleasure.

Nope. That's one form of the practice. Another form "only" nicks the clitoral foreskin. Again I'd pose the simple question: Would you be OK with removing the exact same analogous tissue in baby girls as is removed in boys for cultural/religious reasons? Did you even realise there was analogous tissue involved?

And again we see our own cultural biases coming in while berating others for theirs.

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

In the African cultures that perform FGM it's overwhelmingly the women who perform and support it.

God/s seem to have a "treat em' mean keep em' keen" policy for women. Even in the Catholic church the image of the devote older woman is a strong one, they'd literally throw their own children under the bus if the church suggested it, despite being classed as little better than childbearing servants by the church.

cerastes

Grayson wrote: »

It was a jury trial. He was found not guilty by 12 irish people, not by the judge.

To be fair, to be on a jury you have to be able to hear something and make your mind up. Impartiality and all that.
Having said that, I think maybe you meant to say you can't imagine anything which would have excused it. I have to agree with that. The article is very light on the arguments and evidence that was put forward. I can't imagine what the jury heard that enabled them to make that decision but I'd like to hear it.

I was replying to the provided Independant.ie link of an incident over ten years ago.
Where a baby died at the hands of someone who carried this out on a kitchen table, which is barbaric. I dont want to say this seems worse than the recent incident, but Id be fearful that may set a precedent for the recent or other cases, Im certainly not for going backwards and accepting other peoples practices when it includes this or anything like it. If they cant accept that its intolerable here, then maybe they shouldnt be here.
I appreciate the jurys decision is based on what they hear and Id like to have heard it myself, but I think Judges must be living in la la land, I would have disregarded any any input given where it is in contradiction to good sense. My conscience would have prevented me from not opposing that persons aquittal.

What I wrote is what I meant, If thats an understandble way for anyone to place it, thats fine. It is inexcusable for a person carrying that out to be that ignorant that its not acceptable/let alone legal here (now), I cant see how anyone could. I was beginning to think it was not actually illegal otherwise why the tolerance of any religious views that incorporate child abuse, but its a criminal act now, but not at the time of that incident.
So hopefully this current perpetrator cant walk free? They should be banged up for a sentence and then deported.
Aside from the barbarity of it, how backwards ignorant does a person have to be to think they can carry this out at all, let alone in a home on a kitchen table? this kind of person has no place in our society and shouldnt be given access to its advantages (we have enough faults and problems to deal with as it is).

livedadream

Are you having a laugh?
Sowing up a women's vagina so she can't have sex or children without medical intervention is barbaric.
I'd love to see the studied you have that prove that educated women who have studied about fgm are willing to impose it on their daughters. Nicking the clitoris is still pointless. I don't condone circumcision but at least it serves a purpose other than cultural or religious for some men.

Wibbs

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I've been circumcised as an adult. It's fine. Relax. There's no reduction in any pleasure and a gain in general tidiness.

"Tidiness"? Eh wut? :rolleyes: US porn has a lot to answer for. Oh and you may not realise that those who practice FGM consider it "tidier" too. Oh and claim religious/cultural reasons and "hygiene" even pleasure. Yep. They mirror each other remarkably well. Oh and unless you had a fully working penis before you got your foreskin removed you have not a lot of experience to claim any positive or negative effects.

And again; would you be OK with the routine removal of the clitoral prepuce? It's the exact same tissue. Indeed it's significantly smaller and not nearly as enervated.

Gatling

Worth a read to see how prolific this horrendous act is

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

iguana

Wibbs wrote: »

Much of why you think it's not "on the same planet" G is because of your culture point of view. Let me come at it a slightly different way; would those saying there's a massive difference between the two be OK with removing the exact same analogous tissue in baby girls as is removed in boys for cultural/religious reasons? I'll bet the farm they wouldn't. All removal of genital tissue for cultural or religious reasons is barbaric, retarded and borne of primitivism and mindless habit.

Um no, it's not on the same planet because they don't even come close to each other on the scale of horrificness. Male circumcision involves cutting the foreskin cut off. Female genital mutilation is the cutting off of the inner and outer labia and the clitoris, then the entire vulva being stitched together, leaving only a tiny hole for urine to pass from what's left of the urethra. They don't compare, not at all.

Unless done for medical reasons, I consider male circumcision to me child abuse but it's barely on the same scale as FGM.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

Much of why you think it's not "on the same planet" G is because of your culture point of view. Let me come at it a slightly different way; would those saying there's a massive difference between the two be OK with removing the exact same analogous tissue in baby girls as is removed in boys for cultural/religious reasons? I'll bet the farm they wouldn't. All removal of genital tissue for cultural or religious reasons is barbaric, retarded and borne of primitivism and mindless habit.

