it isnt democracy when the people at the top are making the decisions based on their beliefs instead of average person in that country. for example, bush trying to ban gay marriage because it's "not christian". i didnt realize that the us was comprised only of christians. and on that, most arent strict to the bible. he should learn a lesson from our ex-pm jean chretien who said, "i personally dont believe in gay marriage but its what the people want". thats democracy.
Bush is not trying to ban anything. He said he'd support a Constiutional Amendment doing so. And the last time I checked, he didn't come out and say "it's unchristian". There are many reasons why people oppose gay marriage, other than religious belief.
and btw: The people in the US don't want gay marriage by about a 2/3 majority.
Ya know, this still has to be approved by the governor. Maybe he won't be a numbskull.
Then again this guy is the governor of Georgia. He looks like a used car salesman.
OK, OK. Let me get this straight. You "hate" this country? And why is that exactly? How about you stick to criticizing the moron who sponsored this bill, rather the governor of the state, and while your at it, the entire nation.
It doesn't actually seem to say ANYTHING about piercing with jewelry. Somebody else cast your eye on the bill. And for those who don't know what the word "infibulate" means, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as:
To close off or obstruct the genitals of, especially by sewing together the labia majora in females or fastening the prepuce in males, so as to prevent sexual intercourse.
So the bill actually reads that you can't TRIM, REMOVE or SEW-UP a female's genitalia.
this is a lot different from what were supposing the bill meant.
Please, somebody doublecheck me on on this.
I believe that the Georgia Legislature might deserve an apology from all you Bubba-haters!
How about *BAN* completely, with minimum ten years imprisonment as the punishment!!!!
(I would prefer the death penalty for people who mutilate girls; but that probably won't fly.)
...
Some of you posters have little daughters of your own whom you love. How would you feel about them being mutilated for life - with a piece of broken glass or the lid off a tin can, as happens to millions of little girls in Africa and elsewhere? Little girls just like your own.
As a woman absolutely against FGM, I agree with you completely! See, I first heard of the atrocities when I learned about "The Vagina Monologues," and after researching it more, I have been utterly disgusted since. Yes, there are many taboo traditions out there, but imho, none are as (to say the least) oppressive and abusive (esp. physically).
However, I'm a mixture of thoughts about whether we could actually make a law to ban it for those consensual, free-willed, independent adults (children, heck yeah! non-consensual adults, heck yeah! but consensual adults? i'm unsure)... I'd love to hear your (and others') thoughts/opinions on this. I personally want FGM banned altogether - in a heartbeat, but then again, a thought I have is who are we to tell adults what to do with their own bodies, and what about their religious freedoms? To their culture, it's deeply important, honorable, and has been engrained in their tradition for ages. The closest analogy I can think of is how people justified banning non-consensual burqa wearing (robes that cover women from head to toe) in Afghanistan. The thing is, that was only non-consensual. Some women continue to proudly wear them out of honoring tradition and/or habit (and some are forced still...so maybe banning it altogether is the only way to protect the non-consensual)... Although the MAJORITY do not, who are we to stop those who want to continue? Isn't FGM the same type of oppressive tradition - although waaaay worse!? *sigh* I wish there was more we could do to protect these women, but do they need protecting if it's consensual? and where can we draw the line while fostering free will (b/c again, arguable, people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies...)?
It doesn't actually seem to say ANYTHING about piercing with jewelry. Somebody else cast your eye on the bill. And for those who don't know what the word "infibulate" means, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as:
...
To close off or obstruct the genitals of, especially by sewing together the labia majora in females or fastening the prepuce in males, so as to prevent sexual intercourse.
So the bill actually reads that you can't TRIM, REMOVE or SEW-UP a female's genitalia.
...
Thanks for sharing that link. I couldn't find it earlier.
Another definition I found for infibulation is: closing the penis/vagina with suture, ring, or other way. Some people also connect two piercings to create a chastity belt of sorts (although rare). Maybe publicity/people jumped to the general jewely piercing conclusion because of the ring portion of infibulation...
The lawmakers really needs to elaborate in that bill (include exceptions...) and/or include definitions, lol. Of course, they could be keeping it vague it on purpose... Wouldn't surprise me.\
To close off or obstruct the genitals of, especially by sewing together the labia majora in females so as to prevent sexual intercourse.
So the bill actually reads that you can't TRIM, REMOVE or SEW-UP a female's genitalia.
this is a lot different from what were supposing the bill meant.
Please, somebody doublecheck me on on this.
I believe that the Georgia Legislature might deserve an apology from all you Bubba-haters!
Drew - I don't feel like reading the bill right now. I will later. But it's too bad many people who read this thread earlier will go off thinking that the Georgia legislators are idiots; whereas in point of fact - if what you say in the above quote is true - they should have parades thrown in their honor.
