Female genital mutilation laws to be toughened against families (in UK)

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

New guidelines to target families that take young girls abroad to undergo female genital mutilation are being sent to prosecutors by the government.

Ministers want to encourage more action against those who inflict the brutal procedure on their children and relatives amid concerns that the current approach serves as little deterrent.

Female genital mutilation is an illegal procedure in the UK with those convicted risking 14 years' imprisonment. The Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2003 also allows for the prosecution of British citizens who breach the provisions of the act and perform the procedure abroad.

But while the law seems strict on paper, it seems to have limited effect in practice. Campaigners say 22,000 girls are at risk each year. However, MPs were this week told that there has yet to be a single conviction, despite 100 investigations being carried out over two years by the Met. By contrast the French authorities have successfully prosecuted in 100 cases.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/22/female-genital-mutilation-laws-families

---

In the US, according to Wikipedia article about female genital cutting: "In 2006, Khalid Adem became the first man in the United States to be prosecuted for genitally mutilating his daughter. He was convicted, and for the offense received 10 years in jail" (cited a BBC story).

And I've seen some posters on DU shrugging this off as an individual thing...but since when is there an individual right to inflict physical harm another person in the name of culture or religion?

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[ZombieHorde]

2. "but since when is there an individual right to inflict physical harm..."

"but since when is there an individual right to inflict physical harm another person in the name of culture or religion?"

Many male infants in the US have their foreskin amputated in the name of culture and religion. I don't think it is "right," but it is very common. People who are against cutting up babies' genitals are a minority in the US.

[leftynyc]

4. Your comparison

of male circumcision and female genital mutilation is disgusting.

[ZombieHorde]

8. I think cutting up an infant's genitalia is disgusting.

Most people don't seem to agree with me.

[Rebubula]

9. If...

...they were truly comparable I would stand in your corner.

However, they are not remotely comparable when considering the reasons\age\sanitary conditions etc

[awoke_in_2003]

15. My best friend in high school....

was from Germany. His penis was uncircumcised (high school showers offer no privacy). The "sanitary" excuse is utter bullshit- millions of European men are uncut. The "age" excuse is also bullshit- why is it okay to torture a baby but not a teen? Both types of mutilation are inhuman.

[Gamow]

16. There is one VERY BIG difference

Male circumcision cuts only skin, no other organs. Female "circumcision" cuts off part of the clitoris.

[iverglas]

62. female genital mutilation does a lot more than that

There are varying forms, but I suggest you look up infibulation for the most serious. Seldom is "cuts off part of the clitoris" the sum total of the assault.

Girls are left mutilated, with life-long medical problems.

Interestingly, there is a male version of infibulation. If this were being practised by members of our societies against boys and there were no outcry, the circumcision whiners might have a point.

[Devil_Fish]

39. I agree with you ZombieHorde.

I acknowledge that FGM is much more severe and disfiguring then circumcision, however it is sexist to say that females should be protected from genital mutilation but it is fine to take a blade to a male baby for solely cosmetic reasons.

All people of both sexes should have the right to determine what their genitalia looks and feels like. I can understand if it is a medical necessity, but in 99% of the cases, it is not.

most of the time an argument I here is that if the child were allowed to reach an age where they could make an informed decision and actually consent to the procedure they would not want it. Why then do people assume that a baby wants the procedure? All people should be able to make the choice for them selves not their children. (again unless there is a medical necessity) I have herd that it is like cutting off fingerer nails, and it's only a piece of skin. fingerer nails are dead tissue. foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. it also serves to protect the head of the penis when not in use.

I know I will and have been flamed for my opinion on this, and people say "how dare you compare Circumcision to FGM!" It's not like apples and oranges here, it's more like golden delicious, and crab apples. Yes one is different from the other, but both are bodily mutilation with out the consent of the person who has to live in that body for the rest of their life.

For the record:
I am a circumcised male. I was denied the choice to have intact genitals by a doctor I never knew under the consent of a mother and father that I only knew for 4 months before I was adopted.

[ZombieHorde]

47. Americans are weird about circumcision.

Less than 20% of boys are circumcised in most European countries. I wonder if it is an aspect of American sexual oppression.

