I’m wondering why the FBI got involved. Was it considered a kidnapping? Human rights violation?
Well, that makes it all better, then.
Not.
Inter-state felony, I believe.
Interstate, and two specific Federal Felonies involved in the actions: 18 U.S. Code § 116 - Female genital mutilation and 18 U.S. Code § 2423 (a) - Transportation of a Minor With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity (at least those two were the charges in the indictment)
Yup, don’t care if it is cultural or religious or whatever.
When the Hmong first came to America in large numbers (second largest center in US is here in Minnesota), there were issues with the traditional marriages. Of 12-14 year old girls with men in their 30’s. Yeah, that shit doesn’t fly in the US. They too claimed cultural practices, and some of them served jail sentences for it.
That’s the good news, the bad news is that was twenty years ago and this is the first prosecution, apparently? Something is wrong here.
If there was overwhelming evidence to point to benefits of it then I’d be perfectly fine with it being recommended. I’d still not be fine with it being done as a matter of routine without the consent of the child. In any case I don’t think religious or cultural considerations should come into it. Either it is a medically recommended procedure or not, that is all that matters to me. I’m open minded but I somehow think that if evidence emerged that it was actually not medically beneficial at all then the religious and cultural apologists would not change their minds. Also, if evidence were put forward to show female procedures did provide a benefit I suspect there would be a much harder road to acceptance and far more caveats and consent requirements than are currently demanded for male procedures.
Non-consensual bodily alterations need to clear a pretty high medical necessity bar, doing it purely as a means of branding a child as one religion or culture is abhorrent to me, male or female.
It’s not a religious thing. It’s not founded in any religious text. It predates Islam, is not practiced exclusively by Muslims, and is not practiced by the majority of Muslims.
This may seem like quibbling, but framing this as a “Muslim thing” actually makes it harder to fight, not easier.
Possible factors in that:
(1) Best case scenario would be that it really IS that rare relative to total population numbers. We could only hope…
(2) More likely, that when it happens, it is mostly among closed, insularized populations, and the victims and those around them who know and could complain are not willing or empowered to do so
(3) May normally not involve licensed health care providers so no “trail” of use of facilities or of staff who may at some point blow a whistle
(4) Victims who may come out once they are independent adults (and can overcome the community/family pressure) may do so too late and miss the statute of limitation if there is one
(5) Would want to know the history of any such prosecutions under state law – the mere fact a federal crime exists does not mean the Feds always get involved, if state justice takes care of the case.
(6) Prosecutors may have previously chosen to go for other assault/abuse/sexcrime/illegal medical practice/transport of minors charges rather than for the specific FGM statute.
As a european man, I find it tragic how people defend male genital cutting. There’s just no reasonable pro argument. You have people defending it based on medical “benefits” - well, there are benefits to prophylactically removing your appendix or gall bladder, stuff that can become infected and pose an actual threat (as opposed to either ridiculously seldom-occuring diseases like penis cancer or, in the west, very treatable ones like HIV). But we don’t do that because that’d be insane. Also sadly implying that genital cutting on infants is justified by later “benefits” in young adults, basically asking for a kid’s penis to get cut in order to prevent STDs. How sick is that?
Then there are those, without fail, that pop up saying we shouldn’t compare it with FGM. Well, never mind the fact that in a lot of places, amongst others when introduced in the west, it was actually supposed to damage a man’s sexuality, why shouldn’t you mention the less morally wrong or less barbaric thing in relation to another? It’s like if we’re talking about traffic accidents and somebody might interrupt and say that more people might die of cancer - so? Murder is worse than assault, both are illegal. Male genital cutting is sadly prevalent in the west and is scandalously underdiscussed.
Well no, actually, it’s as if someone started a thread about the tragedy of cancer, and someone might interrupt and say that people die of traffic accidents, which is both irrelevant and hijacks the main point of the thread. You see, the subject of this thread is female genital mutilation.
But as per usual, boy problems > girl problems. Straight Dope rule.
People who compare FGM to male circumcision minimize the horrors of FGM using bad science and lies to “prove” their points. Yet, you just can’t have a thread about FGM and not have the anti-circ crowd come out and make the spurious comparison.
It’s like a thread about someone dying due to a arsonist comes up and someone comes in and screams how campfires need to be eradicated.
Which sucks because FGM is a legitimate issue across cultures in several continents (though gee, let’s talk about it when it happens once or twice by an immigrant in America because that gives us the good feels we crave) whereas the anti-circ folks are whiny MRAs who like with everything else that they do, make a legitimate women’s problem and try and tie it in with those poor persecuted males.
So thanks a lot for making sure we cannot ever have this discussion without it being derailed because you don’t like your pee pee.
I heartily agree.
Because in one case the impetus is to prevent orgasm,and the other the impetus is to prevent infection and disease WITHOUT preventing orgasm.
I agree. But until people are routinely cutting off the entire penis, there is no comparison.
I also just wanted to include a post Broomstick made in the other thread, which is both highly educational and enlightening as to what the difference is:
In The History of the Ancient World by Susan Wise Bauer, a book I am currently reading, it appears historians’ best guess as to the purpose of male circumcision was to remind them not to commingle their Hebrew blood - that final reminder in the heat of passion that they are racially set apart and should not be boinking people of other races. I am not informed enough to know how I feel about the ethics of male circumcision, and I would happily discuss that in another thread, but equating it in any way with the systemic oppression of women by intentionally removing their ability to experience sexual pleasure to the point that they require surgery in order to give birth without dying is asinine.
There’s just so much wrong in here. People complaining about others comparing degrees of mutilation while being ignorant of people pointing out that some variants of FGM are equal to male cutting, people pointing out “cross-cultural” issues of FGM (judaism and islam, hello?!), people ignoring that male circumcision was introduced in america to prevent masturbation in men, and I’m supposed to be part of the ignorant MRA?
@John Stamos
So is it funny to blame men for not wanting to discuss african FGM in light of hundreds of millions of american boys that’ve been circumcised for absolutely no real reason throughout the years and condescendingly refer to their trauma as “pee pee” issues?
The majority of half of your country’s people have been genitally cut and you think that’s not what the issue should be about? No of course we can’t be outraged at FGM without necessarily questioning male cutting. It just won’t work.
AFAIK, male circumcision does not adversely alter sexual pleasure. Female mutilation removes all sexual pleasure.
AFAIK, male circumcision may be a good idea for health reasons and it may be a religious thing, or both. Female mutilation has religious aspects, but no health benefits.
It looks like there is a big difference.
Of course it does. There’s the obvious having less penis, then there’s difficulties in masturbation for a lot of men. FGM, if it removes the clitoris, removes all sexual pleasure.
The health reasons are a joke. Again, they’re only useful if you’re in an unindustrialized country and have no access to water and even then circumcision remains genital cutting. There’s no way around that. Ask basically all non-muslim europeans how unhygienic their penises are. STDs are a non-issue with protection that you should use anyway. Penile cancer? Should we prophylactically remove the appendix as well?
There’s just no getting around it. Some forms of FGM are worse, both are genital cutting, health benefits are ridiculous. You really should stop justifying something just because your culture sees it as normal.
EDIT:
I don’t get it. How’s “having less penis” not an infringement upon a human’s right?
Reply due to editing time limit:
One does only need to read any american forums on masturbation to realize that circumcision harms the healthy male body. Such a thing as chafing and possible infections don’t happen nearly as much in intact men. The use of lube is also much less of a thing. The foreskin provides protection of the glans and eases masturbation, and if you think that’s a thing to make fun of, it doesn’t change the fact that circumcision harms male sexuality.
SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP.
Stupid anti-all-caps code.
Go question it somewhere else. You’re threadshitting.
Anti-circ baby doesn’t like his pee-pee.