My impression is that the women in these cultures have been so down-trodden culturally, and so frequently treated as chattel, that the term 'consensual' basically loses its meaning.
To get them to submit to this horror, all the pressures of their ignorant cultures are put into play. If they *aren't* mutilated, they become unmarriageable, they don't fit in, they feel ostracized. Well, the whole thing makes me sick.
NO woman who has any education about the rest of the world, who is made aware that *most* of the world does NOT practice this barbaric rite, would choose mutilation for herself (too late for 'her', though) or for her daughters.
I DO think FGM is so hideous - "to any rational, educated person" - that it should be banned completely in first-world societies, and monitored as I suggested above - as a crime perpetrated upon and abusive to children who have no sense of perspective in the matter.
I understand your concern about limiting people's freedom. I would say that if a woman reached the age of 25 and "wanted" to have her clitoris excised and her labia mutilated, then by all means, let her do it. If she's that stupid by then, then let her do whatever she wants. Some people don't have the mental wherewithal to be saved from themselves. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's how I feel.
As I said, this whole thing (FGM) just infuriates me, and makes me want to do terrible things to the people who practice this unspeakable barbarism. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Edit: By 'FGM' I'm referring to the practices that slice away the clitoris, that slice away the inner labia and parts of the outer labia, and that then sew up the outer labia.
I'm NOT referring at *ALL* to those first-world women who get their genitals pierced to increase sexual pleasure. Anything that increases sexual pleasure is fine by me!
So the bill actually reads that you can't TRIM, REMOVE or SEW-UP a female's genitalia.
Technically, it reads that you can't trim, remove or obstruct in whole or in part. It is the partial obstruction that would apply to piercing.
I have to admit that it does not look as bad when you read the text of the actual bill (well done on digging it up) in that it does not specifically address voluntary piercing on a consenting adult for decorative purposes...it is quite possible that this is another case of the media focusing on the sensational.
However, the fact that its sponsor professed astonishment that adults might want to put rings or studs through their private parts and didn't seem concerned about the impact that the bill may have on them is a little damming.
My impression is that the women in these cultures have been so down-trodden culturally, and so frequently treated as chattel, that the term 'consensual' basically loses its meaning.
To get them to submit to this horror, all the pressures of their ignorant cultures are put into play. If they *aren't* mutilated, they become unmarriageable, they don't fit in, they feel ostracized. Well, the whole thing makes me sick.
NO woman who has any education about the rest of the world, who is made aware that *most* of the world does NOT practice this barbaric rite, would choose mutilation for herself (too late for 'her', though) or for her daughters.
I DO think FGM is so hideous - "to any rational, educated person" - that it should be banned completely in first-world societies, and monitored as I suggested above - as a crime perpetrated upon and abusive to children who have no sense of perspective in the matter.
I understand your concern about limiting people's freedom. I would say that if a woman reached the age of 25 and "wanted" to have her clitoris excised and her labia mutilated, then by all means, let her do it. If she's that stupid by then, then let her do whatever she wants. Some people don't have the mental wherewithal to be saved from themselves. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's how I feel.
As I said, this whole thing (FGM) just infuriates me, and makes me want to do terrible things to the people who practice this unspeakable barbarism. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Welcome to my view on male circumcision... and yet, most people *in this society* think it's not only 'no big deal', but 'normal'.
NO woman who has any education about the rest of the world, who is made aware that *most* of the world does NOT practice this barbaric rite, would choose mutilation for herself (too late for 'her', though) or for her daughters.
Oh yes. Absolutely. And with so few people raising education (RAWA, etc.. and women often aren't allowed to be schooled anyway), time is passing with so little done and many falling victim to their ignorant selves/culture. How many more have to suffer before we do something about it? It's frustrating, and in the meantime, we have laws meant to protect these girls and women, but they are rarely enforced, and even when they are, the practice goes underground b/c women are compliant out of ignorance. I can't help but ask, what are we doing wrong and what else can we do?
Quote:
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's how I feel."
It doesn't sound harsh to me. It's the truth.
Kickaha: yeah. my thoughts on FGM apply to MGM, too. It's just not right. *sigh*
Hi Kicks - I guess I am coming around to your point of view wrt male circumcision. I know you feel strongly about it, and you are a 'very' persuasive person. Indeed, you have persuaded 'me'.
I would trust your opinion in general as being highly rational and probably the most sensible stance to take wrt most controversies.
Comments
Originally posted by Cam'ron
it isnt democracy when the people at the top are making the decisions based on their beliefs instead of average person in that country. for example, bush trying to ban gay marriage because it's "not christian". i didnt realize that the us was comprised only of christians. and on that, most arent strict to the bible. he should learn a lesson from our ex-pm jean chretien who said, "i personally dont believe in gay marriage but its what the people want". thats democracy.
Bush is not trying to ban anything. He said he'd support a Constiutional Amendment doing so. And the last time I checked, he didn't come out and say "it's unchristian". There are many reasons why people oppose gay marriage, other than religious belief.
and btw: The people in the US don't want gay marriage by about a 2/3 majority.
Originally posted by Ganondorf
UGH I HATE THIS COUNTRY
Ya know, this still has to be approved by the governor. Maybe he won't be a numbskull.
Then again this guy is the governor of Georgia. He looks like a used car salesman.
OK, OK. Let me get this straight. You "hate" this country? And why is that exactly? How about you stick to criticizing the moron who sponsored this bill, rather the governor of the state, and while your at it, the entire nation.
It doesn't actually seem to say ANYTHING about piercing with jewelry. Somebody else cast your eye on the bill. And for those who don't know what the word "infibulate" means, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as:
SYLLABICATION:
in·fib·u·late
PRONUNCIATION:
__n-fby-lt
TRANSITIVE VERB:
Inflected forms: in·fib·u·lat·ed, in·fib·u·lat·ing, in·fib·u·lates
To close off or obstruct the genitals of, especially by sewing together the labia majora in females or fastening the prepuce in males, so as to prevent sexual intercourse.
So the bill actually reads that you can't TRIM, REMOVE or SEW-UP a female's genitalia.
this is a lot different from what were supposing the bill meant.
Please, somebody doublecheck me on on this.
I believe that the Georgia Legislature might deserve an apology from all you Bubba-haters!
Originally posted by Carol A
REGULATE???!!!
REGULATE??????!!!!!!!!
How about *BAN* completely, with minimum ten years imprisonment as the punishment!!!!
(I would prefer the death penalty for people who mutilate girls; but that probably won't fly.)
...
Some of you posters have little daughters of your own whom you love. How would you feel about them being mutilated for life - with a piece of broken glass or the lid off a tin can, as happens to millions of little girls in Africa and elsewhere? Little girls just like your own.
As a woman absolutely against FGM, I agree with you completely! See, I first heard of the atrocities when I learned about "The Vagina Monologues," and after researching it more, I have been utterly disgusted since. Yes, there are many taboo traditions out there, but imho, none are as (to say the least) oppressive and abusive (esp. physically).
However, I'm a mixture of thoughts about whether we could actually make a law to ban it for those consensual, free-willed, independent adults (children, heck yeah! non-consensual adults, heck yeah! but consensual adults? i'm unsure)... I'd love to hear your (and others') thoughts/opinions on this. I personally want FGM banned altogether - in a heartbeat, but then again, a thought I have is who are we to tell adults what to do with their own bodies, and what about their religious freedoms? To their culture, it's deeply important, honorable, and has been engrained in their tradition for ages. The closest analogy I can think of is how people justified banning non-consensual burqa wearing (robes that cover women from head to toe) in Afghanistan. The thing is, that was only non-consensual. Some women continue to proudly wear them out of honoring tradition and/or habit (and some are forced still...so maybe banning it altogether is the only way to protect the non-consensual)... Although the MAJORITY do not, who are we to stop those who want to continue? Isn't FGM the same type of oppressive tradition - although waaaay worse!? *sigh* I wish there was more we could do to protect these women, but do they need protecting if it's consensual? and where can we draw the line while fostering free will (b/c again, arguable, people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies...)?
blah, blah, blah. See? I'm conflicted. Someone please try to enlighten me.
Why?
It was founded by crazy Rome-hating puritans.
Originally posted by drewprops
Okay, here's the ACTUAL bill. Check it out.
It doesn't actually seem to say ANYTHING about piercing with jewelry. Somebody else cast your eye on the bill. And for those who don't know what the word "infibulate" means, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as:
...
To close off or obstruct the genitals of, especially by sewing together the labia majora in females or fastening the prepuce in males, so as to prevent sexual intercourse.
So the bill actually reads that you can't TRIM, REMOVE or SEW-UP a female's genitalia.
...
Thanks for sharing that link
Another definition I found for infibulation is: closing the penis/vagina with suture, ring, or other way. Some people also connect two piercings to create a chastity belt of sorts (although rare). Maybe publicity/people jumped to the general jewely piercing conclusion because of the ring portion of infibulation...
The lawmakers really needs to elaborate in that bill (include exceptions...) and/or include definitions, lol. Of course, they could be keeping it vague it on purpose... Wouldn't surprise me.
here's another interesting site to read (although I do question its reliability some...): http://www.naasohablood.kabissa.org/gmutalation.html
Originally posted by drewprops
TRANSITIVE VERB:
Inflected forms: in·fib·u·lat·ed, in·fib·u·lat·ing, in·fib·u·lates
To close off or obstruct the genitals of, especially by sewing together the labia majora in females so as to prevent sexual intercourse.
So the bill actually reads that you can't TRIM, REMOVE or SEW-UP a female's genitalia.
this is a lot different from what were supposing the bill meant.
Please, somebody doublecheck me on on this.
I believe that the Georgia Legislature might deserve an apology from all you Bubba-haters!
Drew - I don't feel like reading the bill right now. I will later. But it's too bad many people who read this thread earlier will go off thinking that the Georgia legislators are idiots; whereas in point of fact - if what you say in the above quote is true - they should have parades thrown in their honor.
Carol
My impression is that the women in these cultures have been so down-trodden culturally, and so frequently treated as chattel, that the term 'consensual' basically loses its meaning.
To get them to submit to this horror, all the pressures of their ignorant cultures are put into play. If they *aren't* mutilated, they become unmarriageable, they don't fit in, they feel ostracized. Well, the whole thing makes me sick.
NO woman who has any education about the rest of the world, who is made aware that *most* of the world does NOT practice this barbaric rite, would choose mutilation for herself (too late for 'her', though) or for her daughters.
I DO think FGM is so hideous - "to any rational, educated person" - that it should be banned completely in first-world societies, and monitored as I suggested above - as a crime perpetrated upon and abusive to children who have no sense of perspective in the matter.
I understand your concern about limiting people's freedom. I would say that if a woman reached the age of 25 and "wanted" to have her clitoris excised and her labia mutilated, then by all means, let her do it. If she's that stupid by then, then let her do whatever she wants. Some people don't have the mental wherewithal to be saved from themselves. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's how I feel.
As I said, this whole thing (FGM) just infuriates me, and makes me want to do terrible things to the people who practice this unspeakable barbarism. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Edit: By 'FGM' I'm referring to the practices that slice away the clitoris, that slice away the inner labia and parts of the outer labia, and that then sew up the outer labia.
I'm NOT referring at *ALL* to those first-world women who get their genitals pierced to increase sexual pleasure. Anything that increases sexual pleasure is fine by me!
Originally posted by drewprops
So the bill actually reads that you can't TRIM, REMOVE or SEW-UP a female's genitalia.
Technically, it reads that you can't trim, remove or obstruct in whole or in part. It is the partial obstruction that would apply to piercing.
I have to admit that it does not look as bad when you read the text of the actual bill (well done on digging it up) in that it does not specifically address voluntary piercing on a consenting adult for decorative purposes...it is quite possible that this is another case of the media focusing on the sensational.
However, the fact that its sponsor professed astonishment that adults might want to put rings or studs through their private parts and didn't seem concerned about the impact that the bill may have on them is a little damming.
Originally posted by Carol A
Hi skyeyed -
My impression is that the women in these cultures have been so down-trodden culturally, and so frequently treated as chattel, that the term 'consensual' basically loses its meaning.
To get them to submit to this horror, all the pressures of their ignorant cultures are put into play. If they *aren't* mutilated, they become unmarriageable, they don't fit in, they feel ostracized. Well, the whole thing makes me sick.
NO woman who has any education about the rest of the world, who is made aware that *most* of the world does NOT practice this barbaric rite, would choose mutilation for herself (too late for 'her', though) or for her daughters.
I DO think FGM is so hideous - "to any rational, educated person" - that it should be banned completely in first-world societies, and monitored as I suggested above - as a crime perpetrated upon and abusive to children who have no sense of perspective in the matter.
I understand your concern about limiting people's freedom. I would say that if a woman reached the age of 25 and "wanted" to have her clitoris excised and her labia mutilated, then by all means, let her do it. If she's that stupid by then, then let her do whatever she wants. Some people don't have the mental wherewithal to be saved from themselves. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's how I feel.
As I said, this whole thing (FGM) just infuriates me, and makes me want to do terrible things to the people who practice this unspeakable barbarism. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Welcome to my view on male circumcision... and yet, most people *in this society* think it's not only 'no big deal', but 'normal'.
We're no better than the 'barbarians'.
NO woman who has any education about the rest of the world, who is made aware that *most* of the world does NOT practice this barbaric rite, would choose mutilation for herself (too late for 'her', though) or for her daughters.
Oh yes. Absolutely. And with so few people raising education (RAWA, etc.. and women often aren't allowed to be schooled anyway), time is passing with so little done and many falling victim to their ignorant selves/culture. How many more have to suffer before we do something about it? It's frustrating, and in the meantime, we have laws meant to protect these girls and women, but they are rarely enforced, and even when they are, the practice goes underground b/c women are compliant out of ignorance. I can't help but ask, what are we doing wrong and what else can we do?
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's how I feel."
It doesn't sound harsh to me. It's the truth.
Kickaha: yeah. my thoughts on FGM apply to MGM, too. It's just not right. *sigh*
I would trust your opinion in general as being highly rational and probably the most sensible stance to take wrt most controversies.
What I'm saying is that I trust *you* completely.
A nice feeling to have.