Over a Hundre Thousand Victims in the Uk and Only one Conviction to Date - First FGM conviction in UK as mother faces 'lengthy' jail sentence dd

Original Quill wrote:Wait until they get down to male genital mutilation.  The numbers will stagger you.  Ugandans, pftttt.  The Americans do it, the Canadians do it, and the Australians do it.  It even has religious overtones...Jews do it.

Thor wrote:The mother of a three-year-old girl has become the first to be convicted of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the UK, after a failed bid to "shut up" her accusers with witchcraft.

The Ugandan woman, 37, and her Ghanaian partner, 43, both from Walthamstow, east London, were accused of cutting their daughter over the 2017 summer bank holiday.

Police found bizarre spells inside 40 frozen limes and two ox tongues with screws embedded in them aimed at silencing police, social workers, officers and lawyers in the case.

The defendants, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, denied FGM and an alternative charge of failing to protect a girl from risk of genital mutilation.

The mother wept in the dock as she was found guilty of FGM and her partner was cleared of all charges after the Old Bailey jury deliberated for less than a day.

Carrying out FGM carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

Mrs Justice Whipple warned of a "lengthy" jail term as she remanded the woman into custody to be sentenced on March 8.

She told her: "You have been found guilty of a serious offence against your daughter."

The law was introduced in 1985 and has since been amended to include assisting and taking children abroad to be cut.

There have been just three other trials involving FGM - two in London and one in Bristol - which all ended in acquittals while some 298 prevention orders have been put in place to safeguard children at risk.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/01/first-fgm-conviction-uk-mother-faces-lengthy-jail-sentence/

I think this is scandalous, that so many abusive parents/family have gotten away with such sadistic child abuse.

Vintage wrote:While male circumcision is wrong you really can't compare it with what happens to females and the ongoing health consequences of the mutilation of girls. The removal of the prepuce can be compared to male circumcision but after that there is no comparison at all as the aim is to reduce or remove any sexual desire in women. The most severe cutting removes all the genitalia and then sews up the opening leaving only a opening of approx. a match head to enable menstrual flow and urination which being inadequate causes all sorts of infections. Its a disgusting custom carried on mostly by women but kept going because men won't marry girls who haven't been cut.

Vintage wrote:While male circumcision is wrong you really can't compare it with what happens to females and the ongoing health consequences of the mutilation of girls. The removal of the prepuce can be compared to male circumcision but after that there is no comparison at all as the aim is to reduce or remove any sexual desire in women. The most severe cutting removes all the genitalia and then sews up the opening leaving only a opening of approx. a match head to enable menstrual flow and urination which being inadequate causes all sorts of infections. Its a disgusting custom carried on mostly by women but kept going because men won't marry girls who haven't been cut.

Original Quill wrote:You don't know what you are talking about, didge.  We've been over this on several different threads over the years.

You are a right-wing apologist, not in tune with modern thinking.  Circumcision is modernly condemned worldwide.  Moreover, the religion to which I allude is Judah, which for political reasons, you tend to be overly protective.

Sorry, but your bias precludes you from an objective discussion on the subject.

Vintage wrote: FGM is so wrong in so many ways, trying to compare it to circumcision is a total injustice, for one thing circumcision is done once, it may rarely have ongoing problems but that's nothing compared to FGM, there are health problems - already set out, but in the worst kind of FGM. women have to be cut again to allow the birth of children, then sewn up again only to have this done every time she gives birth, the problems with scar tissue add to the general health problems. I have also heard stories of husbands without patience use knives on their wives to accomplish intercourse. Please, those of you that compare this to male circumcision think about this and consider if this were your daughter or sister.  Just who gave men the right to modify and attack women's bodies in this way.  There are may ways all over the world that use various ways to modify and restrict women's behaviour from clothes that are impractical through behavioral restrictions to FGM, its time it all stopped.

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote: FGM is so wrong in so many ways, trying to compare it to circumcision is a total injustice, for one thing circumcision is done once, it may rarely have ongoing problems but that's nothing compared to FGM, there are health problems - already set out, but in the worst kind of FGM. women have to be cut again to allow the birth of children, then sewn up again only to have this done every time she gives birth, the problems with scar tissue add to the general health problems. I have also heard stories of husbands without patience use knives on their wives to accomplish intercourse. Please, those of you that compare this to male circumcision think about this and consider if this were your daughter or sister.  Just who gave men the right to modify and attack women's bodies in this way.  There are may ways all over the world that use various ways to modify and restrict women's behaviour from clothes that are impractical through behavioral restrictions to FGM, its time it all stopped.

You are obviously trying to protect the cultural habit of circumcision in the west, and particularly the religious orientation.  Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few American doctors—notably Dr. John C. Kellogg, the wacky naturopath, whose life was chronicled in the film “Road to Wellness”—advocated circumcising boys to punish them for the “evil” of masturbating.  It was believed that circumcised penises would be difficult to manipulate to ejaculation—they didn’t know cause they certainly weren’t circumcised.  Lol.

