Women who have vaginal/clitoral piercings.....

[TheFecklessFairy]

are, next month, to be classified by the Department of Health as having undergone FGM. What the actual??

Why is it ridiculous? Because one type tends to happen more amongst white Europeans, and the other to women and girls from other countries?

I didn't think clitoris piercings were illegal? I thought they were rare because not many women have a large enough one to pierce.

Piercing is to mutilation what sex is to rape. The issue is one of consent.

FGM is used to control women's sexualities, piercings are generally better regulated and are things that she wants either to enhance pleasure or look pretty. If someone told me I was a victim for wanting my ears pierced because they look pretty, then I'd be a bit cross.

Ears are not the same as genitals.
FGM is illegal, rightfully, whether women consent to it or not. Legally the issue is not one of consent. You can not legally consent to having your clitoris cut off for example.

mariamin - do you really not see the difference?

See now you've made me google - and FickleByNurture is right and some women can actually get their clitoris pierced but a rare few - not seen anything that says it's illegal in UK.

There is a difference in terms of the degree of harm caused. But both are mutilation of genitals.

Why don't you Google some images of FGM on toddlers Marimin, and see if you still think it's comparative to grown women choosing entirely of their own free will- with no cultural pressure- to have genital piercings?

in reality it is a form of female genital mutilation
that's just a technicality. Women pay for and consent to these piercings that are done in clean, sterile environments with privacy.

so this should mean that male genital piercings and forced circumcision should be illegal, no?
unfortunately, no. it means that men can still have their foreskins cut off at a young age with no say. just because their parents are too lazy to teach them how to clean. the only reason a foreskin should be cut is purely for medical reaasons: too long/can't pull it back.

They also said "Designer Vaginas" will be classed as FGM. Again, these women consent to it, the labia minora is too long etc. they consent to it - it is NOT fgm. you can also call FGM Forced Genital Mutilation, but no one wants that equality.

It belittles actual FGM by saying that this is FGM. It isn't. This is going to give a lot of piercers greif. A lot of places are going to get investigated under this new rule. 4 years worth of training (on top of all othre training piercers get) is going to go downhill. Plastic Surgeons will also get stick for giving a woman a "designer vagina".

this has got to be one of the most stupid rules I've ever heard, and I've heard stupid rules. They said it's because "in some cultures women are forced into it and there are xxx,xxx women in the UK at risk"
At risk of what? making their OWN vaginas look nice for their own/their partner's pleasure? The key word here is consent.
FGM sufferers don't and can't give consent - it's forced.

There's a massive difference between FGM and genital piercings done for pleasure etc with consent. I'm stunned that genital piercings done with consent will be seen as FGM.

both are mutilation of genitals
but so is having your tubes tied?
i'm mutilating my female body by having tattoos - am I at risk? no.
this is stupid - it belittles real FGM, where women and girls have no say in the matter. these women consent and pay for it.

It is a mutilation, in the sense that it is not necessary and is altering the body. But so are various other piercings, tattoos etc!! They are alterations made for the pleasure of the recipient, to enhance it! Are they going to be so patronizing to men with Prince Alberts?

Actual FMG are tools to destroy pleasure and subjugate the recipient, they are completely different and should never ever be put in the same context!!

One is the forced mutilation reproductive organs often on young girls under duress with no benefit to them and plenty of scope for harm.

The other is an adult making an informed decision to do something that they believe will enhance their life.

They may both involve genitals - but they are worlds apart.

It reminds me of debates about consent and sex and rape - were people make out it's a difficult thing - though the tea analogy I've read is useful when I need to explain consent to my DC in future years.

Fickle and Dazzle I was told when I got my VCH done that piercing the clitoris is illegal and woman who say they have a "clitoris piercing" probably have a VCH or similar.

