Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
compl3x

First Female Genital Mutilation Charges In UK

94 posts in this topic

 
 

A doctor and another man will be charged in the first UK prosecution for female genital mutilation, the CPS has said.
 
Dr Dhanoun Dharmasena, from the Whittington Hospital in London, and Hasan Mohamed, who is not a medic, will be charged under the Female Genital Mutilation Act.
 
Dr Dharmasena, 31, from Ilford, Essex, allegedly carried out the procedure on a woman who had given birth at the hospital in November 2012.
 
Mr Mohamed, 40, from N7, London, encouraged and helped him, it is claimed.
 
The pair will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on April 15.
 
Prosecutors also looked at four other cases of female genital mutilation.
 
One was a new case and three were reconsidered after decisions to take no further action.
 
The CPS found there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
 
One of the old cases involved a man calling a female genital mutilation helpline, intended for victims, to ask for the procedure to be carried out on his two daughters.
 
The new case involved two parents accused of taking their daughter abroad to have the procedure.
 
The CPS is also considering four other cases.
 
Female genital mutilation was made a criminal offence in the UK in 1985.
 
In 2003, the maximum sentence was increased from five to 14 years in jail.

 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1229648/first-female-genital-mutilation-charges-in-uk

 

 

Goooood. Hope it send a message to the other mutilators that this twisted ###### is unacceptable. Why'd you want to harm a child in this way is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In these cases I think the old "let the punishment fit the crime" would be very applicable. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, genital mutilation for genital mutilation. This whole thing is sick... the punishment needs to be bad enough to make people thing twice about it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news.  Now we need to start doing the same thing to people who circumcise boys.

12 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news.  Now we need to start doing the same thing to people who circumcise boys.

 

 

Well, maybe you're right, and I got too worked up about it.

 

But the two are presented in a very different light... the subject of the article presents it in a very negative way (genital mutilation), where as circumcision is normally considered to be a positive thing (in the US at least). Also one is legal and one isn't. I'm not sure if you're playing devils advocate, serious, or just being sarcastic... would you care to present a case for why female genital mutilation is a positive thing? Are there benefits, health or otherwise? Is it harmful? With circumcision, last I've heard there are still some possible health benefits, but maybe most people still do it since it's the norm (again, in the US).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news.  Now we need to start doing the same thing to people who circumcise boys.

 

 

Sorry, being anti-circumcision is anti-Semitism and Islamaphobic. One thing Jews and Muslims can agree on is their right to chop off the foreskin of their sons.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, maybe you're right, and I got too worked up about it.

 

But the two are presented in a very different light... the subject of the article presents it in a very negative way (genital mutilation), where as circumcision is normally considered to be a positive thing (in the US at least). Also one is legal and one isn't. I'm not sure if you're playing devils advocate, serious, or just being sarcastic... would you care to present a case for why female genital mutilation is a positive thing? Are there benefits, health or otherwise? Is it harmful? With circumcision, last I've heard there are still some possible health benefits, but maybe most people still do it since it's the norm (again, in the US).

 

 

Sorry, being anti-circumcision is anti-Semitism and Islamaphobic. One thing Jews and Muslims can agree on is their right to chop off the foreskin of their sons.

Please explain to my why cutting off an INFANTS foreskin is acceptable.  Explain to me why an infant should be in extreme pain.. and bleeding.. and losing a part of their body because you think it's okay.   Explain to me why it is a good thing?  Should we go around cutting off peoples middle finger because it's not "Needed"?  Should we force everyone to have a shaved head.. or remove their spleen because you don't NEED it?

The foreskin is a living organ, it protects the penis head and prevents abraisions, loss of sensation, ensures lubractions, and does much much more.  The reason for circumcision was to reduce the sexual pleasure (same goes for females).. it serves no medically proven (any medical proof is disproven, or shown to be 100% circumstantial) purpose.  Now it is done because it's "Normal".   If it was how it was supposed to be.. humans would have evolved to the point of not having them any more.  All animals have a foreskin or protective covering.. humans are no different.  We just have some sick twisted doctors that like to play with little boys privates and get away with it.  

So don;t even start with it being a good thing.  Why should we be allowed to mutilate and #### with infant males genitals.. when it is illegal to do so on a female?