It beggars belief that cultures who practice it don't see it. OK some hill farmer from the arse end of nowhere with zero education and belief in spirits and shít I can understand, but something like Jewish culture rightly highly regarded for scaling the heights of intellectual pursuit thinks it's good too? I knew a Bahraini lad years ago who was in final year of medical school, serious brainiac and he reckoned the male version was welcome and to be encouraged and the female version in its least invasive form was harmless. Da fuq? Just goes to show how culture is so deeply engrained, when you have extremely bright people and cultures that see this kinda thing as OK.

To be fair, the negative effects of FGM are countless (haemorrhage, urinary retention, urinary infection, wound infection, and septicaemia etc) whereas MGM there are billions of lads roaming the earth with almost zero negative consequences. Now, I do get the argument that lobbing off a piece of skin for cultural and/or religious reasons has no place in this day and age, but I really don't think both procedures are on a par with the other. The consequences are far worse and more likely to occur in FGM than MGM.

dav3

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I've been circumcised as an adult. It's fine. Relax. There's no reduction in any pleasure and a gain in general tidiness.

It's not FGM.

If people want to chop away at or pierce their genitalia when older that is their choice.

We're talking about pinning down a baby to cut parts of their genitals. That cannot be seen as anything other than mutilation and barbaric.

FGM is illegal in this country, MGM is not unfortunately.

Wibbs

livedadream wrote: »

Are you having a laugh?
Sowing up a women's vagina so she can't have sex or children without medical intervention is barbaric.

Where did I say it wasn't? You do understand there are different forms of the practice? How can you make an informed decision on this matter without all the information. Or are you just running on culturally specific outrage? If so you will find many your mirror in cultures who practice this retarded nonsense, but think your position cultural imposition. Is it any wonder the practice continues?

I'd love to see the studied you have that prove that educated women who have studied about fgm are willing to impose it on their daughters.

Your outrage is masking your ignorance on the subject. This is not only practiced in hill villages in Africa, it is also promoted and practiced in sterile doctors offices across the Middle East(and in Europe too BTW).

As for the mass western outrage, have an oul read of this.

[Deleted User]

Instead of having a pissing contest over which is worse, FGM or MGM, can we all just agree that any genital mutilation of an infant should be illegal unless for medical reasons?

A whole new level of weirdness - there are cases in Orthodox Jews where male infant have herpes, because it is tradition for whoever carries out the procedure to kiss the tip. And that babies have died.

livedadream

I worked with MSF I'm plenty aware of the effect of FGM mate maybe try figuring out who your arguing with before spouting nonsense.
My outrage is of the barbaric practice of cutting off or even warring down the clitorial hood of a female or foreskin or a male no matter what the culture or religion.
Just because it's practiced I. Hospitals doesn't make it any less horrific.
FMG is barbaric no woman in theworld should have to suffer it.
I never said it was only practiced in the foot hills of Africa or in huts in the Middle East but as the old adage goes if you can't back up your argument with facts attack the poster eh?

Peregrine

iguana wrote: »

Female genital mutilation is the cutting off of the inner and outer labia and the clitoris, then the entire vulva being stitched together, leaving only a tiny hole for urine to pass from what's left of the urethra.

No, it's not. Genital mutilation is any form of mutilation of the genitalia. It may or may not involve any of those things you listed above but it's not a rigid definition like you suggest.

Gatling

There was a dr arrested in the uk after carrying out a or several FGMs in an NHS hospital despite it been illegal recently..

According to news reports here .

Suspect has been released without charge

cerastes

Wibbs wrote: »

Again because of your cultural position S. Ask women from the culture who have had it done and clamour to continue their tradition. Hell, even women doctors from such cultures can support the practice. There are even a couple of studies just as bogus as the ones for male mutilation that claim some benefit.

Nope. That's one form of the practice. Another form "only" nicks the clitoral foreskin. Again I'd pose the simple question: Would you be OK with removing the exact same analogous tissue in baby girls as is removed in boys for cultural/religious reasons? Did you even realise there was analogous tissue involved?

And again we see our own cultural biases coming in while berating others for theirs.

I didnt see this while writing my own reply but did think of it, I saw this mentioned years ago, but in relation to the spread of HIV/AIDs in sub Saharan areas, it was showing how young girls were traditionally "nicked" with razor blades, it was apparently traditional but the report was about HIV/AIDs and other diseases and how oblivious they were that they were actually spreading the Infection (they werent cleaning the blades or even considering it, and resusing them anyway). Really I believe this was the first I saw any mention of FGM and didnt understand thats what it was, I was appalled enough that they were perpetuating this tradition and suspected it was likely a recent tradition purported to be from the dawn of whenever.

Unless necessary for medical reasons Id personally be against anything similar in males/male children for religious or cultural reasons, but for those that decide (adults) then certainly under medical attention only.
I consider it uneccessary.

