MGM

30 years late the first prosecution for carrying out FGM in the UK is about to happen. It does make you wonder, not only about how much other legislation is inadequately policed or enforced, but also about why there has not been the moral outrage about FGM here that has been so evident in, for example, France.

FGM is so brutally damaging that it really leaves the mind reeling in search of a reasonable explanation for it becoming socially acceptable. And of course, there isn't one. FGM is founded upon ancient superstition, rampant patriarchalism, warped views on sexuality, and a vicious disregard for women's right and welfare.

While nowhere near as brutal, Male Genital Mutilation (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer may need a re-think) also thrives. MGM happily masquerades as harmless and socially acceptable throughout western societies who really ought to know better. 

If circumcision is not Male Genital Mutilation (the clue is in the name) then what is it, exactly ?

Are the reasons for MGM any more acceptable, any more justifiable, than those given for FGM ?

MGM is carried out largely for reasons that are non-medical. It snatches away choice. It is irreversible. It permanently mutilates and deforms the penis. It may have significant long-term effects on sensitivity and sexual happiness. It is  - except in rare cases - wholly unecessary. It is carried out on significant numbers of children, minors below the age of consent.

In spite of this, MGM is not illegal.

If we found that to perpetuate a bunch of social and/ or religious expectations minors were having their tongues pierced with hot irons, there would (rightly) be an outcry. It would be seen as abuse, however clinically performed, however sterile the conditions. But MGM is accepted in the same way we accept the neutering of pets: without a thought, without a question.

As a young child I was circumcised, for 'reasons' that were not medical, and certainly not religious. Probably through some misguided sense of hygiene, some vague idea of fashionable fads, or some deep sexual anxiety in my parents. I have hated the result all my life, and, though now over 60, have never managed to feel less than mutilated. I have been outraged by it all my life. No child, NO child, deserves this.

It is a great delight that at last, at last, FGM is receiving the attention it deserves, that far fewer women will have their lives blighted by such a terrible and wholly unnecessary act of well-intentioned barbarism.

It would be wonderful to think that one result of our shrinking tolerance for brutality against the powerless might be a new look at MGM, and maybe some legislation to protect all those too young to guard themselves and their long-term interests.

And to all those who will immediately worry about religious groups who wish to circumcise all their males, legislation would play no part in preventing elective circumcision at the age of consent. It could even be guaranteed on the NHS for all those choosing to have the operation. Those who chose to mutilate their own genitals would be assisted without question, even if an occasional discreet eyebrow rose somewhat quizzically.

Surely this would be a fair approach, avoiding as it does all damage to minors, wahtever the motives.