There are over 65,000 victims of female genital mutilation in the UK, according to this article. I can't believe there are so many girls in Britain who have been subjected to this barbaric practice, it's so upsetting. I hate that there are men walking our streets who think it's acceptable (or even right!) to do this to women in the name of culture, or religion, or whatever. It's disgusting
I think it's about time that one of our MPs (from which ever party) had the guts to call for an all-out ban on non-medical circumcision of any kind.
Unless consented to by an adult of sound mind then I agree with this but I can't see it happening. Too scared of losing the votes of people who see mutilating children as part of their religious freedoms.
Lack of education and personal experience. I live in an area where female circum is rife. It's mostly carried out and facilitated by women who have personal experience. That's what I find hard to understand. It's like a woman who has been raped blaming a victim.
Where as men can't relate because they have no experience.
Unless consented to by an adult of sound mind then I agree with this but I can't see it happening. Too scared of losing the votes of people who see mutilating children as part of their religious freedoms.
Sadly, this is the truth. Bloody cowards if you ask me. They are the only hope that the defenceless children involved have of fighting their corner.
Good for you however this thread is female specific because not only is it far more barbaric, the practice is on the increase, also there are far more girls at risk here than anywhere else in Europe.
It wasn't that long ago it was unheard of here.
To say that neither is or should be acceptable is perfectly valid, without the need for "oh no, but this is worse, you shut up now, silly menfolk" The non-medically-necessary cutting of the genitals of infants must be stamped out, regardless of gender. That is how it is,
The practice pre-dates the religion. It's a North African thing. It isn't part of the religion.
That's weird because female circumcision is sunnah, and the main Sunni schools differ only as to the nature of the cutting, and whether or not it is obligatory or merely required.
It is indeed most prevelant in North Africa, and not practiced exclusively by Muslims, ( and even condemned by some contemporary scholars ), but the fact that it pre-dates Islam is irrelevant. Hajj and Ramadan also pre-date the religion.
Fair enough, just saying you won't get my support if you only oppose female genital mutilation. They are both 100% wrong, and many of those most against female circumcision think male circumcision is fine, so **** em.
Why is one more barbaric than the other by the way? Please compare and contrast.
Briefly, because I know not enough to go into detail, with males the majority are done when babies (something to do with the 8th day?) and so will not have a traumatic effect on their lives nor their bodily functions and is a simple operation with hardly any complications, also very often older males have it done out of choice ie for reasons of hygiene or sexual satisfaction.
With females this practice is done up to the age of puberty, they are conscious and fully aware of what is going on, is usually performed without anaesthesia and using a knife, razor, or scissors, cut glass and even sharpened rocks.
It puts their lives at risk, pregnancy complications and for what? the benefit of the male.
I saw it being done in a tv doc a couple of years ago, it was horrific - the sound of the poor girl screaming was in my head for weeks afterwards.
To add I've never, ever, heard of a female having it done out of choice.
I think it's about time that one of our MPs (from which ever party) had the guts to call for an all-out ban on non-medical circumcision of any kind.
That's not going to fly; when a German court tried to outlaw it, the German government (if I remember correctly) tabled law to effectively reverse the decision almost immediately.
Briefly, because I know not enough to go into detail, with males the majority are done when babies (something to do with the 8th day?) and so will not have a traumatic effect on their lives nor their bodily functions and is a simple operation with hardly any complications,
All untrue. (apart from when it is usually performed.)
That's weird because female circumcision is sunnah, and the main Sunni schools differ only as to the nature of the cutting, and whether or not it is obligatory or merely required.
It is indeed most prevelant in North Africa, and not practiced exclusively by Muslims, ( and even condemned by some contemporary scholars ), but the fact that it pre-dates Islam is irrelevant. Hajj and Ramadan also pre-date the religion.
Apart from you who's mentioned Islam and Muslims here?
That's not going to fly; when a German court tried to outlaw it, the German government (if I remember correctly) tabled law to effectively reverse the decision almost immediately.
I did not know that.
Was this new law specific to male circumcision alone, or did it also encompass FGM ?
The poster to whom I replied . Unless you think she was refering to some other ' religion'.
None specific were mentioned in the post she replied to
'Originally Posted by Saskia44 View Post
That's what happens when people are allowed to practice certain religions here. We then become a party to it, whether intentional or not.
Religion - or those that put their own twisted interpretation of it onto others - have a lot to answer for.'
I did not know that.
Was this new law specific to male circumcision alone, or did it also encompass FGM ?
Male circumcision alone.
Section 1631(d) of the German Civil Code (a rough translation):
Circumscision of the male child.
(1) The care for the person also encompasses the right to consent to a medically unnecessary circumcision of the male child incapable of insight and decision, if it is to be performed according to the rules of medical art. This doesn't apply if the circumcision endangers the child's welfare even in view of its purpose.
(2) In the first six months after the birth of the child persons delegated for that purpose by a religious body too may perform circumcisions according to paragraph 1, if they are especially trained for that purpose and, without being physicians, are comparatively qualified for performing circumcisions.
Passed with 434 ayes, 100 noes, and 46 abstentions, last December.
'also very often older males have it done out of choice ie for reasons of hygiene or sexual satisfaction'.
.. so does that mean this part is true?
Not really, 99% of circumcision are on babies who have not given consent, it is not medically necessary, and often causes permanent injury and even, quite often, death. It usually causes a lack of sensitivity in the penis meaning sexual enjoyment is stifled or numbed - this can be painful for the woman too.
Older males can make their own minds up. Very few man with a natural foreskin would give it up out of choice, as we know what we would be missing - without getting to graphic it makes sex much more pleasurable.