Unless there is sound medical reason to carry this out then I consider its not a bias to oppose FGM.

Samaris

Wibbs wrote: »

Again because of your cultural position S. Ask women from the culture who have had it done and clamour to continue their tradition. Hell, even women doctors from such cultures can support the practice. There are even a couple of studies just as bogus as the ones for male mutilation that claim some benefit.

Nope. That's one form of the practice. Another form "only" nicks the clitoral foreskin. Again I'd pose the simple question: Would you be OK with removing the exact same analogous tissue in baby girls as is removed in boys for cultural/religious reasons? Did you even realise there was analogous tissue involved?

And again we see our own cultural biases coming in while berating others for theirs.

Oh yes, I have no doubt but that my cultural background makes me predisposed to lean more towards one thing or another, and I am inclined to agree that male circumcision is unnecessary at best and, much like any other aesthetic procedures, should be left up to the individual rather than being inflicted on babies. But then, I also don't agree with piercing the ears of babies, and I'd put circumcision as rather more invasive than ear-piercing.

Regarding the studies, interestingly enough, it was used in the 1950s in the USA as a brief fad (clitorectomy) to cure hysteria, nymphomania and the usual raft of mid-century "women's medical issues".

Yeah, the form that requires the sewing is called infibulation ("Type III FGM"). The vaginal opening is cut open on the wedding night to allow for sex and may be cut open more to allow for a child to be born. In the meantime though, it can lead to build ups of menstrual flow, increase the risk of HIV transmission, lead to infection, reduces the chance of a woman surviving childbirth and may even kill them during/after the procedure.

I don't see the necessity for removing the clitoral prepuce either, although I am having trouble following this line of debate. The situation is that circumcision is regularly practiced in western civilisation to remove the foreskin. Sometimes it can be neccessary medically if the foreskin is too tight. This may be one of the things that started it off, particularly if a couple of groups were prone to the problem and it became a tradition for want of a better word (I have no idea why the USA took it up so happily and none of this is particularly an excuse for a rather bizarre practice where medically unneccessary). In females, the rarer practice, primarily from some African cultures, but also practiced in parts of the Middle East and (at least formally) in parts of South America, is horrendous damage to the pubic area, absolutely no benefits, no medical purpose in pretty much any situation and lifelong consequences including an increased risk of death.

Not really sure where the clitoral prepuce argument comes from as that's..well..not a thing that has this practice directly connected to it.

Wibbs

iguana wrote: »

Um no, it's not on the same planet because they don't even come close to each other on the scale of horrificness. Male circumcision involves cutting the foreskin cut off. Female genital mutilation is the cutting off of the inner and outer labia and the clitoris, then the entire vulva being stitched together, leaving only a tiny hole for urine to pass from what's left of the urethra. They don't compare, not at all..

I dunno if I'm typing in English here, because a load of you are just running off reactionary outrage rather than all the facts. For a start the female version has many types depending on cultural practice. The type you're describing is the most extreme; infibulation or the Pharonic type. I dunno what anatomy books you've perused or know about your own anatomy, but the urethra isn't involved, nor could it be.

livedadream wrote:

I worked with MSF I'm plenty aware of the effect of FGM mate maybe try figuring out who your arguing with before spouting nonsense.

Yet for all your personal knowledge on the matter you seem confused as to the procedure itself? And I'm spouting nonsense? OK. Oh and just so we're clear just because I suggest your opinion doesn't have all the facts is not the same as attacking you.

Oh and just so I'm clear here and this cuts through any outrage and victim competition, at no point have I said that this is OK. Any genital cutting is mutilation in by book and a practice of primitives with retarded notions of culture and/or faith and should be stamped out.

boneyarsebogman wrote:

Instead of having a pissing contest over which is worse, FGM or MGM, can we all just agree that any genital mutilation of an infant should be illegal unless for medical reasons?

I agree 100% BAB. I'm just fascinated how we can berate one cultural practices and their ignorance, while being completely and defensively oblivious to our own.

Samaris

Overall, I agree on the whole "this shouldn't be done if it's not neccessary" (boys and girls), and generally, it is not. Although while you're right about infibulation not being the only variety of FGM though, s/he's right in that it -can- affect the urethra and encourage UTIs (amongst a raft of other issues), depending on how it's done. The female genitalia may not be -delicate-, exactly, but it is fairly complicated and chopping bits out can affect the other purposes of the area due to proximity, especially when sewing is involved.

It doesn't -aim- to affect the urethra, but it doesn't do it any good either, as I understand it.

Harvey Normal

Wibbs wrote: »

"Tidiness"? Eh wut? :rolleyes: US porn has a lot to answer for. Oh and you may not realise that those who practice FGM consider it "tidier" too. Oh and claim religious/cultural reasons and "hygiene" even pleasure. Yep. They mirror each other remarkably well. Oh and unless you had a fully working penis before you got your foreskin removed you have not a lot of experience to claim any positive or negative effects.

