FGM conviction: about goddamn time

Sonic67

Yep. You can't have a tattoo until you are 18. How can it be the case you can't have a tattoo but you can make such a decision like this for a child?
How about them? Chavs.

IronGiant

Thanks, got it
The main point though, is that male circumcision is never done with the sole intent of reducing sexual pleasure when the child becomes an adult.

Trollslayer

Agreed.

gizlaroc

But in parts of the world it is done to males for religious reasons only, which is wrong.
And we still have quite a few children die from it each year, many from Herpes from oral circumcision. I mean...seriously?



Haha, this reminds me, on New Years eve we were sat up in the early hours talking after many bottles of red and for some reason we got chatting about the above.
My mate said he was quite old, around 12/13 when he realised he might 'need' the snip.
He spoke to the doctor and they said they could either remove the whole foreskin, or, if he preferred, just half of it.
To which he replied "What, and leave me with a f**king turtle neck? No thanks!"

That had us all in stitches.

Toko Black

I agree - it's two seperate arguments essentially.

1 - that the majority of people recognise that female circumcision is an abhorrent practice founded in the cultural desire to suppress and mutilate young girls in a effort to make them more sexually compliant/docile to a prospective husband.

2 - that many people question/condemn the practice of circumcision as a whole when not done for genuine, legitimate and pressing medical needs.
While male circumcision is not close to as damaging to an individuals sexual health and welbeing as is female circumcision, both are carried out needlessly in the majority of cases for males and virtually all for females.
Both are the act of mutilating young childrens sex organs for cultural and religious reasons(many cultural beliefs on circumcision originate from religious beliefs that have become and transformed into cultural norms) and therefore should be illegal and stopped.  

My personal position is of supporting both 1 & 2, but I can somewhat understand that there will be far more people that support 1 while having contrary views on 2.

richp007

I'm choosing my words carefully as I've been flirting with a ban, but that "useless waste of space" Tory Christopher Chope has apparently just blocked legislation to help safeguard children at risk of this.

If you aren't familiar with this chap, a quick google will tell you that most of the country would be happy to give him a good kicking. Given his recent record for doing similar.

Trollslayer

He is my MP and it's a solid Conservative seat (Christchurch, Dorset).

krish

He's a good old Monday Clubber, involved with the London Swinton Circle, a far-right Tory fringe group who espouse mass deportation of black British people to Africa and also suggested that a New Zealand earthquake was a warning against gay marriage.I'll be less judicious, he's a funt.

Cliff

He says he does it on principle.

Isn't it about time the government came up with a solution so that it wasn't down to one man holding up / or stalling legislation? That would put a stop to his attention seeking.

Trollslayer

What principle? That he just likes controlling others?
I made a mistake.

Actually, two.
The first was  I reacted instead of thinking.
The second was underestimating him.
In the previous instance he was interviewed on TV and explained.
There are far too many bills to go right through Parliament so there is a session on Friday where the 'orphan bills' are read out and passed unless someone objects which lets bills slip through without being examined.
By blocking one bill and (I assume) the Parliament gossip made sure this was talked about.
Publicity for the way these builds are handled plus publicity for the blocked bill which was passed in Parliament.
The second bill has generated an equally strong response.
An interesting technique.