quote: ATLANTA — Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for female genital mutilation (search).
The bill would make such mutilation punishable by two to 20 years in prison. It makes no exception for people who give consent to have the procedure performed on their daughters out of religious or cultural custom.
An amendment adopted without objection added "piercing" to the list of things that may not be done to female genitals. Even adult women would not be allowed to get the procedure. The bill eventually passed 160-0, with no debate.
Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
"What? I've never seen such a thing," Heath said. "I, uh, I wouldn't approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to be doing."
The ban applies only to women, not men. The bill has already been approved by the Senate but now must return to that chamber because of the piercing amendment (search). Both chambers of the Legislature must agree on a single version of a bill before it can go to the governor for final approval.
So, if you believe in the ideal of 'it should be legal as long as you're not hurting anyone else but yourself', I think it's obvious the ban on piercing is horsepoo. On the other hand, there's the FGM bit. Isn't it protected by freedom of religion? As a religious/cultural rite of passage for some cultures, why shouldn't it be protected?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If my religion required human sacrifice should it be protected?
Lest anyone confuse this with something like circumcision (arguably male genital mutilation) FGM normally involves the entire removal of the clitoris, essentially removing much of the pleasure from the sexual act for females.
On the other hand, genital piercing is not as uncommon as the quoted lawmaker seems to think. I don't really know how many women get pierced "down there", but it's pretty popular among a certain segment of gay men. (Don't ask me why. I like my equipment just the way it is, thank you.)
posted
Whelp. Outside of the scope of the removal of the flesh around genitals, I'm not sure that you couldn't make a case that male circumcision and female circumcision/FGM aren't in some way comparable. Remember, before the advent of germ theory, I'm sure any kind of circumcision had potentially deadly results.
Let me ask you this--if the circumcision could be done in such a way, let's say, that it didn't impair the sexual pleasure of the woman, would this make it o.k.?
What about if FGM and male circumcision was done only on adult women and men? I think, for me, the main sticking point is that FGM is done on children. Of course, I'm uncomfortable with baptism of children in general before they are, say, 20, but I guess that's a whole nother can of worms.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excuse me. What upsets me about FGM is the main reason I hear that it is done. If the young lady doesn't get any pleasure from sex, she's more likely to be a good faithful wife. These men don't think that men should be as restricted.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm rereading The Third Chimpanzee, and it points out the evolutionary benefits to males of ensuring that they don't expend energy providing for children without their genes. Hence the effort taken to ensure faithfulness, virgnity at marriage, etc.
I think purely evolutionary explanations of human behavior are by necessity incomplete, but it was an interesting point I hadn't considered before.
Of course, none of this is meant to make FGM appear less repulsive than it is.
posted
There has been precedence of people seeking asylum in the united states in order to avoid FGM in their country of origin. And this would the the cultural type (not Islamic, though there are fatwahs that support it) designed to deliberately deprive the female of sexual pleasure. A related procedure is "virginity restoration" that has a higher than normal likelihood of leading to death from sepsis if menstruation is interfered with.
I did see a postcard in Greece where someone had installed a padlock "down there". Doesn't really square with my idea of female empowerment. Still, I think if folks want to get surgery that they consider to be cosmetic...
The trouble with allowing it with adult consent is that how do you then prevent parents from authorizing it to be performed on their children?
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree AJ. According to all the testimony I have heard, clitoral piercing results in either far MORE sexual pleasure, or has no effect at all. In fact, thats main MAIN reason most women get them.
Sheesh, talk about uninformed representatives.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I still think it's weird. But then I don't agree with non-religious circumcision either. My ears are pierced, but I don't think it's a super idea. I'm kind of neutral in principle, and then against based on the possibility of any kind of infection arising. My husband wanted our sons circumcised, and I didn't make a huge deal out of it but I was basically against it.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
...I was hoping -- HOPING! -- before AJ's comment that I could just live in a little land of denial where they didn't actually pierce anything that I would consider wildly important to my growning up unscarred. I was wrong.
*cringe* oh my GOD, that would hurt.
I'm afraid to get a second hole in each ear. I can't IMAGINE tongue piercing ... but that? maaaaa.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
It hurt not at all Karen. I imagine the clitoral ones hurts more, but not as much as you'd think. Doesn't give me any sexual pleasure, but is quite fun. I also hear it comes in handy while giving pleasure .
For these girls, the lifetime of increased pleasure far outweighs temporary pain. For a state to make it illegal, is retarded in the extreme.
Not much pain at all. I was more excited to have it done. But as far as getting my clit pierced, no thanks. I do believe my tongue will be the last.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Leah told Karen that she could hear skin ripping when it was done.
Karen is not going to get the piercing.
If I do break the rules and get another hole anywhere, I'll get the second holes and cartilege. Even though I never remember to wear earings.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](http://www.cs.oswego.edu/~pmeyer/pictures/Pictures164j.JPG)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