[duhneece]

49. It's NOT solely cosmetic

There are health implications, including a reduced risk of acquiring HIV positive status for young circumcised men.

But the biggest differences are the many girls/women who can't enjoy sex and acquire urinary tract infections. Rarely does male circumcision result in men's no longer being able to enjoy sex...if it happened often, the practice would have died out.

[Devil_Fish]

50. The reduced risk of HIV is BS. you could reduce the risk ever further if you cut the whole thing off

An RN told me regarding circumcision there is a reduced risk of penile cancer but we don't remove the prostate in all men even though the chance of getting prostate cancer is 33%, nor do we remove the breast of all women to reduce the chance of breast cancer. Even if there really were a reduced risk of acquiring HIV, the simple solution is to use a condom, get tested regularly, and don't screw people who have HIV.

I'm not arguing that FGM is acceptable; it is not. What I am saying is that neither sex should be subjected to un-necessary permanent body modification with out consent of the person who lives in that body for their entire life. Would you opinion of FGM change if only the labia were remove for hygiene reasons? Would it then be ok? Not in my book, not for girls or boys.

[No Elephants]

41. My son's pediatrician agrees with you.

My son was born some weeks early, so the doctor who delivered him did not circumcise, but told me to have it done later. I spoke to his pediatrician about it and my pediatrician gave me an article advocating against circumcision.

It was a very hard decision, given I had heard an 8 year old who had just been circumcised (no clue why) complain that it had not been done in infancy and ditto a WWII vet who had had to have a circumcision due to an infection while serving in the Philippines.

In the end, I went with the preference of the pediatrician, who was on staff at Massachusetts General, a very prestigious hospital. However, I was really scared, and probably always will be, by the prospect that my son might later need a circumcision.

[ZombieHorde]

46. Circumcision is an American thing. Less than 20% of boys in European countries are

circumcised. Major western medical communities advise against routine circumcision for infants.

[Devil_Fish]

53. If you had circumcised you son, he might hate you for it later as I hate my parents for it now. NT

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ZombieHorde]

64. If only you knew how to compose a DU post. nt

[iverglas]

65. if only DU were what DU once was

a place for progressive, informed, respectful discussion of issues ..... by progressive, informed, respectful people ...

Oh well!

As you were. ;)


iverglas ... DU member since 2001 ...


(edited to fix typo)

[awoke_in_2003]

12. they are comparable...

and disgusting- neither should be condoned.

[No Elephants]

42. They are in the same ballpark, but far from the same.

The intent in circumcision is to avoid or diminish likelihood of infection.

The intent of female circumcision is to physically disable the female from all sexual pleasure from masturbation or otherwiswe.

The comparable surgery in a male would be removal of his entire penis, not only the foreskin.

[bitchkitty]

5. It is hardly the same thing. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

13. search google videos....

for male circumcision- it is not a fun thing, but we okay it because it is a baby. Mutilation is mutilation- both are disgusting and inhuman.

[bitchkitty]

18. A paper cut compared to the toddlers

who have their clitoris and outer labia excised, and the opening sewn up so that their husbands can have the pleasure with a knife on their wedding night.

I dare you to tell me again that it's the same thing.

[Gamow]

19. I wish I could properly rec a reply. +1000 nt

[ZombieHorde]

26. No one is saying the two are the same, I am saying cutting up an infant's genitals is bad. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

34. Agreed, they are both wrong...

saying otherwise is like saying Ted Bundy was okay when compared to Stalin.

[Mosby]

48. but you decided to hijack the thread anyway - nice job

[TexDevilDog]

7. Cutting off the the female parts all together is not the same as removing skin

.

[LanternWaste]

10. I imagine that if one believes the tongue piecing and the removal of taste buds

I imagine that if one believes the tongue piecing and the removal of taste buds are also equivalent, your point would be valid.

[ZombieHorde]

11. I am also against piercing the tongues of infants.

I have absolutely no problems with adult men who choose to have themselves circumcised. If that is what you are into, I say go for it, but don't force it on your kids. I don't think people should pierce, tattoo, or amputate the body parts of children. How about you?

[Cool Logic]

21. Did you vape it, or smoke it the old fashioned way?

Be careful with that stuff.

