You've GOT to watch newsnight tonight shocker on FGM

[Screwfox]

Watch this bloke justify it.
Are you a scratching?!

Full report on later apparently.

"I can feel my mind scrambling to try to not retain the information" - yy, me too . It all beggars belief, but then I am often left numb with what the Human Animal is capable of inflicting on its own kind.

I too think the male circumcision other than for medical reasons is wrong, but does not even begin to compare to the actual act AND consequences of FGM.

The practice is so ingrained in some culutures though that, as stated above, anybody who tries to resist or protect their daughters is subjected to such punishment that I can see how it just keeps going and going and going .
Coming back to the point of this thread, yes, we need prosectutions, and yes, we need convictions (even if the horse has bolted etc).

But actually I am hopeful that increasing globalisations (not in an economic sense, but just the world getting smaller via easier travel etc) will maybe create a change in attittue - at least girls who grew up here, even if they were forced to undergo FGM themselves, may have a desire to stop their daughters to suffer the same and may educate their sons that there is no 'itching and leaking'??

I suspect I am naive....

Thank you OxfordBags and SockReturningPuppet for your excellent posts. Really informative.

Thank you, scallops. I wish I didn't know so much about it, but knowledge is power and all that.

And Pacific, YY to what you write too. Especially to boys being educated. There was a documentary about FGM a few years ago, and they are told all sorts of myths, like the ones you mention. They are even told that the clitoris will keep on growing if not cut, and that Western women use them penises, or keep them rolled up in their pants or something ridiculous like that.

I too hope that globalisation will help attitudes change, but I feel pessimistic, as studies often show that immigrants living in a culture very different from their home one will, more often than not, become more traditional and fixated with following the traditions of their homeland, even to the extent where you'll get people doing more extreme things in the new country that they didn't at home. And, unfortunately, in most cultures, the responsibility is on women and their bodies as the locus of maintaining cultural identity through traditional practices, however harmful.

Oxford, so true about immigrants becoming more fixated on the culture of their origing. But - some will move out of their own culture, marry outwith of it etc. Some. Not enough, for sure. And not a solution to the problem.

I just don't know that there is one single solution that will 'fix' it all.

Like you, I wish I knew less.

I work with somebody who in the past worked in HIV/sexual health for the WHO (mainly in Southeast Asia). He knows more than is good for him about child prostitution - he is know father to twin girls and it's making him ill.

I am finding the balance between wanting to achieve change and self-protection a hard one to strike. Which I why I find threads like this and coming across knowledgable and committed people really heartening.
So thanks for that, everybody

And whilst I am certainly no fan of male circumcision, it is ignorant, divisive and potentially derailing to bring up the subject and compare it to FGM

Yes. At least one obstacle to dealing with FGM is the "oohhh but what about male circumcision?" crowd. The two are not remotely comparable.

I can understand why men are blamed but i am not sure it is that simple, came as a surprise to me but I have done field work not related to fgm and encountered it, the men had nothing to do with it the mums decided when and I was invited as a way of integrating me into the women group as a friendly gesture didn't go but couldn't stop it haunts me now it was women's business dealt with by them in the most rural African village you can imagine and the mums and wider women wanted it to happen and celebrated it...

That women have internalised the misogyny doesn't mean FGM isn't rooted in it.

And how much easier for the chaps that women are doing the oppressing for them!

Yy it is a wider societal issue, but no less misogynistic or harmful because of it.

It is misogynistic, because men in these cultures wont marry women who haven't been cut.

Country.

Its done for no other reason than guaranteeing sexual purity with a sideline in making sure the female sex organs don't drive the men wild with desire as preparation for marriage.

Just because no men may witness it or perform it does not make it not for men.

On the upside some families who are educated about the matter are making sure its put about that there little boys will not be promised to a girl who has been mutilated but its still a rare thing to take a stand against.

If anyone would like to point to any campaign groups campaigning to stop FGM, or any petitions etc that can be signed, I am sure that would be helpful, please.

The debate about male circumcision and FGM is unhelpful, I think, and if people feel strongly about male circumcision I am sure there may also be petitions and campaigns about that.