When practically a whole generation had become circumcised in the US, and men tended to be embarrassed about the (then) malformation, there were invented a whole host of hygiene issues, which they then used to justify circumcising their children.  Around again it went.  In the mid-90s the US was over 90% circumcised, while the UK and nations of Western Europe are overwhelmingly uncircumcised.

A massive US Navy study started in the early-1940s debunked all of the hygiene myths  In other words the prepuce (foreskin) is a form of protective labia that appears on nearly every orifice on the body (think eyelids, buttocks, lips, prepuce and on women, labia and specifically, the hood; the nose and ears are protected in other ways, but must remain open to function) and help keep out infectious agents.  Imagine if someone started the myth that eyelids should be cut off to prevent infection.

Today, partially as a result of organizations such as Doctors Opposing Circumcision, the proportion of circumcised in the US has dropped dramatically.  The main pillar against 'natural' men, is the Jewish religion and in particular, medical professionals.  They are motivated to urge anything that confirms their religious practice.

It sheds light on the hypocrisy of our culture, condemning the practice in females from Africa, yet sanctioning it in our own culture.  Typical western chauvinism: preach to others, but don't look over here.

Ben wrote:I don't think you can compare a surgery, needed or not, which modifies the male sexual organ but still allows for a perfectly normal life, with a surgery that removes the female's ability to feel sexual pleasure.

nicko wrote:This was Mens idea in the first place,  worried that women might like Sexual Intercourse and would go with other Men If Husband did not satisfy them.  Am I right ?

Ben wrote:I don't think you can compare a surgery, needed or not, which modifies the male sexual organ but still allows for a perfectly normal life, with a surgery that removes the female's ability to feel sexual pleasure.

In "The Book of the Penis," author Maggie Paley dedicates a brief section to circumcision, foreskins and the effects they have on female sexual pleasure. "Foreskins don't matter that much to most women," Paley concluded. "When it comes to penises, women can get used to almost anything."

Paley probably understated the case. Women really do care, if you bother to ask, but in most cases their experience is limited to circumcised men. Especially if they're American and older than 25.

Starting in the postwar years and peaking in the 1960s, circumcision was de rigueur for American male infants. Ninety percent of new parents opted to alter the penis, believing it was the hygienic choice. By 2003, because of changing attitudes and a large influx of Asian and Latin American immigrants who traditionally do not circumcise, that number dropped to 55.9 percent.

I wrote about the shift in a June 21 Chronicle article, "Circumcision losing favor with U.S. parents," and the e-mail response was huge. Men bemoaned their parents' choice. Women advocated for foreskin restoration. Doctors and parents disputed the urologist quoted, who denied that circumcision is "brutal."

People are vociferous on the foreskin question, none more than Kristen O'Hara, the author of "Sex as Nature Intended It" (2002), in which she claims women are more likely to enjoy intercourse if their male partner is uncircumcised.

"On the natural penis," O'Hara writes on her Web site, sexasnatureintendedit.com, "the soft, flexible foreskin cushions the coronal-ridge hook (of the penis head, or glans) and prevents it from scraping the vaginal walls, giving only pleasure, not soreness. ... The loose, pliable foreskin bunches up on the outward stroke to create a seal that holds fluids in. Lubrication stays inside the vagina."

For years, O'Hara says, she suffered pain and discomfort during sex with her husband. She wondered if the problem was hers. The problem, she finally concluded, wasn't her own dysfunction -- what psychologists used to call "frigidity" -- but "the abnormal structure of the circumcised penis."

Thor wrote:

Vintage wrote:While male circumcision is wrong you really can't compare it with what happens to females and the ongoing health consequences of the mutilation of girls. The removal of the prepuce can be compared to male circumcision but after that there is no comparison at all as the aim is to reduce or remove any sexual desire in women. The most severe cutting removes all the genitalia and then sews up the opening leaving only a opening of approx. a match head to enable menstrual flow and urination which being inadequate causes all sorts of infections. Its a disgusting custom carried on mostly by women but kept going because men won't marry girls who haven't been cut.

+1

This will interest you and show the lunancy of some of the left on this. Who defend FGM basaed on cultural relativism

It also shows up the idiocy of Quills points here

Original Quill wrote:Didge, re: your clip, right focus.  But he has never met me.

Also, he squanders the opportunity by getting inside own 'cultural relativism'.  The issue isn't just that "it's different," but how is it different?

Those details matter.  That's why I go into such great medical detail, in order to discuss the values that arise and why.

He's just: them bad, me good!  As I say, his own 'cultural relativism'.

Didge wrote:Hence why everyone is ridiculiing you here

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Hence why everyone is ridiculiing you here

What a stupid thing to say.  Are you at a loss for debate points?