[ZombieHorde]

22. I consume it using the same method Baby Jesus consumes it.

Anally.

[cali]

23. it's a ridiculous comparison. and offensive.

[ZombieHorde]

24. I think cutting up babies' genitals is offensive.

But that is unpopular opinion.

[Lil Missy]

25. what a pathetic comparison. And hyperbolic. It's "skin" and it's not "amputation"

Your cock is not amputated, which is the appropriate analagy to female genital mutilation.

[HockeyMom]

27. I suppose they don't want females feeling sexual pleasure

which is what this is about. Yes, no comparison with male circumcision. They can still get erections and have sexual pleasure with the foreskin removed.

But then you have people saying piercing baby girls ears is wrong too.

[ZombieHorde]

29. I am also against piercing babies' ears, or any other body part. nt

[HockeyMom]

32. I had my ears pierced as an adult.

When I did it, I yelled at my Mom for not doing it when I was a baby. I should have listened to my adult self when I had daughters. They said the same thing to ME when they had it done as adults. Besides the pain, I was told there is more of a chance for infection in adults than babies. That happened to all of us as adults. Not fun at all having infected, red, oozing ears.

My older daughter pierced hers when she was 18. She came out a few years later and stopped wearing earrings. Well, SHE made the choice as an ADULT to pierce them so had to live with holes in her ears. Twelve years later she grew her hair out for her sister's wedding and wore a dress. She decided the holes in her ears looked stupid. Yes, they were still there after twelve years. Although it was difficult at first, she was able to still put in pierced earrings after over a decade.

Maybe the holes will close up if done as a baby, but apparently they DON'T when pierced as a adult.

[ZombieHorde]

33. I think people should have the right to determine the fate of their own flesh as much as

humanly possible. You choose right when you choose to not to pierce your babies.

[Devil_Fish]

54. if the hole stays open for a year, it is there for good. if less, they will close.

Don't worry about it. it's not the same thing. I was circumcised as a baby. and I pierced my ear (twice) as an adult. I don't mind that my ears were not pierced as a baby and was able to later choose to pierce my ear. I was never able to choose circumcision and I yelled at my mom for doing it when I was a baby and not giving me that choice.

as to the pain, Life hurts. If you want to pierce your ear it hurts. if you want to pierce your nose it hurts. Should we pierce the nose of a baby so they don't have to have that pain later? I have known people who stretch out the hole in their ear. I'm sure it's painful, but should we do it to babies so they don't have to go through that later? how about Tattoos? That heart with MOM in the middle shure would be a lot less painful if they get it as an infant.

[ZombieHorde]

28. I think cutting up babies' genitals is pathetic. nt

[chrisa]

30. There a huge difference (Please read if you have that opinion)...

Male circumcision is done because it promotes health and reduces the risk of some nasty diseases. Plus, it's easier to maintain, and hardly matters that much anyways. Male circumcision does not prevent pleasurable sex or cause any long term pain / damage.

Female genital mutilation, on the other hand, is a misogynistic ritual that starts with the idea that women should be owned by men. Therefore, women should never enjoy sex, because that is only the man's right. The idea is that, if a woman does not enjoy sex, she will stay a virgin until the superior male takes ownership over her and has sex with her. This procedure is only done to please men where it is practiced, and has no medical purpose.

Female genital mutilation makes sex lose its feeling, and even sometimes very painful. This is done in societies, however, where women are seen are lower than men, and therefore, nobody ever questions it.

[ZombieHorde]

31. I was not saying one equaled the other, I was agreeing with the OP.

"but since when is there an individual right to inflict physical harm another person in the name of culture or religion?"

I agree the sentiments of the quoted sentence, and I took it to its logical conclusion.

[Politicub]

37. Can't we agree that both male and female genital mutilation are bad?

Both should be banned, so the choice can be made as an adult. And I don't think many people would choose it.

That being said, I'm glad the penalty has been increased.

[pnwmom]

59. No. There can be medical reasons for a choice to circumcise,

but there are no medical reasons for cutting off a clitoris.

[Politicub]

66. Wow - sexist much? Men should have the ability to decide as an adult

Not have the choice made for them as an infant.