10 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain to my why cutting off an INFANTS foreskin is acceptable.  Explain to me why an infant should be in extreme pain.. and bleeding.. and losing a part of their body because you think it's okay.   Explain to me why it is a good thing?  Should we go around cutting off peoples middle finger because it's not "Needed"?  Should we force everyone to have a shaved head.. or remove their spleen because you don't NEED it?

The foreskin is a living organ, it protects the penis head and prevents abraisions, loss of sensation, ensures lubractions, and does much much more.  The reason for circumcision was to reduce the sexual pleasure (same goes for females).. it serves no medically proven (any medical proof is disproven, or shown to be 100% circumstantial).  

So don;t even start with it being a good thing.  

 

Americans love their foreskin chopping, don't try talk them outta that one

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there benefits, health or otherwise? Is it harmful? With circumcision, last I've heard there are still some possible health benefits, but maybe most people still do it since it's the norm (again, in the US).

 

There are absolutely NO proven health benefits from male genital mutilation (call it what it IS, not what religious loonies do).  The only reason it's seen as acceptable is because the Jewish faith routinely practices it (and IIRC, it's not a compulsory requirement either, it's optional).  If it were just Muslims that did it, like FGM, it would be just as outlawed.

 

Mutilation is mutilation and should not be tolerated.  Those that object can stick their religious beliefs up their backsides and stop harming infants.  If people want to mutilate themselves, once they reach adulthood, that's entirely their choice.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, maybe you're right, and I got too worked up about it.

 

But the two are presented in a very different light... the subject of the article presents it in a very negative way (genital mutilation), where as circumcision is normally considered to be a positive thing (in the US at least). Also one is legal and one isn't. I'm not sure if you're playing devils advocate, serious, or just being sarcastic... would you care to present a case for why female genital mutilation is a positive thing? Are there benefits, health or otherwise? Is it harmful? With circumcision, last I've heard there are still some possible health benefits, but maybe most people still do it since it's the norm (again, in the US).

 

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm quite serious.  Both male and female circumcision are barbaric practices and both should be treated the same.  There's no benefit to either.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain to my why cutting off an INFANTS foreskin is acceptable.  Explain to me why an infant should be in extreme pain.. and bleeding.. and losing a part of their body because you think it's okay.   Explain to me why it is a good thing?  Should we go around cutting off peoples middle finger because it's not "Needed"?  Should we force everyone to have a shaved head.. or remove their spleen because you don't NEED it?

The foreskin is a living organ, it protects the penis head and prevents abraisions, loss of sensation, ensures lubractions, and does much much more.  The reason for circumcision was to reduce the sexual pleasure (same goes for females).. it serves no medically proven (any medical proof is disproven, or shown to be 100% circumstantial) purpose.  Now it is done because it's "Normal".   If it was how it was supposed to be.. humans would have evolved to the point of not having them any more.  All animals have a foreskin or protective covering.. humans are no different.  We just have some sick twisted doctors that like to play with little boys privates and get away with it.  

So don;t even start with it being a good thing.  Why should we be allowed to mutilate and #### with infant males genitals.. when it is illegal to do so on a female?

 

Why?  How many cases have you heard where a male asks why he wasn't allowed to choose?  I for one am glad it happened when I was an infant.  I do not remember it, I have no complications from it and everything works and feels as normal.

 

However, I'm not wanting to turn this a pro/con male circumcision thread.  

 

The point is that female genital mutilation and male circumcision can not be compared.  They are apples and oranges.  While the male retains all "pleasure" and functionality after circumcision ...female genital mutilation potentially causes bladder and urinary tract infections, increased childbirth complications/deaths and the list goes on...with the end result is that they lose sexual pleasure all because of the underlying gender structure and power relations.  That is it...nothing else.

 

If circumcision is barbaric...then a stronger word than barbarism would describe female genital mutilation.  

 

Anyway, if male circumcision involved cutting off the glans penis...then you could compare the two.  You do not hear about to many males wishing they had their foreskin back...I wonder how many of the 125 million females that this has been done on wish they could experience the pleasures of sex.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1229648/first-female-genital-mutilation-charges-in-uk

 

 

Goooood. Hope it send a message to the other mutilators that this twisted #### is unacceptable. Why'd you want to harm a child in this way is beyond me.

