March 25, 2004

• Assuming that Heath's asinine amendment isn't zinged by the Georgia Senate, I foresee a number of piercing salons opening just over the state border in Alabama, in the same way that dry counties today inevitably have numerous liquor stores just outside of their boundaries. Runway dancers or girl scout leaders could run over the line to get a quick "Alabama special" before starting work. This could fuel a new wave of industry in Alabama!
• Ah, crap. Didn't see the Mefi post.
• If it become a law, it will be struck down as unconstitutional. It doesn't make allowances for people who give consent to have the procedure performed on their daughters out of religious or cultural custom. Heard of something called the First Amendment, Georgia? (Don't infringe on my religion, man....) BESIDES the fact that it's a bullshit law. Roe vs. Wade was upheld the last time it was challenged, and that was about the right to seek birth control. This is about a woman's right to pierce her genitals. While it's not my bag (so to speak), it's not my business (or anyone else's, for that matter) what some woman does to, or with, her hoo-ha. (I love that word). I really feel sorry for these guys... they're just soooo clueless.
• First Amendment That defense didn't work for the Mormons in 1879 (Reynolds vs United States).
• Found a good one - 20 years ago by goetter
• If I can get a job as a female genital inspector, I will emigrate to the US.
• I think I can help you out, Skirk. First, quit your current job. Next, wire me US$5000. Then just sit back, relax, and then in no time you'll be ... [TIME EXPIRED! INSERT COINS!]
• As a pierced out fellow myself (Lip, ears, tongue, nose, nipples), I find genital piercing to be kinda scary. I fear irreversible damage. And why is that everyone with a Prince Albert or pierced hood wants me to see it. Put that thing away, dammit. This is an Olive Garden!
• are there not more important things out there they should be making laws and amendments about? sheesh.
• "Olive Garden" indeed!
• Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told after the vote that some adults seek the piercings. tee hee I wonder how many of his constituents are emailing him pictures today.
• well, to raise the obvious question - how the hell are they going to enforce this? metal detectors at panty level in women's bathrooms? random checks by dogs specially trained to sniff out surgical steel studs below bellybutton level? or are they expecting people's parents or significant others to rat them out? my bet is that, if this passes, you're going to see a lot more people injuring themselves by self-piercing or having a back alley job done; unsanitary, non-professional, untrained people shouldn't be poking metal into anybody. (if you want a body mod, go to a clean, respectable shop to have it done!) i've heard horror stories about people trying to do genital peircing with an earring gun... whether they're urban myth or not, they're about to start being real in georgia.
• Article from Atlanta Journal-Constitution, describes background of original bill. GA's HR bill, without amendment on piercing. CLF, they'd prosecute piercers, rather than piercees.
• Forgive my ignorance of American constitutional law...but isn't any legislation that applies to one gender and not the other automatically unconstitutional, with no debate needed? My first thought when I saw this was that they were trying to legislate a ban on all genital mutilation, which would include circumcision. Now that would be a fight!
• That's ridiculous. How is it much different from the president of Turkmenistan banning beards? There's absolutely no reason for it: the best reason the senator could give was "It's inappropriate". What?
• rocket88 - from my perspective it appears that, in this country, ignorance of american constitutional law is a requirement for becoming an elected official.
• We live in strange, strange times.
• Do I want to know what a "hood" is?
• Boyz N the Hood. Hoodie. heh heh heh
• I have sat here for many minutes, unable to find the words to convey my incredulity. I'm torn between total disbelief, fear that this could actually happen and wondering if I have inadvertantly taken too many medications and I am in the middle of a severe hallucination. Good God, are we all really living on the same planet. Well, I want off! What the hell is going on in Georgia? Warning to the people of Georgia--GET OUT, NOW, WHILE YOU CAN!!!!!
