Law banning female genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional!

a reply to: Xtrozero

Lips that are Augmented Will Never Touch Mine .....

IIT: Penis.

Am I doing it right?

a reply to: Wardaddy454
What does IIT stand for? I only got Indian institute of technology.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Colonel Ingus . A Civil War General for the South that was Lickity Split in his Thoughts and Actions .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I'm more confused now, what would that have to do with this thread?

This is beyond sad even frightening. Hope it can be overruled. There's a gov petition about it but more should be brought to light here. States rights? This is where there's the limit, when it's hurting people, and as one might ask does that not need to be addressed. Twenty-four states don't criminalize it.

a reply to: dreamingawake

24 states don't criminalise FGM?!
That's like barbaric 3rd world countries ffs.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Xtrozero

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that the U.S. law banning female genital mutilation was unconstitutional and dismissed charges against several doctors in Michigan who carried out the procedure on underage girls as part Muslim sect’s religious practice.

You wanted freedom of religion, you got it.

I protest the idea. Mutilations are sick perverted minds brutalizing a women for 'religion', BS!

Nothing should be called a religion if it involves physically hurting people against their will, or do it to a child.

a reply to: Justoneman

That would include Jews and circumcision then as well. Barbaric practice in the name of religion.

Stoning women to death for extremely minor infractions is also an Islamic religious practice.

Is this low iq piece of sh#t libtarded “judge” going to also allow that?

If not, why not? It ticks both the same boxes. It’s an accepted religious practice AND it’s anti-female.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Ah , I Guess that was Not Cornish Enough ...........)

a reply to: Justoneman

Nothing should be called a religion if it involves physically hurting people against their will, or do it to a child.

Calling something a religion seems to open up a world of acceptable practices.
While condemning a whole other world of them.

It's more cultural than religious though.
No Jews (that I know of) in my heritage.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Nothing should be called a religion if it involves physically hurting people against their will, or do it to a child.

Calling something a religion seems to open up a world of acceptable practices.
While condemning a whole other world of them.

It's more cultural than religious though.
No Jews (that I know of) in my heritage.

I have no Jewish heritage nor understand the need to say so like that?

I don't agree at all with the Jew references that people go for in social media. A lot that blame them for being defensive in a time of war. Bigotry for progs allowed?

Bad people and good people profess "religion". We only have deeds to help us when trying to understand why bad things happen because of one of them. Cultural and religion are rolled into one so often.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Nothing should be called a religion if it involves physically hurting people against their will, or do it to a child.

Calling something a religion seems to open up a world of acceptable practices.
While condemning a whole other world of them.

It's more cultural than religious though.
No Jews (that I know of) in my heritage.

I have no Jewish heritage nor understand the need to say so like that?

I don't agree at all with the Jew references that people go for in social media. A lot that blame them for being defensive in a time of war. Bigotry for progs allowed?

Bad people and good people profess "religion". We only have deeds to help us when trying to understand why bad things happen because of one of them. Cultural and religion are rolled into one so often.

a reply to: Justoneman

I have no Jewish heritage nor understand the need to say so like that?

My foreskin is non-existent. And yet, I am not a Jew. Thus, it has nothing to do with religion.


I probably know some Jews. I neither know or care.

Religion and culture go hand in hand, through time for some the hands have

let go so things change. I am not a religious scholar but manys the time I've

noticed the closeness between the othodox Jewish and Muslim culture/religion.

ie.....

circumcision......

the hijab = shaving of a womans hair etc. etc.


As I said I'm not a scholar of either but through life I notice many similarities

of these two cultures/religions more so than any others!!

FGM is not comparable to male circumcision at all. Its not even close to an equal comparison.
If I understand correctly, for the woman were talking no orgasm for life. Right?

A better male comparison would be that of cutting the male penis completely off to where he can never enjoy sex.

Male circumcision only makes for a better looking peter, it does nothing to the males sexual function.

originally posted by: Trucker1
Male circumcision only makes for a better looking peter, it does nothing to the males sexual function.

Not the case of blokes I've spoken to who have had circumcision late in life for medical reasons, they have all complained about loss of sensitivity. If you were circumcised as a baby you can have no idea of the joys of thousands of nerve endings in a foreskin. You have no idea of the loss.

I'll take anecdotal evidence from people I know over some biased US funded 'study' which says there is no loss of sensitivity, and you can keep your leather skinned penis's, ask yourself why the EU with 500 million people don't do it routinely?
There is no medical need. We all have tax funded healthcare systems working to save money all the time, if there was a genuine reduction in diseases from circumcision then the NHS would be all over it like a rash.
They aren't because there is no real medical need for it.

It is brutal and barbaric in my opinion, and it is similar to 'some' forms of FGM where they only remove the hood of the clitoris. Of course the other methods are awful, but that doesn't take away the fact that circumcision is genital mutilation.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Xtrozero
It's been illegal for years in the UK but not a single prosecution. Culture of silence in the communities and police not wishing to seem racist by targeting particular cultures.

Because I work with youngsters now and again, I've had the safeguarding training in FGM.

Three facts:

FGM is now more of a problem among second generation West African christians than among muslims.

FGM is down 15% on last year. These figures are of identified cases of FGM, most of them historical, and not kids being mutilated today. Many of these were carried out before the women came into the country. Total number of cases suspected of being done in the UK in the whole sample - 85. Compare that with the tens of thousands of kids active in gangs.

FGM prosecutions are cr*p in the UK because the police and CPS can't organise a free bar on New Year's Eve any more, not because of any "sensitivities". Those "sensivities", where they do exist, are more about fear of a backlash than any PC sense of fear of offending certain communities...but that makes for dull headlines in a culture of fear.

Don't take my word for it. Instead of cherry picking three minutes of online research, talk to a front-line professional.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

So anecdotal evidence over scientific studies which have nothing to do with America. And let's ignore your friends medical conditions.

Not surprised.