Which is a reason to oppose female circumcision too of course - a person has a special right to have all the sexual satisfaction nature intended - let alone the health risks.
None specific were mentioned in the post she replied to
'Originally Posted by Saskia44 View Post
That's what happens when people are allowed to practice certain religions here. We then become a party to it, whether intentional or not.
Religion - or those that put their own twisted interpretation of it onto others - have a lot to answer for.'
The original poster quite clearly meant Islam, imo. The poster to whom I subsequently replied did not make reference to religion in general otherwise she would not have used the definite article when refering to 'religion'. It's basic grammar. She is quite at liberty to come back and clarify which other specific religion she meant if indeed that is the case.
Quite why you imagine I should not mention Islam whilst discussing FGM is a matter with which you shall have to come to terms without any further input from me, I'm afraid.
..and often causes permanent injury and even, quite often, death. It usually causes a lack of sensitivity in the penis meaning sexual enjoyment is stifled or numbed - this can be painful for the woman too.
Older males can make their own minds up. Very few man with a natural foreskin would give it up out of choice, as we know what we would be missing - without getting to graphic it makes sex much more pleasurable.
Which is why I said they do it out of choice and for the reason given.
Which is a reason to oppose female circumcision too of course - a person has a special right to have all the sexual satisfaction nature intended - let alone the health risks.
I don't think you quite have the hang on this.
Read the link here and you'll see there's a lot more to it than you think.
Comments
I can sort of see why men would think it's an acceptable form of abuse. It's the women that accept it that disgusts me.
Really, why?
Why?
I thought it was something that was mainly carried out by women, usually arranged by women.
Unless consented to by an adult of sound mind then I agree with this but I can't see it happening. Too scared of losing the votes of people who see mutilating children as part of their religious freedoms.
Lack of education and personal experience. I live in an area where female circum is rife. It's mostly carried out and facilitated by women who have personal experience. That's what I find hard to understand. It's like a woman who has been raped blaming a victim.
Where as men can't relate because they have no experience.
Yes. Sorry I was vague. I've explained further a couple of posts above hopefully to make my opinion clearer.
Sadly, this is the truth. Bloody cowards if you ask me. They are the only hope that the defenceless children involved have of fighting their corner.
To say that neither is or should be acceptable is perfectly valid, without the need for "oh no, but this is worse, you shut up now, silly menfolk" The non-medically-necessary cutting of the genitals of infants must be stamped out, regardless of gender. That is how it is,
That's weird because female circumcision is sunnah, and the main Sunni schools differ only as to the nature of the cutting, and whether or not it is obligatory or merely required.
It is indeed most prevelant in North Africa, and not practiced exclusively by Muslims, ( and even condemned by some contemporary scholars ), but the fact that it pre-dates Islam is irrelevant. Hajj and Ramadan also pre-date the religion.
Briefly, because I know not enough to go into detail, with males the majority are done when babies (something to do with the 8th day?) and so will not have a traumatic effect on their lives nor their bodily functions and is a simple operation with hardly any complications, also very often older males have it done out of choice ie for reasons of hygiene or sexual satisfaction.
With females this practice is done up to the age of puberty, they are conscious and fully aware of what is going on, is usually performed without anaesthesia and using a knife, razor, or scissors, cut glass and even sharpened rocks.
It puts their lives at risk, pregnancy complications and for what? the benefit of the male.
I saw it being done in a tv doc a couple of years ago, it was horrific - the sound of the poor girl screaming was in my head for weeks afterwards.
To add I've never, ever, heard of a female having it done out of choice.
That's not going to fly; when a German court tried to outlaw it, the German government (if I remember correctly) tabled law to effectively reverse the decision almost immediately.
I can hardly see that happening. Can you imagine how many religious and ethnic minorities they risk offending.
All untrue. (apart from when it is usually performed.)
Apart from you who's mentioned Islam and Muslims here?
I did not know that.
Was this new law specific to male circumcision alone, or did it also encompass FGM ?
The poster to whom I replied . Unless you think she was refering to some other ' religion'.
Fair enough then you know better than me (even though you asked) so perhaps you can tell, I'm all for learning more.
Any comment of the female side btw - does it sound more barbaric to you based on what you know about male circumcision?
EDIT, I just noticed you snipped this part of my post ...
'also very often older males have it done out of choice ie for reasons of hygiene or sexual satisfaction'.
.. so does that mean this part is true?
None specific were mentioned in the post she replied to
'Originally Posted by Saskia44 View Post
That's what happens when people are allowed to practice certain religions here. We then become a party to it, whether intentional or not.
Religion - or those that put their own twisted interpretation of it onto others - have a lot to answer for.'
Male circumcision alone.
Section 1631(d) of the German Civil Code (a rough translation):
Passed with 434 ayes, 100 noes, and 46 abstentions, last December.
Link to article below:
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/girls-born-here-can-say-no-to-being-cut--so-families-are-doing-it-to-them-as-babies-8526037.html
The original poster quite clearly meant Islam, imo. The poster to whom I subsequently replied did not make reference to religion in general otherwise she would not have used the definite article when refering to 'religion'. It's basic grammar. She is quite at liberty to come back and clarify which other specific religion she meant if indeed that is the case.
Quite why you imagine I should not mention Islam whilst discussing FGM is a matter with which you shall have to come to terms without any further input from me, I'm afraid.
I never asked which was better, I asked which is the more barbaric in comparison.
I'm aware of that thanks.
Any stats on that?
Which is why I said they do it out of choice and for the reason given.
I don't think you quite have the hang on this.
Read the link here and you'll see there's a lot more to it than you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation