https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47502089
The Ugandan woman mutilated her three-year-old daughter at their family home in east London in 2017.
Sentencing, the judge said the act was "a barbaric, sickening, pre-meditated crime".
I must say, I am really happy to see this.
Not thinking of myself as a fatherly person aside; I've picked up by osmosis that as a parent you're meant to protect your kid. So exactly how the fuck it makes sense to anyone to take a sharp implement to their kids' genitals and lop off parts of their anatomy is completely beyond me. I don't care how culturally ingrained it is, there should be some sort of failsafe in the brain that goes; "Nah that's dumb." Let alone how deeply fucking misogynistic and sexuality-averse the whole practice is. Fuck her, lock the bitch away somewhere.
Tradition and out dated "moral" justifications.
Circumcision isn't so different (I know its not EXACTLY the same) and no one really questions it.
In the US, perhaps. Circumcision isn't exactly popular over here. Not as frowned upon, but still semi squint-worthy.
Female "circumcision" is a lot worse. From a makes perspective, imagine if instead of cutting a piece of foreskin, they took off the top half of your dick.
I get that, I'm just drawing a parallel that goes pretty much ignored to explain how this stuff gets normalized.
dude circumcision is very far from slicing a clitoris.
one is an actual medical procedure and the other is literal mutilation.
id rather get circumcised than have the head of my penis chopped off.
Physically, yes, they're very different and type I FGM (what you described) is much worse, and the equivalent to circumcision on a woman would "just" be cutting off labia, type IIa. WHO | Classification of female genital mutilation
Philosophically, they're identical. They were both developed with intentions of sex-shaming and they both disregard consent when performed as "tradition."
There is one specific sub-type of FGM that I think is equivalent to male circumcision as it exists, which is Type 1b. This just removes the clitoral hood. The other ones start getting real bad real quick.
I don't know any stats on how many have 1b versus the other types, I'd be interested to learn.
Ethically bad, but compared in terms of damage, effect, and pain, not even close
Circumcision is not to treat anything. It is cosmetic and I would thus argue it is not a 'medical procedure.'
It's only a medical procedure when there is a medical need for performing the procedure. Otherwise, at best, its a cosmetic choice (which, you know, shouldn't really be done without consent imo)
Holy fuck, I was not saying they're the same thing which I acknowledged from the very first post.
I don't think they're identical, and I know female mutilation is much worse. HOWEVER, the original context of my post was to explain how things like this enter certain cultural perceptions, become normalized, and go unquestioned. Female mutilation in most
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
