I am a victim of FGM

DoYouEvenLift · 19-03-2015 10:41AM

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 · 19-03-2015 10:59AM

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 · 19-03-2015 11:21AM

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 · 19-03-2015 11:22AM

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 · 19-03-2015 11:38AM

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 · 19-03-2015 04:37PM

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 · 19-03-2015 04:49PM

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 · 19-03-2015 05:09PM

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 · 19-03-2015 05:13PM

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 · 19-03-2015 05:15PM

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.

I am a victim of FGM

Comments