 

This was reported when I was around 15 30 years ago.

 

Somalian Islamic girls being circumcised.

 

One girl was so cut up and stitched up, her aunt did it, she could not pee.

 

It is illegal in Britain, so why has it taken so long to prosecute?

 

They need to be struck off and never allowed to practice medicine again in the U.K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 58% of new borns are circumcized today in the United States, down from 64% in the 70s . That is actually an outrageous amount.

 

I actually suffer male genital mutilation. It has a few other side effects not normally brought up. One is nerve damage, in which I have had my whole life and never knew. Generally I experience a pain or splitting nerve sensation in my dick and when I was younger I just thought it was normal; as an adult I now know its never normal to experience this sensation and it is at a spot that is likely damaged from the mutilation. I also have scar tissue built up around my penis where the skin was cut off. Sometimes I also experience unpleasant burn sensation.

 

Next is the brain is physically connected to the foreskin and once its cut off, its like knocking out all the connections to the region of brain designed to handle nerve impulses from that particular empendage. This means a part of my brain goes unused and unactivated, and I may even have phantom limb syndrome basically what may be causing some of the pain and nerve sensation issues. Therefore cutting off foreskin also is akin to damaging part of the brain and nervous system.

 

The sensations of sex and masturbation are also altered meaning my whole life I experienced faulted orgasms and my brain grew around the pain and missing or off sensations. I could be experiencing something very different today but I will never know because they cut my dick before I had a chance to object.

 

#### I want to know why this idiotic procedure isn't considered an unconsented to assault and battery which by that definition should never be performed except on consenting adults of at least 18 years of age. I am guessing most people would not choose to have the procedure done and it should be the persons choice. Not societies, not the doctors, and not the brainwashed parents living by retarded tradition or delusional religious standards.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets break this down shall we?
 

Why?  How many cases have you heard where a male asks why he wasn't allowed to choose?  I for one am glad it happened when I was an infant.  I do not remember it, I have no complications from it and everything works and feels as normal.

 

So.. had you not been circumcised.. would you go through RIGHT NOW and get it done? Would you make the choice to have it done? If someone walked up to you (a licensed doctor) and said.. hey man.. that guy over there told me I need to cut off your foreskin RIGHT ######ING NOW.. you would be cool with that?
 


he point is that female genital mutilation and male circumcision can not be compared.  They are apples and oranges.  While the male retains all "pleasure" and functionality after circumcision ...female genital mutilation potentially causes bladder and urinary tract infections, increased childbirth complications/deaths and the list goes on...with the end result is that they lose sexual pleasure all because of the underlying gender structure and power relations.  That is it...nothing else.

 

 

Um.. no.. they don't.  Males that are circumcised actually loose most feeling in the head of their penis.  Not only that but the foreskin itself has MANY MANY nerve receptors which stimulate males sexually.  So no the male doesn't even retain 1/3 of the natural "pleasure" nice try though.   Many males have died from circumcisions.. hell that US has the highest infant mortality rate of anywhere in the world.. and they are the only place still practicing circumcision as a natural thing.. I think there may be a link.. (loss of blood, cutting of the penis itself, infection, the list goes on)

 

If circumcision is barbaric...then a stronger word than barbarism would describe female genital mutilation.  

 

 

Mutilation is mutilation.  Especially when it involves genitals.. it doesn't matter if male or female.

 

 

Anyway, if male circumcision involved cutting off the glans penis...then you could compare the two.  You do not hear about to many males wishing they had their foreskin back...I wonder how many of the 125 million females that this has been done on wish they could experience the pleasures of sex.

 

 

 

There are many males that wish they had not been circumcised.  I wonder how many of the millions of males wish they could experience ALL of the pleasures of sex.   

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...everything works and feels as normal.

 

 

 

It's not normal though and you now lack nerve endings that would make it feel more than it does.  You can thank your parents for that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have absolutely no problem with circumcision, either for men or women - as long as it's their choice. Same with tattoos, piercing, ear spacers, cosmetic surgery, etc. What I do have a problem with is parents mutilating their children without informed consent, regardless of whether it's for religious or cultural reasons. If someone claimed that cutting off children's ears reduced their chance of getting an ear infection do you think it would be tolerated? Of course not. And the same is true of circumcision; it's only because it's an established cultural tradition that it's still tolerated.

