• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

spygirl

The face of FGM 2017

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't report FGM if it were me. If you were a clinician would you want to potentially lose your job over a supposed hate crime? I'm afraid that what it comes down to. No point being noble when the authorities won't hesitate to sling you in a cell and ruin your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Thanks. Why don't they just tether the women to a post in the garden while they're about it..

If a clinician sees a girl (importantly, under 18) who has had this performed, should that not immediately result in a call to the Police to report the crime that has been committed, and to open an assault case?

I say "under 18" because I'd have thought you could be a little more flexible with the confidentiality aspect, because she is a minor.

I haven't exactly thought this through so there might be reasons why not, but then if a child that has been clearly physically abused ends up in hospital, whether through personal choice of the staff or by following the law, that tends to get reported for the protection of the child. I guess the only difference is that the latter is about ongoing protection, whereas FGM "has already happened".

But then we don't ignore crimes that "have already happened" in other circumstances. "Oh well, that was then, this is now."

I guess less a case of ignoring it than the likelihood of obtaining a case sufficient to prosecute being remote.  "We think it may have happened while we were on holiday, she went off with some friends for a few days.  When we found out we asked her who had done it but she couldn't describe them."

The law really needs to be changed to strict liability for the parents, something like

"If you find that whilst your daughter has been out of your care she has been subject to FGM then you must report it immediately and an investigation will be launched.  If it is found that your daughter has been subject to FGM and you have not reported it you will be deemed to be complicit in this crime and will be sentenced accordingly."

Now that would see prosecutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also throw in MGM as I haven't spotted it in the thread.

Why is circumcision acceptable as this has similar effects - desensitising the helmet by roughening the skin - to FGM? 

Unless this is absolutely required for medical reasons as is occasionally the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I would also throw in MGM as I haven't spotted it in the thread.

Why is circumcision acceptable as this has similar effects - desensitising the helmet by roughening the skin - to FGM?

Unless this is absolutely required for medical reasons as is occasionally the case.

I think you risk muddying the waters.

If you are saying that circumcision is just as bad as FGM, all of those who have been circumcised, or know someone that has (which is probably most of us) will think that FGM is all a big fuss about nothing.

I don't think there is any evidence that circumcision has any long term detrimental affect (in fact I think it is better for hygiene).

I doubt there is much difference in sexual enjoyment between cut and uncut men. Any many women prefer it.

FGM and MGM are in no way similar. By saying FGM is the same as circumcision you remove the disgust that people should feel.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

I think you risk muddying the waters.

If you are saying that circumcision is just as bad as FGM, all of those who have been circumcised, or know someone that has (which is probably most of us) will think that FGM is all a big fuss about nothing.

I don't think there is any evidence that circumcision has any long term detrimental affect (in fact I think it is better for hygiene).

I doubt there is much difference in sexual enjoyment between cut and uncut men. Any many women prefer it.

FGM and MGM are in no way similar. By saying FGM is the same as circumcision you remove the disgust that people should feel.


 

I disagree with most of that as you could use exactly the same arguments to defend FGM.

However I do agree with not muddying the waters so not this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I disagree with most of that as you could use exactly the same arguments to defend FGM.

However I do agree with not muddying the waters so not this thread.

I would be interested in which bit you disagree with. I was circumcised for medical reasons and it doesn't and hasn't affected me in any way that I can tell.

If you are telling me it is the exactly the same as FGM then I honestly can't see what all the fuss is about.

I think this is one of the reasons that defenders of the practice refer to it as female circumcision. It reduces the public outrage.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

I would be interested in which bit you disagree with. I was circumcised for medical reasons and it doesn't and hasn't affected me in any way that I can tell.

If you are telling me it is the exactly the same as FGM then I honestly can't see what all the fuss is about.

I think this is one of the reasons that defenders of the practice refer to it as female circumcision. It reduces the public outrage.
 

Not for this thread but I suspected from your initial answer that you were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

I look forward to your witty thread title to explore this further o.O
 

If you had been subject to FGM and didn't think that it was a problem and in some ways it was advantageous then you would reply as you had done about MGM and then start getting defensive if anything you said was questioned owing to your direct experience of it trumping everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

If you had been subject to FGM and didn't think that it was a problem and in some ways it was advantageous then you would reply as you had done about MGM and then start getting defensive if anything you said was questioned owing to your direct experience of it trumping everything else.