It may even help the cause of anti-male circumcision if FGM is finally stamped out, although I am not sure it would work the other way. (Because in my humble opinion men in society seem to care what happens more to men than to women and men in society make more decisions about what happens to everyone!).

I am not sure if people got the point of the newsnight piece, I have read most of the posts, but the mum was seeking asylum to protect her daughter who was BORN IN THE UK and the UKBA wants to deport them both to Gambia because they think a single mum in a country where FGM is legal is going to be safe. We need to prosecute the UKBA, this is an African woman who has been cut who is refusing to let it happen to her daughter, she is a hero and our government is treating her like a criminal.

Sorry butting in but I don't think it was mentioned. I think it is a great idea physically checking at risk children but it would never work. You would need the parents permission to do this which obviously would not be given.

I've been aware of FGM for some time and get really distressed whenever I hear about it. But we had FGM mentioned in the prayers in church this morning, which was a first for me; I was so proud of our little radical congregation!

Kendodd if the police suspect a child is being physically abused do they need the parents permission to physcially check the child?

Someone asked why do women allow their daughters to have it done. I went to language school abroad with a Somalian girl who took her baby daughter to have it done. She had also had it done and was glad as she would hate to have any sexual feelings in that area. She said her daughter would feel different if she didn't get it done too.

I don't see it as being any different to circumcision.

Clearly that man was a loon though

strokey when you say you don't see it as being any different to circumcision. Do you mean you see FGM as the same as male circumcison? FGM is very destructive, painful and life threatening. It is not comparable to male circumcision.

I've been stopped several times in the car parks that surround French supermarkets and asked to sign petitions against it. One time the request was accompanied by rather graphic gesticulations on the part of the requestor. He was rather surprsed to discover that I knew about it.

I seem to remember that about 20+ years ago hearing on Radio 4 about a doctor in the Midlands that performed fgm on request, and that nothing was done or had been done to stop him.

IMO male circumcision and FGM may be seen as 'the same issue' in that they both involve an unnecessary procedure to healthy children, so I can see how one can have a problem with both (I do).

BUT FGM is in a different league wrt to pain, life-long disfigurment and pain, likely medical complications that again can last a lifetime, etc etc. Not at all comparable in scope and consquence .

The least awful level of FGM would be comparative to a boy having the head of his penis and both testicles removed.

A laughably ignorant statement.

There are four different types of FGM, classified by the WHO as;

^1. Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).

1. Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).

1. Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.

1. Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.^

Are you seriously telling me a pin prick on the clitoris would be equivalent to the removal of a boy's penis and testicles?

I would prefer you to answer why it matters so much to you to try to minimise the whole topic by focusing on that one word, pinprick. Out of all the facts about FGM, above every mind-bogglingly disgusting and unimaginable truth and detail about it, you want to reduce the discussion down to the issue of a pinprick compared to everything else that is done.

It also doesn't state that the prick is done by a pin. A prick done 'correctly' could destroy all sexual feeling and even destroy the look of the clitoris.

I didn't know that a prick on the clitoris was now part of the categorisation. However, I do know that the minor forms of FGM are actually very rarely done. Furthermore, what you might be unaware of, or wilfully overlooking, is that 1) 2) & 3) and sometimes 4) too are usually done together, or in some combination.

As for the other things done apart from pricking in level 4, then yes, they are pretty horrific. And they do compare to removal of the penis head and testicles, because the nerve endings for pleasure are in the head of the penis, and scraping, cauterising, incising, piercing, and even pricking if done harshly enough, will destroy the clitoris enough so that the victim cannot feel any sexual pleasure. After all, a boy with the head of penis removed will still be able to urinate. In most cases of FGM, the victims aren't even capable of urinating normally, due to the mutilation, so even then, it would be worse in that sense than the headless penis. The things done in level 4 would also affect the look of the genitals, making them not look like normal, identifiable genitals, so yes, that is comparable to removing testicles. And labia, etc., do play important part in sexual and general health function (such as distributing essential lubrication and keeping germs out, and so on, so yet again, comparable).

I have answered you, even though it should be fairly obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of human biology, ot ability to perceive medical implications, etc., why even Level 4 FGM is still appalling. Now please answer me, explaining why you are so invested in derailing the topic by focusing on one small thing I said that could possibly, on superficial viewing, be undermined by a single word on the matter. Why do you NEED FGM to not be as bad as it is?!