Absolutely ridiculous and unfair. I agree is diminishs what FGM actually is, and the difference between choice and force. I personally never had a genital piercing, but know a few who have (male and female), it was for personal pleasure. However, I have had nipple piercings, does that count? The female nipples are an erogenous zone, did I 'mutilate' mine? Like someone else said, I hope it doesn't put women off feminine care, such as smears.

I agree that this diminishes the reality of FGM. It also infantilises women because in effect it's saying they can't be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies.

So do you think all forms of FGM should be legal if performed on an adult woman who has consented?

HoppityVoosh interesting.

The sites I came across did say that most women asking for clitoris piercing meant the hood and that actual clitoris were very rarely possible and even rarer done.

They just didn't state in UK they are illegal - maybe because they are so rare people don't ask so don't know that?

Wow, how massively insulting to victims of FGM.

I have a clitoral hood piercing, I had it done for fun, as a consenting thirty something adult, it hurt less than an earlobe piercing and it has zero negative impact on my life or health. Literally the only similarity between my piercing and FGM is the location. You might as well say women who have permanent hair removal in that area are victims of FGM as well, as they too have permanently altered the appearance of thei genitals.

What an adult woman choses to do with her own body is up to her. I have personally heard of women choosing to have their clitoris removed for various reasons. I haven't met any, I don't personally agree to it, but I appreciate an adult can make their own mind up about their bodies, if they have the cognitive ability to do so.

Possibly Dazzle!

I could have been misinformed. The articles however only mention clitoris and labia piercings. So it sounds like (hopefully) the most popular female genital piercing is still legal.

I agree with all the above points that it's insulting to victims of FGM. I would be absolutely horrified to be put in the same bracket as the girls and woman who have been through the torture of serious FGM.

I think that if a woman is assessed to be sound of mind and it can be shown that she is not under pressure from family or husband to undergo a procedure then it should be considered.

Also bear in mind the average FGM victim is 10 years old. We don't pierce or "cosmetically improve" minors in that way full stop as we understand the issue of consent.

I came across an article on this yesterday, (didn't get the chance to start a thread on it) and one of the things that unsettled me was the positioning of the article itself - this ridiculous ruling is going to be the subject of hours of debate, raises serious issues about consent issues and the belittling of women, etc, and yet the article I read was hidden away (online at least) behind 20 or 30 pages of utter crap about the Kardashians and celebrity pregnancies. The DOH itself isn't publicising this very loudly, the government and NHS don't seem to be drawing people's attention to this, and this fact alone scares and irritates me.

Extraordinary. Have these things been scooped up in the definition because otherwise it is hard to define what FGM actually is, unless you just say any 'damage' to that area counts?

I'd have thought that something the woman would say she did "voluntarily for cosmetic purposes" would be exempt. However the horror of it is, would some of the people who have suffered FGM actually say this (or be coerced to say it) which would leave a nasty loophole?

still highly dodgy patriarchal bullcrap though.

So do you think all forms of FGM should be legal if performed on an adult woman who has consented?

Not sure actually. Though I do think piercing chosen by adult females are different.

Though I don't like gendered legislation - why should parents be able to give permission for male circumcision for non medical reasons?

Some of the first indication that brains were wired for gender came from a notorious case in US where twin boys were circumcised by a burning method and one boy had his penis removed. That boy was raised as a girl - paper were written about how successful it was - only the child in question was utterly miserable knew they were a boy and as an adult revert to correct sex.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31876219 This article is about the first pencil transplant in S. Africa you read it though and many men are apparently consenting to traditional practises leaving them with severely damaged genital.

People wanting/needing sex change operations have to though long processes before they are treated under NHS - they can't automatically change themselves.

It's not confirmed to sex organs though - it's a grey area what to do with sane people who feel part of heir body isn't part of them. They go to great lengths to get rid of offending bits - but ethically is it right to allow amputation of a healthy body part?

www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-some-people-want-to-get-rid-of-functioning-parts-of-their-own-body/

So limits of what we can do to ourselves aren't unheard of - just think this is wrong to lump fully consented adult women piecing to FGM.