I am not quite sure what point you are making here. My point is that, AFAIK, most circumcised men do not have ongoing problems - though I may of course be wrong. Therefore conflating it with FGM will encourage those men to think that FGM isn't too bad.

As an analogy, I will never know how painful childbirth is. But if everyone said it was pretty much the same as having a tooth filling, I would have much less sympathy for women that have borne that pain.

Not defensive - curious. It is not something that is really discussed to my knowledge.

 

Edited by Cunning Plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can say the same thing about FGM and its defenders could wheel out somebody who was (genuinely) fine with having had it done and was baffled as to why it was even an issue.

Other than the primitive and painful way in which it is done I don't see why hands are thrown up in horror about this yet MGM is met with a shrug.

Is it just another "it's different for girls" issue where there is a whole lobby who will do anything to defend women's rights but nobody, not even men, gives a stuff about men's rights in this case?

I do not understand why one is viewed as an ultimate horror and the other viewed as probably a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MGM is generally done for cleanliness - whether accurate or otherwise - but FGM is done for the sake of destroying the girls libido and rendering her useless. That is the key difference. In most non-religious cases in the UK, MGM is performed with the intention of helping the person.

I don't agree with religious MGM; the way it's conducted in Judaism by "sucking the blood out" using the rabbi's mouth is one of the most revolting things I can think of. Ideally both should be conducted only when the child is 18+ (or, even better, never).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

I think you risk muddying the waters.

If you are saying that circumcision is just as bad as FGM, all of those who have been circumcised, or know someone that has (which is probably most of us) will think that FGM is all a big fuss about nothing.

I don't think there is any evidence that circumcision has any long term detrimental affect (in fact I think it is better for hygiene).

I doubt there is much difference in sexual enjoyment between cut and uncut men. Any many women prefer it.

FGM and MGM are in no way similar. By saying FGM is the same as circumcision you remove the disgust that people should feel.

Not really. It's just a matter of degree of the impact (which can be extremely variable within just FGM), the salient principles remain the same. There are undoubtedly instances where badly performed MGM has had a worse impact on an individual than fairly mild forms of FGM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elements of this make me think back to the media circus regarding the Charlie Gard case and one specific aspect: whose 'property' the child is.

The argument ran that the parents should be responsible for the ultimate decision-making because the child was, ultimately, their 'property'.

And as that case showed, actually, in so far as they can be considered 'property' they are, in effect, the State's property.

So the argument with FGM that "it is up to the parents to do what they think best or right" is demonstrably false.

Unless the law has "religious exemptions". Which AFAIK it does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Elements of this make me think back to the media circus regarding the Charlie Gard case and one specific aspect: whose 'property' the child is.

The argument ran that the parents should be responsible for the ultimate decision-making because the child was, ultimately, their 'property'.

And as that case showed, actually, in so far as they can be considered 'property' they are, in effect, the State's property.

So the argument with FGM that "it is up to the parents to do what they think best or right" is demonstrably false.

Unless the law has "religious exemptions". Which AFAIK it does not.

I don't think anyone said any such thing. As far as I recall everyone was pretty much solidly behind the idea that parents shouldn't be allowed to deny medical treatment in favour of "pray the diabetes away" treatments or witchdoctors, but should be able to choose between different treatment pathways offered by recognised licensed doctors. You would not get licensed doctors performing FGM. The NHS do not offer MGM for non therapeutic reasons, but as far as I'm aware doctors can offer it privately without objections from the GMC (although they appear to have restricted the publication of their guidelines).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguments for FGM, to underline my prior point about defenders of MGM:

Quote

♠ Medical research has found that a high percentage of women who have had genital surgery “have rich sexual lives, including desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction, and their frequency of sexual activity is not reduced.”
♠ Reproductive health and medical complications linked to female genital surgery happen infrequently.
♠ Those who value female genital surgery view it as aesthetic enhancement, not mutilation.
♠ In almost all societies where female genital surgery is performed, male genital surgery also takes place. Broadly speaking, then, such societies “are not singling out females as targets of punishment, sexual deprivation, or humiliation.”
♠ The link between patriarchy and female genital surgery is unfounded. Almost no patriarchal societies adhere to the practice and, at the same time, the practice is not customary in the world’s most sexually restrictive societies.
♠ Women manage and control female genital surgery in Africa and the practice “should not be blamed on men or on patriarchy.” Ironically, the authors contend, groups that fight against female genital surgery weaken the power of women.
♠ An influential WHO study about the “deadly consequences” of female genital surgery is the subject of criticism that has not been adequately publicized. The reported evidence does not support sensational media claims about female genital surgery as a cause of perinatal and maternal mortality during birth.

http://commonhealth.legacy.wbur.org/2012/11/defense-female-circumcision

 

Sounds great doesn't it?  Enhanced sex life, more attractive to men.  Sound familiar at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

The arguments for FGM, to underline my prior point about defenders of MGM:

http://commonhealth.legacy.wbur.org/2012/11/defense-female-circumcision

 

Sounds great doesn't it?  Enhanced sex life, more attractive to men.  Sound familiar at all?