• Female genital mutilation is a really serious issue, and very cruel thing. Most procedures involve the removal of the clitoris, causing possible infections and affecting sexual pleasure; the most extreme rituals involving the sewing up of the vagina, which can lead to complications, even death. It's not like snipping off the foreskin (though some have suggested that's not really a good idea), it's like cutting off the entire penis, with scissors (I can see the men flinching now). There comes a point when freedom of religion no longer applies, and that point is when your religious practices hurt another person who is either not a member of the religion, or not a consenting adult. It can be a grey area - spanking has been a case in Ontario lately - but there is little grey about genital mutilation. But this idiotic amendment? Just as it says in this article, it has turned a good law seeking to stop abuse of children into a stupid law stopping adult women from choosing to do something which is neither harmful to themselves, nor to anyone else. (And even if it was harmful, being consenting adults, they should be allowed to, so long as it hurts no one else.) Quote from the AJC 'Sen. Nadine Thomas (D-Decatur), one of the key backers of the original Senate bill, was incensed about the amendment. She said a bill originally designed to protect women and girls now limits what women can do with their bodies. "This is just another stone being thrown at women," Thomas said. "What he is doing is diminishing what we are trying to do to protect women and girls. It is gender discrimination."'
• I can't believe anyone can calmly imply that Female Genital Mutilation and Genital Piercings are the same sort of thing. I swear I'm jumping ship if this kind of stuff starts getting passed (and I'm not even a woman!)
• Would Jenna Jameson be quite so popular if she didn't have hers?
• Darshon, for a second I thought you meant her whole....not just the piercing.....nevermind *goes and takes a shower*
• Well, genial, you would still be right! Couldn't have the one without the other.
• I don't want to derail...but whay is female genital mutilation treated like a crime against humanity (which i agree it is) but male genital mutilation is shrugged off and continued as standard practice?
• Questions have been raised about male circumcision, rocket88, but one reason it is not being decried is that there are very few cases of males becoming dangerously infected due to the procedure, or having pain during sexual intercourse, though sensation may be somewhat dampened. Certainly many doctors are not advising that parents automatically circumcise their sons they way they used to in North America, but it is still important religiously to Jewish people. The test I would put it to is this: does the harm to the unconsenting child outweigh the importance of freedom of religion? I have never heard of cases where one parent hid the circumcision of their son from the other, in case he/she objected. I have never heard of grandmothers circumcising their grandson's against the parents' will. I have never heard of male circumcisions being done with a dirty pen knife. (I have heard of all of these from publications on female cicumcision). I have met men who have wondered what it would have been like to not have had the procedure, but at most I have only heard of dampened sensation, never of pain or suffering. These are all clues that there is some difference in the issues. Human rights aren't a mechanical absolute process, but a delicate balance of conflicting rights, including the rights of the individual (the child) versus the religion.
• I think if a similar procedure was being routinely performed on female infants, it would be decried as sexist and probably would have been outlawed by now. Most circumcisions in North America are performed for non-religious reasons, so freedom of religion is a minor and mostly separate issue. As for infections, they are actually quite common...putting a fresh wound in a diaper is generally not a good idea. I think it's the fact that its being performed on males, in a society mainly governed by males who probably had it done to them, that makes it OK.
• I expect you know that Prince Albert had one of these . Don't know whether Queen Victoria had anything similar.
• rocket88: did you get a chance to read the Amnesty Internation material on female circumcision? It involves the removal of the clitoris. The equivalent for males would be a removal or all or part of the penis in a concious effort to curb their sexual desire. If parents wished to castrate their son I believe there would be an outcry, even if he did have a beautiful voice. (Yes, I know that castrati had their testicles, not their penises removed, but I was making a silly joke :) That said, non-religious male circumcision is going down in North America, because there is no good medical reason to circumcise and some good reasons not to. You are also not the only person to explicitly compare it to female circumcision. The question is though, should it be made illegal? Also, one thing that should be known about female genital mutilation is that is not a male-driven thing. Most often those who perform the rituals are older women; in some places the practice is entirely dominated by women. This American case seems unusual in that it was the father who arranged for the procedure. But generally it is women who do this to their daughters and granddaughters, because they believe they will be disadvataged and unmarriable if they have not been circumcised. The irony is that more men prefer an uncircumcised partner.
• Update