Well, there's rpae that causes other injuries, and not, but I guess you can easily get around that with in those cases charging with both rape and gbh/abh?

This D:

What civilised society - it is becoming less so by the day and a more dangerous one to live in for all of us. Generally the streets are more dangerous than they have been for some time with rape, the grooming of young vulnerable girls and knife crime and murder soaring.

A molly coddling philosophy that tolerates religious and cultural barbarism from some - so they can feel morally superior, whilst attempting to control and intimidate others to achieve their idealistic goals of ‘inclusivity’ that does far more harm than good - and all without realising the irony!

I've changed my mind, let's brand them and see how long it takes for people to have hysterics about their rights. Because the fact that little girls under 15 STILL undergo female circumcision in the UK and no one seems to be doing anything about it is a national disgrace. Tattoo? Definitely not. Have your clitoris cut off and your vagina sewn up, without anaesthetic and with unsterilized cutting tools... seemingly acceptable. FGM has been illegal since 2003 since when 170,000 female have gone through the procedure in the UK with no convictions at all.

I do admire Greer in general, but she has some totally bat**** views sometimes. I can see where she is coming from, but I disagree..and branding would never happen anyway tbh, though the branding was a joke, not serious.

I can see where she is coming from because lessening the sentence may mean incrasing the pathetic conviction rates that we currently have, but I really don't think it would work that way. I do think rapes with injuries should maybe be tried under something else, given so many violent rapists get off with it, usually as so many rape myths are brought up in court...and so many eople believe that crap. Tried under ABH or something maybe...like the recent Belfast trial, a wound in the vagina that was bleeding hours later...like, even consensual very rough sex would not end in an injury like that and someone going home crying.

I don't know where I stand on violent rapes being 'worse' than non violent rapes though. Ranking different rapes according to how it was done just doesn't seem right...

So yeah, I see where she is coming from. But I disagree with the community service thing and think lessening the sentence would just result in still piss poor convicion rates but the few who are actually convicted getting lighter sentences.

FGM is something that makes me seriously irrationally (or rationally given the topic) mad. It does not seem to be taken seriously at all. And yes, no convictions despite it going on. But...its only girls right.

The genital mutilation of both sexes is a terrible thing. No one should defend the people doing it and they should be prosecuted and hit with harsh punishments if caught, just like any other invasive crime; but even then they still have certain rights, and those rights should still be adhered to.

Male circumcision isn't anywhere near as barbaric as it's female version, but cutting a babies penis should also be illegal, and definitely not provided on the NHS.

Male Circumcision is also sometime medically need though

Rape is rape, I agree, however there are different degrees.
All rapists found guilty of the crime should be punished accordingly.
Date rape.
A “friend” helps himself when helping you to bed due to you being drunk.
A partner decides he will turn you over and force anal sex against your wishes.
A stranger viciously attacks and rapes you walking home late at night (or any other time).
The mental anguish should be taken into account in all cases.

I didn't know circumcision was on the NHS...is that not just when its for medical reasons?

You cannot equate female circumcision with male circumcision, although men inevitably try to. Circumcision in boys isn't always a religious thing, it's often done for health reasons. Cutting off the clitoris, sewing up the vagina so that the girls have endless and sometimes life-threatening problems with sex and childbirth has no health benefits at all. Male and female circumcision are completely different discussions.

Then that's a different issue altogether and should be provided. A hysterectomy is a woman's choice, but sometimes it's needed for medical reasons so there is a clear and obvious distinction.

Not in Judaism... I would think the NHS would only do for health but I'm not 100% sure.

How many women do you know who've chosen to have a hysterectomy?

We've gone way off topic, and I'm afraid it's my fault. Soz...

Yeah, there is never a reason for FGM..and its so much more extreme than male circumcision. I do agree mind, that male circumcision should only be allowed for medical reasons in children as I do not believe that parents 'own' their babies body, and I think it should be left to the child to decide if they want it done when they are an adult. But male circumscision is nothing like female.

I have huge issues with anything that parents decide for their kids before the children are old enough to understand mind. Like..I find it horrible when young babies have pierced ears ffs, so I think I am a bit extreme in my views about consent and stuff.

Who can choose a hysterectomy? My mum had to fight for one even though she had major problems for years.......she would have chosen it but it was only offered once she had suffered loads of other "solutions" and she was seriously anaemic

I'm sure the UK has one of the lowest numbers of MC where as America almost everyone has it

I didn't. I specifically said "Male circumcision isn't anywhere near as barbaric as it's female version". Not sure what health reasons would be prevented by genital mutilation, but if it's needed then by all means they should have it when needed.

Its usually like..a really tight painful foreskin.

I do wonder sometimes how many men would chose to have it done as adults, if it hadn't been done to them as kids. I doubt it would be many. I know a lot of men say they are happy with it, but they have known nothing else..and I cannot see men queuing up to have bits of their penis chopped off.

Also now wondering if I should split this discussion off from this thread into its own...but splicing usually goes wrong when I do it :laugh:

I was talking about FGM. And it wasn't long before someone mentioned male circumcision even thought the two cannot be compared but it's what always happens when FGM is mentioned. Why IS that? And then you compared male circumcision to hysterectomy, imagining that women would choose that. I think you've got a little off-course.

If there is a separate thread I suspect we'll end up discussing whether FGM and male circumcision are at all comparable and we'll get further and further away from the crux of the matter. I wonder whether this phenomena has contributed to the shameful lack of conviction.

Well yeah..you are probably right there. I think it might have something to do with it, people see it as 'well its fine when its boys' (which again I should state, I don't think its fine in boys) but its totally different really. A valid comparison would maybe be..actully cutting the whole penis off in boys so they would never have any sexual function.

Cut off the whole tip, where the sensations are greatest, we don't want them enjoying sex... and sew up the little hole so it's hard to pee. And it still wouldn't be as severe as FGM,

You went off topic to make a point about FGM in a thread that had nothing to do with FGM, but yeah, I went a little off course.

I was wrong about the hysterectomy thing, but let me turn it around and use men and vasectomy instead. The principal is the same, but I was incorrect on my initial assertion.

Have your thread back, I'm out.