Reply to: What a result

[vetran]

Not necessarily.

The stories that immediately spring to mind is taxi drivers refusing to take service dogs and the gay cake story. In both cases it is illegal to discriminate against people for being disabled or gay in providing services, but they were still discriminated against.

yes but most normal people believe that is wrong. Both have been prosecuted.

The point being made is once its illegal (or legal) people's perspective changes. It does take time though.

When I grew up most people didn't like "homos or queers" even though it was just legal.

This is just how I remember it, with gay friends & heroes (Freddie Mercury & Alan Turing) it was a real challenge.

You would now find it difficult to find many people publicly supporting such prejudice.

Taxi drivers have always been arses and the cake makers were set up.

[SueEllen]

well if you make it illegal then society can adjust its views accordingly.

Not necessarily.

The stories that immediately spring to mind is taxi drivers refusing to take service dogs and the gay cake story. In both cases it is illegal to discriminate against people for being disabled or gay in providing services, but they were still discriminated against.

[SueEllen]

While the games master watched.

I thought he watched them taking cold showers to ensure they cleaned themselves.

[northernladyuk]

The "theory" is that women who have been "done" will focus more on their husbands!

The Victorians frowned on all masturbation. For boys vigorous exercise was prescribed.

While the games master watched.

[BrilloPad]

Why would you want to do that?

The "theory" is that women who have been "done" will focus more on their husbands!

The Victorians frowned on all masturbation. For boys vigorous exercise was prescribed.

[original PM]

Interesting Wiki article linky

Apparently it was used in the UK and US in the 19th Century to stop women masturbating.

Why would you want to do that?

[BrilloPad]

That is the case. I was simply pointing out current law. The issue in this case was the doctor acted but did not have the agreement of both parents - seems fairly clear cut.

A fine example of the politics of vocabulary. By calling it Male Genital Mutilation, you instantly bring to mind the horrors of FGM in an attempt to equate the two. People can easily say they've no problem with circumcision, but when liberal campaigners with their desire to control everything in life to make sure it conforms to their moral compass use "mutilation", then, well - everyone against mutilation, surely?

Why are they so against it? Because it's rooted in religion? Or because it makes them feel squeamish? There's certainly evidence that it can be medically beneficial. If it does more good then harm, then why not? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.f9c0202496bc

“If a vaccine were available that reduced HIV risk by 60 percent, genital herpes risk by 30 percent, and HR-HPV [high-risk human papillomavirus] risk by 35 percent” the authors observe, “the medical community would rally behind the immunization and it would be promoted as a game-changing public health intervention.”

I am against it, if its not medically necessary, due to consent. When people are adult they can do as they want.

[vetran]

You don't change people's actions by just legislating.

FGM is illegal yet people still do it.

Drink driving is illegal and people in society in this country have made it socially unacceptable.

well if you make it illegal then society can adjust its views accordingly.

Opium in Victorian Britain

. Shocking though it might be to us in the 21st century, in Victorian times it was possible to walk into a chemist and buy, without prescription, laudanum, cocaine and even arsenic. Opium preparations were sold freely in towns and country markets, indeed the consumption of opium was just as popular in the country as it was in urban areas.

One of my older relatives used to tell a cautionary tale of when he drove so drunk he could hardly stand opening the drivers door to vomit. This was pretty much legal before 1965. It was unusual for him as he rarely drank.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 18 | 1965: Drink-drive limit to be introduced

[The_Equalizer]

Interesting Wiki article linky

Apparently it was used in the UK and US in the 19th Century to stop women masturbating.

I'm not filing that under interesting.

[SueEllen]

Aren't American males routinely circumcised at birth?

They use to be I don't know if they still are.

[SueEllen]

When did FGM become acceptable? In fact when did FGM even appear in the UK?

Interesting Wiki article linky

Apparently it was used in the UK and US in the 19th Century to stop women masturbating.

[stek]

Aren't American males routinely circumcised at birth?

[The_Equalizer]

You don't change people's actions by just legislating.

FGM is illegal yet people still do it.

Drink driving is illegal and people in society in this country have made it socially unacceptable.

When did FGM become acceptable? In fact when did FGM even appear in the UK?

[NotAllThere]

What about the baby? They get no say in the matter.

That is the case. I was simply pointing out current law. The issue in this case was the doctor acted but did not have the agreement of both parents - seems fairly clear cut.

MGM must be made illegal.

A fine example of the politics of vocabulary. By calling it Male Genital Mutilation, you instantly bring to mind the horrors of FGM in an attempt to equate the two. People can easily say they've no problem with circumcision, but when liberal campaigners with their desire to control everything in life to make sure it conforms to their moral compass use "mutilation", then, well - everyone against mutilation, surely?

Why are they so against it? Because it's rooted in religion? Or because it makes them feel squeamish? There's certainly evidence that it can be medically beneficial. If it does more good then harm, then why not? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.f9c0202496bc

“If a vaccine were available that reduced HIV risk by 60 percent, genital herpes risk by 30 percent, and HR-HPV [high-risk human papillomavirus] risk by 35 percent” the authors observe, “the medical community would rally behind the immunization and it would be promoted as a game-changing public health intervention.”

[BrilloPad]

You don't change people's actions by just legislating.

FGM is illegal yet people still do it.

Drink driving is illegal and people in society in this country have made it socially unacceptable.

Agreed.

It will take more than legislation. And I do understand this is a lower priority than other issues.