Flutterby™! : Sexist Body Piercings Illegal in Georgia

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Sexist Body Piercings Illegal in Georgia

2004-03-25 17:05:54.269593+00 by meuon 12 comments

Atlanta Journal Reports that genital piercings, on FEMALES, are illegal. Looks like a case of good intentions (female genital mutilation) being taken to extremes by conservative religious ideologies. Of course, the good quote:

"The original intent of the amendment was to make illegal the voluntary piercing of female genitalia for decorative purposes," said Rep. Bill Heath (R-Bremen). Heath said that while some piercings do fall under the category of involuntary genital mutilation, he is fine with banning the voluntary procedures as well. "I just don't think it's appropriate," Heath said. The bill only regulates female genital piercings. Heath said he doesn't support male genital piercings, but won't draft legislation to address the issue."

And, just to be clear: I wonder what life (and sex) would be life with an intact foreskin... It was not MY choice, and given one now, would not be.

[ related topics: Religion Law ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2004-03-25 17:50:59.243464+00 by: Dan Lyke

Besides, targeting male genital piercings without stomping on circumcision would be damned hard, and might enrage his constituency.

#Comment Re: made: 2004-03-25 18:13:28.347805+00 by: Larry Burton

As a citizen of Georgia I can assure you that stomping on my circumcision would be damned hard and would indeed enrage me.

#Comment Re: made: 2004-03-25 19:44:21.300286+00 by: flushy

how can they ban voluntary modifications to our bodies? Too many ignorant people that hide behind religious beliefs have too much power in this country...

#Comment Re: made: 2004-03-25 19:54:18.435701+00 by: Larry Burton

Actually, they aren't banning voluntary modifications to your body, they are banning licensed, sanitary, experienced assistance to voluntary modifications to your body. And they aren't banning any modifications to your body, only to the licensed, sanitary, experienced assistance to voluntary modifications to the genitalia of females.

#Comment Re: made: 2004-03-25 20:15:35.494013+00 by: flushy

oh.. so it's ok for women to use a pin and swap in the comfort of their bathroom, and hope they do it right, and don't cause irreversible damage to their honey pot?

I can understand the notion of involuntary modification. If two parents differ on circumcision, does the hospital still perform the procedure? From what I can see, children don't actually have any rights except the basic rights of life and health. Anything else is bestowed upon them by their guardians. If their guardians believe circumcision (male or female) is required for their spiritual development, as long as it doesn't affect their health or life, then the law shouldn't be able to do anything about it.

The notion of the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to children. It would silly to attempt to apply to them.

Freedom of religion? Yeah right. All children would believe in the Cookie God, and all you can watch TV.

The right to assemble? Can you imagine a hoard of two year olds?

The right to bear arms? don't think so.


#Comment Re: regressing to the 19th century made: 2004-03-25 23:07:13.428459+00 by: polly

i am constantly amazed when i read stuff like what rep. heath did regarding female genitalia. i always feel that we are regressing to the early 19th century when a woman was not allowed to THINK for herself, vote, buy a car, make decisions about home/family/finances. the "little woman" submitted herself to her husband's authority, meekly. then, the times did change and woman grew a voice, then when backdoor/ally abortions became an issue, woman grew a BIGGER voice...and things did change for the sake of woman.

now, here we've got a georgia cracker politician who is telling woman what HE thinks is best for her, that it is in her best interest for him to tell her what to do with her body by making it illegal for her to get a piercing from a licensed practitioner in a sanitary invironment (well, i hope it's sanitary). yet, he won't draft legislation to address piercings on men.

did you know, reader, that georgia did away with sex education?

the mule died.

did you know, reader, that georgia did away with drivers educatioin?

the mule died.

#Comment Re: moral of the story? made: 2004-03-26 16:48:40.737813+00 by: flushy

Georgia is unsafe!!! Unsafe sex!! Unsafe Drivers!! but their woman are meek, and unaltered! Just the way that cracker politcian likes 'em!

#Comment Re: made: 2004-03-26 17:50:56.615557+00 by: Dan Lyke

The AP version on SFGate.com has this gem:

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."

Wow. Dude, get out much?

#Comment Re: made: 2004-03-26 18:38:45.364165+00 by: polly

i bet rep.heath has relatives in alabama, his 2 districts are very close to the alabama state line. alabama's mule died, too and the women ARE meek and unaltered. one of my ex's was from sand mountain, alabama. i had to teach him a few things in the bedroom and how to live in the big city, lol. my, oh my, they are REAL backwards over that way.

#Comment Re: made: 2004-03-26 19:06:55.985606+00 by: Shawn

Okay, I'm not gettin' the mule thing.

#Comment Re: southern mules made: 2004-03-26 20:50:05.757066+00 by: polly

this is a deep south saying & a joke. tennesseeans pick on alabama hard (football) & georgia, maybe not as hard. back in the "ol' days" everyone had a mule to farm with, pull wagons, plow, ect..

instead of cars, they use mules? instead of models in sex ed, they use mules?

this is JUST a joke.

#Comment Re: circumcision v foreskin made: 2004-03-27 04:19:22.633897+00 by: polly

meuon, i caught that last part of your statement "I wonder what life (and sex) would be like with an intact foreskin"...from a first hand point of view, he thoroughly enjoyed the hand job once he was able to get past the point of where the foreskin was choking "the chicken". i did NOT enjoy the oral part, keeping that area squeaky clean is near to impossible when foreskin is involved. then, as you age, maybe grow a pot belly that makes it even harder to get down there and scrub, follow my drift? i know a 50+ yo man who went to get circumcised because of health issues.