And again; would you be OK with the routine removal of the clitoral prepuce? It's the exact same tissue. Indeed it's significantly smaller and not nearly as enervated.

Yes it was fully working before hand. After it was also fully working. If all FGM was was the clitiral prepuce removal then probably I'd be ok with it.

On your boldified points I clearly have more experience with this than you. I mean what positive or negative effects can you personally attest to?

Pro Hoc Vice

cerastes wrote: »

If that isn't illegal it should be,
This is horrific and disturbing, if I was on that jury I could never have been convinced he didn't deserve a custodial sentence.

Not because I am unaware of the practice being a cultural thing in their home country (it isn't here and they should respect our laWs and traditions as they are now), AND not because I dont agree with it, OR because it isn't a cultural thing here, even aside from it being a barbaric practice seemingly not necessary for medical reasons,
HE CARRIED IT OUT ON A KITCHEN TABLE? OR THAT HE OR ANYONE WOULD CARRY IT OUT AT ALL, IS IT NOT ILLEGAL TO CARRY OUT MEDICAL PROCEDURES FOR WHATEVER REASON (RELIGIOUS OR MEDICAL) UNLESS YOU ARE QUALIFIED AND REGISTERED?! AND THEN ONLY IN AN APPROPRIATE SETTING/ORGANISATION?

In the 2003 case the accused was charged with endangerment. The necessary ingredients of that charge not present so had to be acquited. The scary thing is it took almost 10 years to make the act of FGM illegal in itself.

Wibbs

Samaris wrote: »

Regarding the studies, interestingly enough, it was used in the 1950s in the USA as a brief fad (clitorectomy) to cure hysteria, nymphomania and the usual raft of mid-century "women's medical issues".

and interestingly enough S thats broadly why male circumcision was promoted in the late 19th century to reduce the male "excesses of youth". Basically it was an anti **** drive.

Indeed none other than a certain Mr. Kellogg, he of the cornflakes, suggested doing it to boys minus anaesthetic to strengthen the "benefits". The rest of the West dropped it as a given by the post war period, but it survived on in the US until today. It was quite popular here until well into the 1960's.

I don't see the necessity for removing the clitoral prepuce either, although I am having trouble following this line of debate.

Because I find it an interesting question to pose S, because it would be and is the exact same procedure as far as tissue removed as male circumcision(though of course more tissue is involved in the male) and it can expose cultural biases where we may not see them. Many will cry no! that's child abuse! na it is, but would be OK with doing it to boy children. This is very evident in America for example. They'll go batshít at the suggestion of any interference with baby girls parts, but they'll go at their boy's parts with glee and not see the stupidity beneath such a position. And then look down on other cultures. It can also expose basic ignorance of genital anatomy.

Samaris

Wibbs wrote: »

and interestingly enough S thats broadly why male circumcision was promoted in the late 19th century to reduce the male "excesses of youth". Basically it was an anti **** drive. Indeed none other than a certain Mr. Kellogg, he of the cornflakes, suggested doing it to boys minus anaesthetic to strengthen the "benefits". The rest of the West dropped it as a given by the post war period, but it survived on in the US until today. It was quite popular here until well into the 1960's.

Now you mention that, I recall reading about Mr Kellogg and his obsession with sex and masturbation. Funny how these things can hang around in one place and be forgotten about in others.

Wibbs wrote: »

Because I find it an interesting question to pose S, because it would be and is the exact same procedure as far as tissue removed as male circumcision(though of course more tissue is involved in the male) and it can expose cultural biases where we may not see them. Many will cry no! that's child abuse! na it is, but would be OK with doing it to boy children. This is very evident in America for example. They'll go batshít at the suggestion of any interference with baby girls parts, but they'll go at their boy's parts with glee and not see the stupidity beneath such a position. And then look down on other cultures. It can also expose basic ignorance of genital anatomy.

Hgh, I'm having some trouble with this debate though. Because people are mostly debating from the point of view of the types of FGM that do actually happen, whereas yours is a bit of a hypothetical. I'd understand it more if this was just a debate about male circumcision, it could make for an interesting "well, if you look at it this way", but in the framing of this particular debate, it did look a bit like whataboutery. I think I see where you're coming from though, assuming you're primarily considering the much more embedded cultural practices in the western world of male circumcision/MGM?

It's not quite so much a case of "going bat**** at the suggestion of any interference with baby girls parts, but they'll go at their boy's parts with glee" though; FGM as its carried out in many places (and yes, there are less terrifying ones than infibulation, but understandably, that one rather sticks in the mind!) is just plain downright horrific and can't really be equated to removal of the clitoral prepuce.