We're on the same side (I think), unless you think infant circumcision is just peachy keen.

[No Elephants]

43. I agree male and female circumcision are very different in intent and result, but you cannot

say there is no long term damage.

Removal of foreskins results in de-sensitization of the part of the penis that circumcision exposes.

Presumably, that results in loss of some sexual pleasure. To know for certain, you would have to ask a male who has a fair amount of sex both before and after a circumcision.

[pnwmom]

60. Removing a clitoris eliminates that sexual organ and all its feelings.

Removing a clitoris is not at all comparable to circumcision. The most sensitive part is completely intact.

[Devil_Fish]

52. Yes there is a difference, but both are wrong. (answering point by point)

Male circumcision is done because it promotes health and reduces the risk of some nasty diseases. Plus, it's easier to maintain, and hardly matters that much anyways. Male circumcision does not prevent pleasurable sex or cause any long term pain / damage.

In some less brutal FGM only the labia is removed. If this were done for hygienic reasons would it then be ok with you? You also claim that there is no long term damage; to this I must say that even though it has been over 35 years since I was circumcised, my foreskin has not grown back. Could you tell me when can I expect it to if there is no long term damage? as to sexual pleasure, the foreskin contains the most nerve endings and is the most sensitive part of the penis. Since I have never had the opportunity to have sex with an intact penis, I personally can not speak to weather or not I have less pleasure then some one who was not mutilated wile only hours old, but if I had been given the choice, I would like to know what sex is like before I had that part of my body cut off. Regarding the "nasty diseases" For un-circumcised men the only legitimate disease my RN adoptive mother has been able to cite is a 10% risk of penile cancer. men have a 33% risk of prostate cancer, but babies do not have their prostate removed shortly after birth. To answer the assertion that the prostate is functional, I must point out that male breast cancer has been known to occur, but we don't remove the breast of male babies to avoid it. The assertion that circumcision reduces the chance of getting AIDS is contentious, and even if true, AIDS is preventable through condom use, education, and testing.

Female genital mutilation, on the other hand, is a misogynistic ritual that starts with the idea that women should be owned by men. Therefore, women should never enjoy sex, because that is only the man's right. The idea is that, if a woman does not enjoy sex, she will stay a virgin until the superior male takes ownership over her and has sex with her. This procedure is only done to please men where it is practiced, and has no medical purpose.

I do agree with your statements regarding FGM. I answer as follows:

Circumcision is a barbaric ritual that starts with the idea that baby boys should be owned by their parents even if they are to then be given up for adoption as I was. Therefore a parent can make the choice that a male person should never know what it is like to have natural sex, because some one else thought that a circumcised penis was easier to clean and looked better then a natural penis. My RN adoptive mother has also told me that she enjoys sex with circumcised males more then with intact males. is it just me or is that statement misandrist? is she saying that I should have part of my body cut off so as to be more pleasurable to women?

Female genital mutilation makes sex lose its feeling, and even sometimes very painful. This is done in societies, however, where women are seen are lower than men, and therefore, nobody ever questions it.

Circumcision makes sex lose it's feeling as well. At the age of 35 I have lost interest in sex. maybe this would not be the case if I had foreskin. In this society where children are seen as property, and can be scared for the rest of their life by their parents, nobody ever questions it.

We agree that FGM is wrong. We probably agree that Sexism is wrong. Why then would we extend protection to female children with out extending that same protection to male children?

If a consenting person wishes to mutilate or have a doctor/specialist mutilate any part of their body, they are welcome to. No person should have the right to mutilate another persons body regardless of age, sex, or kinship.

[Politicub]

36. Circumcision of males should be illegal, too

But from everything I've read, female genital mutilation is much, much more extreme.

[ZombieHorde]

38. I agree female genital mutilation is much, much more extreme. nt

[pnwmom]

40. There is plenty of evidence of medical benefits for male circumcision by now.

Nothing at all for female mutilation.

[ZombieHorde]

45. There are benefits for grown men in third world countries,

but the benefits for babies in first world countries are considered less than the risk. This is why the major medical communities in western countries advise against routine circumcision.