I am not sure why discussions on FGM contain references to male circumcision and comparisons, (though I do understand people's need to answer other posters and I am not complaining ).

I just wonder why the desire to end a cripplingly cruel act performed on innocent women and girls must also include reference to male circumcision (which I also disagree with). For the record I am sure some terrible forms of male circumcision are done in part of the world without anaesthetic and with disastrous results so I have no desire to lesson that or make light of it.

I do feel if we can stamp out FGM then male circumcision may well come next! The danger with the arguments against FGM getting derailed with discussion about circumcision is that rather than elevating the horror of male circumcision it actually appears to try and belittle the suffering of FGM (in my humble opinion) which is in no one's interest except those who would wish to continue this barbaric and pointless cruelty.

You've answered with a load of nonsensical gibberish, bravo.

Do you know what prick means? Do you know what any of those words actually mean? If you prick something you put a small hole in it, explain to me how putting a small hole in a female clitoris completely 'destroys all sexual feelings' and permanently changes the entire appearance of the vagina? Anyone with even a passing knowledge of human biology would know that destroying the female clitoris does not completely 'destroy' sexual pleasure, either, many women who have been circumcised can still achieve an orgasm through vaginal stimulation.

So tell me exactly how pricking, cutting, piercing, burning or scraping, completely 'destroys all sexual pleasure'?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

They don't compare at all, in the slightest, you made a ridiculous, ignorant, statement, that you're now trying, and failing, to defend. The least invasive forms of female circumcision are not all comparable to the removal of the head of the penis and testicles.

You can also knock of your ridiculous assumptions about my comment too, I'm not attempting to minimize FGM nor do I need it to be 'not as bad as it is'. As a feminist and a vocal advocate of body autonomy rights, I want an accurate, informed, debate about all genital mutilation, because all genital mutilation is a disgusting violation of person's basic human rights, your comments. Your comment was not accurate, nor was informed, simple as.

all genital mutilation is a disgusting violation of person's basic human rights

That. So why even consider putting a pinprick in it?

I would love to see the stats on how many victims of FGM achieve sexual pleasure and orgasm I'm sure that countries where it is practised place a really high value on finding out how they achieve orgasm or can achieve it. I am totally aware that removal of the clitoris doesn't stop all sexual avenues - I posted a link upthread about a surgeon restoring sexual pleasure to victims due to the hidden length of the clitoris, thank you, but what is done to most victims of FGM IS so extreme as to make sex barely tolerable, never mind fun. There are countless interviews and studies across the decades where women talk about their agony during sex, or even just daily agony regardless, but I have once come across a single incident of a victim of FGM talking about what sexual pleasure she achieves and how she achieves it.

The study you link to concerns a sample group of just 137 women, with a range of FGM experiences. It may well be that some of them did have very little done to them. Others it describes as achieving pleasure once they have been DEfibulated, which is a reversal of some of the effects of FGM.

And, as Dogwood points out, if all genital mutilation is a violation of basic human rights, why are you belabouring the point about pinpricks?! Again, the word is prick, which does not automatically mean pin, and having looked at the categorisation before I replied above, it can mean a very forceful assault on the clitoral area.

I'd rather you explain to me how burning, scraping, incising and so on DON'T take away or totally destroy sexual pleasure. I hardly think that seeing these procedures as deliterious to sexual enjoyment is talking gibberish!

Probably the lowest levels of FGM aren't as bad as removal of the penis head and testicles, although some could be visually as extreme. I am more familiar with levels 1-3 seeing as those represent virtually all cases of FGM. A symbolic prick isn't as bad, no, but I think you are deluding yourselves and other reading this if you think that pinpricking represents the majority FGM experience.

I get the sense that you are misguidedly feeling that talking about victims of FGM as passive, sexless and pleasureless does them a disservice, and is perhaps anti-feminist, but FGM is designed to make women passive, sexless and pleasureless. We help the victims more by taking a total stance against it, not debating semantics about how a small number might achieve orgasm, or how it compares to male circumcision.

Every type of FGM, even a pinprick is fucking disgusting.