 

Circumcising children is child abuse. There is no excuse for it in this day and age. As for religious discrimination, parents have no right to force their religious beliefs upon their children when it involves mutilating their bodies. It is scandalous that circumcising male children is still legal and it's disgusting that some would try to claim that opposing circumcision is anti-Semitic or Islamophobic.

 

It's great that those conducting female circumcision are being punished but now it's time to criminalise male circumcision too.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a perceived view that there are advantages to a male being circumcised, whereas there are no advantages of female circumcision, it is only done to remove female pleasure. The views the male circumcision has advantages have been disproved and it is much better for a male to have their foreskin, just as it is much better for a women to have her clitoris. They are similar in that during development what becomes the males foreskin, in the female it becomes the hood over the clitoris, so removing the clitoris in female circumcision is equal to removing the whole head of the penis.

 

Neither should be done, it is unfair on a child to go through that procedure for the sake of religious purposes. I thought humans were made in gods image, so why do they have to have bits cut off at a young age??

 

Obviously there are medical reasons why operations need to be done later in life, I am waiting to be circumcised as my frenulum snapped during sex, and never healed right, meaning my foreskin splits during sex which is painful, a freuloplasty hasn't fixed it so I have to have it removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously there are medical reasons why operations need to be done later in life, I am waiting to be circumcised as my frenulum snapped during sex, and never healed right, meaning my foreskin splits during sex which is painful, a freuloplasty hasn't fixed it so I have to have it removed.

I had this happen, but they were able to sever the tie and it healed properly.  I get that there can be problems with foreskin.. but in most of the cases where circumcision occurs.. that male could live their entire life with 0 problems.  Echoing what theyarecomingforyou said.  If breasts are a major cause of cancer in women.. should we start removing their breasts to prevent it? No.. because the breast on a woman still has function (breast milk) as does the foreskin of a male (protecting the glans).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets break this down shall we?

 

 

So.. had you not been circumcised.. would you go through RIGHT NOW and get it done? Would you make the choice to have it done? If someone walked up to you (a licensed doctor) and said.. hey man.. that guy over there told me I need to cut off your foreskin RIGHT ####ING NOW.. you would be cool with that?

 

 

Um.. no.. they don't.  Males that are circumcised actually loose most feeling in the head of their penis.  Not only that but the foreskin itself has MANY MANY nerve receptors which stimulate males sexually.  So no the male doesn't even retain 1/3 of the natural "pleasure" nice try though.   Many males have died from circumcisions.. hell that US has the highest infant mortality rate of anywhere in the world.. and they are the only place still practicing circumcision as a natural thing.. I think there may be a link.. (loss of blood, cutting of the penis itself, infection, the list goes on)

 

 

Mutilation is mutilation.  Especially when it involves genitals.. it doesn't matter if male or female.

 

 

 

There are many males that wish they had not been circumcised.  I wonder how many of the millions of males wish they could experience ALL of the pleasures of sex.   

 

There are so many things about your post that are out of context.

1)  Would I have circumcision now?  No...because it would hurt like a mother.  Am I glad I am circumcised....yep! 

2)  It doesn't affect the head (i.e. remove nerves).  It does remove nerves from...well the foreskin.

3)  The debate is still out on how much it really does affect the sexual pleasure.  What isn't of debate is that female genital mutilation (i.e. this thread) completely removes sexual pleasure.

4)  As far as if male circumcision should also outlawed...I really have no opinion on this.  I am however glad it was done and I am glad I don't remember it happening.

 

It's not normal though and you now lack nerve endings that would make it feel more than it does.  You can thank your parents for that.

 

As mentioned...this shouldn't be a male vs female circumcision debate.  However, their is a HUGE difference between circumcision and female genital mutilation.  Don't let the love for your own penis or male status cloud the barbaric procedure done on females and some how equate it to male circumcision.

 

In regards to this original topic...I'm glad charges were filed and hopefully the perps get the book thrown at them.  Female genital mutilation shouldn't occur in any country regardless of religion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are absolutely NO proven health benefits from male genital mutilation (call it what it IS, not what religious loonies do).  The only reason it's seen as acceptable is because the Jewish faith routinely practices it (and IIRC, it's not a compulsory requirement either, it's optional).  If it were just Muslims that did it, like FGM, it would be just as outlawed.