Never heard of that website or its unsourced claims. It is however well documented that FGM is done to hinder a girl's sexual enjoyment and has been the case for years in certain African shitholes. Purveyors may argue that it is done for the above reasons but one can argue any angle for anything if they have the time or inclination.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spunko2010 said:

Never heard of that website or its unsourced claims. It is however well documented that FGM is done to hinder a girl's sexual enjoyment and has been the case for years in certain African shitholes. Purveyors may argue that it is done for the above reasons but one can argue any angle for anything if they have the time or inclination.

 

They're quoting from The Hastings Centre http://www.thehastingscenter.org/who-we-are/ a decent sized and well-funded research centre.  I have no idea of their standing.

My point is that the arguments for MGM and FGM are near-identical so the black and white approach of "horror FGM" "meh MGM" is wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

The arguments for FGM, to underline my prior point about defenders of MGM:

There was no defence of MGM.

There was a debate that conflating the two would lead to a loss of sympathy towards FGM from those that had, or knew someone that had been circumcised.

And calling FGM 'Female circumcision' adds to this confusion.

I don't agree with non essential MGM either. But it is not illegal and can be performed by doctors so is not in the same division in my view.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

They're quoting from The Hastings Centre http://www.thehastingscenter.org/who-we-are/ a decent sized and well-funded research centre.  I have no idea of their standing.

My point is that the arguments for MGM and FGM are near-identical so the black and white approach of "horror FGM" "meh MGM" is wrong.

 

The WHO have said that MGM is fine, and even a 'benefit' in some countries. I can't vouch for the Hastings Center either as I've never heard of them.

MGM is done for cleanliness, or at least that is the intention. It may or may not be true - personally, I think that argument is mostly bollocks, the body has evolved over millennia - but at least it is done with intentions of helping the person, rather than maiming them so that they cannot enjoy sex (FGM).

All of the points that you quote from the Hastings Centre are aftereffects of FGM, they may or may not be true, but the point is that very few FGM operations are conducted for those reasons.

There is of course also the argument that FGM is unlawful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW I do think male circumcision should be outlawed on children in this country. If you want to get it done, for whatever reason, you should be able to get it done when you're 18 or older. But that's for another thread...

(And if it's for religious reasons you should have to pay for it!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

They're quoting from The Hastings Centre http://www.thehastingscenter.org/who-we-are/ a decent sized and well-funded research centre.  I have no idea of their standing.

My point is that the arguments for MGM and FGM are near-identical so the black and white approach of "horror FGM" "meh MGM" is wrong.

 

What are the different forms of FGM then? I understood, perhaps incorrectly, that the clitoris was removed and labia reduced. If this is accurate then this would be closer to the equivalent of cutting off a bloke's helmet, not the removal of (some of) the foreskin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swissy_fit said:

What are the different forms of FGM then? I understood, perhaps incorrectly, that the clitoris was removed and labia reduced. If this is accurate then this would be closer to the equivalent of cutting off a bloke's helmet, not the removal of (some of) the foreskin.

Bearing in mind that I am neither an expert upon nor a defender of FGM I understand that there is huge variety in what is done depending upon the local culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Bearing in mind that I am neither an expert upon nor a defender of FGM I understand that there is huge variety in what is done depending upon the local culture.

If that's true - it could get more and more complicated then. It could vary from the equivalent of the kind of thing that loopy Western women are paying to have done (vaginaplasty) to full-on erasure of the pleasure zones. No wonder there has never been a court case, it's just too difficult.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Bearing in mind that I am neither an expert upon nor a defender of FGM I understand that there is huge variety in what is done depending upon the local culture.

Apparently (remember that I only know this from proof reading my daughters sociology thesis.  Stop laughing in the cheap seats please), there are four types of fgm.  At the extreme end are practises such as sewing up the vagina and the removal of the clitoris. 

Make your own minds up on why this is done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.