[pnwmom]

51. Boy babies who have had circumcisions have a much smaller risk

of urinary tract infections, which can occur without symptoms and cause permanent kidney damage.

Your information is outdated. The major medical communities NO LONGER advise against routine circumcision. The major associations for Pediatricians and for Urologists both say that there are both benefits and risks and that it should be up to the parents and doctor to decide.

[Devil_Fish]

55. Knowing this I still would have taken my chances and kept my foreskin.

The choice should have been mine, not my mom, dad or doctor. My body, My choice.

[pnwmom]

56. Having had one child with permanent kidney damage

from a symptomless U.T.I., I decided not to take that chance with her younger brother.

Fortunately, the law allows parents to make such choices for children too young to decide for themselves.

[Devil_Fish]

57. I see your point, and hope your child is well.

I would like to know what is the rate of a U.T.I. like you describe amoung non-circumcised males?

[pnwmom]

58. More than 20% of uncircumcised baby boys with fevers turned out to have a U.T.I.

Unfortunately, it is possible for a baby to have a U.T.I. and not have a fever -- and so the baby goes without treatment, which can lead to permanent kidney damage. I don't know what the overall risk is. But here's something I just found:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/203428-causes-of-frequent-urine-infection-in-a-baby/

Baby boys who are uncircumcised and have fever are at much higher risk of being diagnosed with a UTI as compared to babies who are not circumcised. The 2008 "Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal" study states that 2.4 percent of circumcised babies with a fever turned out to have a UTI, while 20.1 percent of uncircumcised babies with fevers were found to have a urinary tract infection.


In the 2005 review "Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Urinary Tract Infections in Children," the results of 12 studies, which included more than 400,000 children, found that circumcision had a protective effect on the risk of UTI. That is, babies who were circumcised were found to have a lower than expected risk for UTI. The review suggests that the overall prevalence of UTIs among male babies who are uncircumcised is four to eight times higher than UTIs among circumcised babies. The reason for this increased risk is unclear. One possible reason is that the foreskin partially blocks the urethral meatus, which is the opening through which urine passes outside the body. Another possible reason is that the surface of uncircumcised skin differs slightly from that of circumcised skin, making it easier for bacteria to attach and cause infection.

[Ilsa]

3. Any prosecution against those who would harm women and girls

in the name of a puritanical religious belief is a great thing and money well-spent.

[ZombieHorde]

6. I completely agree. nt

[The Green Manalishi]

17. What, don't you respect cultural diversity?

/sarc

[No Elephants]

44. Unless you mean purely physical harm, prosecutors would die of

exhaustion from prosecutions within the three Abrahmic religions alone.

[iverglas]

63. the point is that it doesn't matter

WHAT they do it in the name of.

In the societies in question (edit: I refer to societies like the UK, etc., where this practice is outlawed, whether expressly or simply as the serious assault it is), it is defined as a serious assault, and motives are completely irrelevant, as they are for any other serious assault (not committed in self-defence, obviously).

Motive can aggravate the nature of a crime -- for instance, an attempted murder committed for monetary gain or as an act of hatred may be seen as more serious than an attempted murder committed in the course of a fight.

Female genital mutilation is in fact a form of hate crime (just as rape is), and it would be entirely reasonable to prosecute it as such.

A religious extremist who committed a serious assault against a gay man or a lesbian because of who they were would be regarded as committing a hate crime. A religious extremist who commits a serious assault against a girl because of who she is should be seen the same way, in my own opinion.

My point is that we do not need to make the religion of the person committing the assault an issue, as you do when you say that it is a great thing to prosecute "those who would harm women and girls in the name of a puritanical religious belief".

Leave it to them to drag their religion into it if they wish, at their own risk.

[awoke_in_2003]

14. K&R. nt

[Lucky Luciano]

20. Good. nt

[Politicub]

35. How evil to allow someone to mutilate your daughter

I'm anti circumcision in general, but female genital mutilation is far beyond the effect circumcision has on males.

[iris27]

67. Good.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's account of what was done to her at age 5 is beyond horrifying. Not merely sewn up until her wedding night as happens to some, but damage deliberately inflicted in such a way that the sides would heal together, forming a wall of flesh to essentially seal the area shut except for a small area around the urethra.