 

Mutilation is mutilation and should not be tolerated.  Those that object can stick their religious beliefs up their backsides and stop harming infants.  If people want to mutilate themselves, once they reach adulthood, that's entirely their choice.

Well... There have been multiple studies that concluded that circumcision reduces the likelihood of catching and transmitting HIV. So I wouldn't say there are no health benefits. Of course, the whole concept is worthy of discussion.

 

I wouldn't classify male circumcision as anywhere near the same as female genital mutilation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain to my why cutting off an INFANTS foreskin is acceptable. 

 

3 Things

 

1) I'm circumcised

2) Do I remmber getting circumcised as a baby, um NO! So it caused me pain as a baby why do I care, I don't remember it.

3) I'm not gay, but while watching porn i've had to chance to see circumcised vs uncircumcised .... uncircumcised is one ugly ass looking penis.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 Things

 

3) I'm not gay, but while watching porn i've had to chance to see circumcised vs uncircumcised .... uncircumcised is one ugly ass looking penis.

Why are you judging what the dudes penis looks like when watching porn? Also, why does it matter what the penis looks like.. it is either int he girls hand or inside her.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you judging what the dudes penis looks like when watching porn? Also, why does it matter what the penis looks like.. it is either int he girls hand or inside her.

 

Just saying uncircumcised looks like some strange alien looking worm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many things about your post that are out of context.

1)  Would I have circumcision now?  No...because it would hurt like a mother.  Am I glad I am circumcised....yep! 

So it's okay for parents and doctors to inflict pain on an infant because "It would hurt too much to have done as an adult" ?

 

 

2)  It doesn't affect the head (i.e. remove nerves).  It does remove nerves from...well the foreskin.

 

It does affect the head.  It can desensalize the head.  Your penis head is essentially just a giant calous.  Due to the head rubbing unprotected against boxers, breifs, pants, etc it becomes calloused.  Similar to if you walk everywhere with sandals.. your feet will callous.

 

3)  The debate is still out on how much it really does affect the sexual pleasure.  What isn't of debate is that female genital mutilation (i.e. this thread) completely removes sexual pleasure.

 

There is no debate.. It's proven that it reduces the sensation and pleasure.  

 

 

4)  As far as if male circumcision should also outlawed...I really have no opinion on this.  I am however glad it was done and I am glad I don't remember it happening.

 

Why are you glad it was done? What benefit has it given you? Aside from being fondled by a doctor when you were an infant and your parents making a choice on how your genitals should be for the rest of your life.  Not that either of those are beneficial.

 

 

As mentioned...this shouldn't be a male vs female circumcision debate.  However, their is a HUGE difference between circumcision and female genital mutilation.  Don't let the love for your own penis or male status cloud the barbaric procedure done on females and some how equate it to male circumcision.

 

Circumcision is circumcision sorry bud.

 

In regards to this original topic...I'm glad charges were filed and hopefully the perps get the book thrown at them.  Female genital mutilation shouldn't occur in any country regardless of religion.

 

This I agree on.. with the addition of male genital mutilation.

Just saying uncircumcised looks like some strange alien looking worm.

 

Just saying you should be looking at the girl and not the dick.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 cents;

 

Male circumcision is  to remind the man of thier god, everytime they pi55.

 

Female genital mutilation is to stop women achieving sexual pleasure/orgasm.

 

I'm not cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... There have been multiple studies that concluded that circumcision reduces the likelihood of catching and transmitting HIV. So I wouldn't say there are no health benefits. Of course, the whole concept is worthy of discussion.

I wouldn't classify male circumcision as anywhere near the same as female genital mutilation.

Male circumcision can prevent disease in both sexes, but different ones. Centers for Disease Control info page,

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

As for female circumcision, it usually imvolves infibulation; removal of the exposed tip of the clitoris, cutting & stitching together the labia etc.. This, of course, can cause a loss of stimulation and other problems including chronic pain and infection.

Fortunately in most cases enough of the clitoris remains below the surface (it's longer than most people think) that a relatively simple procedure can bring the surviving clitoral tissue to the surface and mostly un-do the other changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.