There’s a reason why so many MENA countries have such poor human rights records, and it isn’t colonialism, racism from white people, cosmic radiation, voodoo curses, or any of the other countless bullshit excuses that are trotted out to explain their problems. A country is a reflection of the people who live there, and when those people are a bunch of 85-90 IQ sexual deviants, with a worldview that was archaic a millennium ago, then it can hardly be surprising that some messed up behaviours become commonplace in that country as a result. Ordinarily, we’re told to believe that geographical location is the sole determinant of this behaviour, and that if we move large masses of people from a geographical location where a certain behaviour is practiced, to somewhere where it isn’t, and don’t force them to integrate with the population of their new location (that would be racist), that somehow, they’ll just give up the old behaviour by pure magic, to behave more like the population of the host society. This of course is complete nonsense, and I don’t understand how anyone can still buy it. Because we can no longer pretend that they will change their barbaric behaviour on arrival, a new suggestion has been put forward. Compromise.
WESTERN STATES SHOULD legally permit immigrant communities to surgically “nick” young girls’ vaginas as an alternative to genital mutilation.
I wonder what kind of stupid argument these idiots are going to put forward in favour of this bright idea.
That was the argument put forward by a pair of US gynecologists in a hotly-challenged paper this week.
The two doctors stated in the Journal of Medical Ethics that such a “compromise” could allow groups to honour cultural or religious prescripts while saving millions of girls from invasive and disfiguring genital slashing practised in some African and Middle Eastern cultures.
In what world does this sound like a logical and sensible argument? The idea of actually “compromising” on such a barbaric practice is completely insane. What other “compromises” should western societies make with these backwards cultures in order to make them feel welcome?
“Hey lads, I know that throwing gay people off of buildings to their deaths is a part of your culture. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can just beat them to a bloody pulp with baseballs bats instead.”
“Hey lads, I know that stoning adulterers to death is a part of your culture. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can just stone them until they end up in a coma instead.”
“Hey lads, I know you like gang raping unaccompanied women who aren’t covered from head to toe. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can only rape them on an individual basis, instead of in a gang.”
Seriously, how fucking ludicrous is this suggestion of compromise?
Kavita Arora of the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and Allan Jacobs of Stony Brook University in New York state, said:
We are not arguing that any procedure on the female genitalia is desirable.
Then why are you offering a compromise rather than resisting it outright?
“Rather, we only argue that certain procedures ought to be tolerated by liberal societies”, which have outlawed such practices but host immigrants for whom it is part of their culture.
If its outlawed, then it should be forbidden to everyone. If they want to practice their culture, you know where they can do that? In the countries they came from. When they’re in another country, they should abide by the cultural norms of that country. If an element of their culture is incompatible with the culture of their host society, they have two choices. Leave, or stop practicing that part of their culture. It’s really that simple.
Efforts to enforce an outright ban on female genital mutilation (FGM) have often had the opposite effect – driving the practice underground and putting women at even greater risk, said the duo.
Strange how native European men aren’t filled with the same desire to resist this ban so they can mutilate female genitals. If I didn’t know better, I’d think there are vast differences between us, and the African/Middle Eastern men that we’re flooding our countries with. But that couldn’t possibly be true, because we’re all exactly the same and equal. Only brainless, hate filled, racists, would think otherwise.
But many peers immediately dismissed the idea.
There is still some sanity in this world after all.
According to Arianne Shahvisi of the University of Sussex ethics department in Britain:”One must not cause irreversible changes to the body of another person without their consent.”
I agree. I think we should also outlaw infant male circumcision too while we’re at it. I believe that males have the right to body integrity too. Maybe circumcised boys might end up wishing they still had their foreskins when they get older, and they should have the right to not have the decision made for them. Of course, I know such a ban would piss off the Jews to no end, so it will probably never happen. Would be funny to see them whining about it though.
Arora and Jacobs, however, contended that a one-size-fits-all approach ignored that many people believed the procedure to be a means of achieving “moral or ritual purity” for their child.
Vaginal cutting is widely regarded as a libido-reducer, intended in certain cultures to keep a woman chaste.
“We’re a first world country in the 21st century. We let women make their own choices and claim to value gender equality. But we better keep those Muslims girls chaste.”
According to the World Health Organisation, about three million girls a year fall victim to genital mutilation.
It can cause urinary difficulties, cysts and infection, infertility and complications in childbirth.
But we can’t ban it outright. We need to reach a compromise instead.
Like dental work
Arora and Jacobs have proposed new sub-categories of genital cutting.
Category One would entail procedures with no long-lasting effect on the appearance or function of the genitalia, such as a “small nick” in the skin.
Procedures under Category Two may affect appearance, but not reproductive capacity or sexual enjoyment, they said. This could include removing the “hood” or skin-fold covering the clitoris or trimming the labia (labiaplasty).
The first two categories, they said, should be reclassified as female genital “alteration” (FGA) rather than “mutilation”.
“These procedures are equivalent or less extensive than male circumcision in procedure, scope and effect,” they wrote.
Indeed, they are equivalent or less extensive than orthodontia, breast implantation or even the elective labiaplasty for which affluent women pay thousands of dollars.
Unclear is whether this type of procedure would be considered valid by communities who perform FGM.
Categories Three to Five should remain outlawed, said the pair.
These included procedures to remove the clitoris or other parts of the vagina, often to be stitched closed with only a small hole for urine, menstrual blood and intercourse.
And what if they “accidentally” botch a category one procedure and end up giving a category 3 or higher? Is that considered an acceptable risk? Similar things have happened with male circumcisions, so what’s to say it couldn’t happen here too?
Brian Earp of the Bioethics Research Institute in New York said Arora and Jacobs erred in using male circumcision as a benchmark for what is permissible.
“Ultimately, I suggest that children of whatever sex or gender should be free from having healthy parts of their most intimate sexual organs either damaged or removed, before they can understand what is at stake in such an intervention and agree to it themselves,” he wrote in a commentary.
I completely agree. It’s their body, so they should get to choose what happens to it.
Earlier this month, the United Nations said at least 200 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to FGM – some 44 million aged 14 and younger.
In the 30 countries where the practice is most widespread, the majority were cut before their fifth birthday, according to the UN.
Such vibrancy. Such diversity. So colourful and exciting. We need more of this to enrich our boring countries.