24 June 2009

Genital Piercing of Children...

I wonder about this one. I am all for freedom of choice. If someone wants to get a genital piercing or two then that is a decision for them. However, this position presupposes that the person seeking to have their genitals pierced are of legal, age and can in fact consent to having the piercings done. Yet, I have some serious concerns about whether a 13-year-old and a 15-year-old have the capacity to make those decisions for themselves. In a legal sense, they clearly do not.

More to the point, what are two youngsters doing thinking about, and then getting, their genitals pierced. Even more to the point, what are two tattoo artists / piercers thinking when they decided to pierce the genitals of two young girls. This seems to have been opportunistic at best.

The two tattooists / piercers, Mark Andrew Ford and Gregory Alan Ford, 50 and 53-years-old respectively, told the two girls that before the piercings could be done properly the genitals of both would have to be stimulated. This stimulation required the sexual penetration of both the girls. These offenses occurred in 2001 and 2007.

Ultimately, both men pleaded guilty to the sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16.

The Judge, Wendy Wilmoth, described the case as unusual. It was unusual because the sexual penetration of the two young girls was at the girls' request. However, the judge points out that this does not change the fact that neither girl was of an age where she could have legally consented to such sexual activity. And, neither man inquired as to the age of the two when the piercings were requested.

This is the interesting part. The sexual penetration of a child is a very serious criminal offense and should attract a punishment that is commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. Yet, the judge imposed sentences of two years and six months on both men and then suspended those sentences for a full three years. This means that assuming neither man breaches the terms and conditions of their respective sentencing, then they will not see the inside of a jail cell.

I wonder how serious an offense it is to sexually penetrate a child under the age of 16 where the sentence is less than three years and can be wholly suspended?

If you want to know more about genital piercing, then a simple Google search will point you in the right direction (and provide you with some graphic examples of the practice). Or, if you are really interested in piercing then you might want to inquire into purchasing the "Piercing Bible". It is unlike any other bible I have seen! (I should add here that there is no deal in place with the publisher to promote this bible. Besides if the publisher saw my visitor stats then I am certain no promotional deal could be struck. My readers, you are loyal but few in number).


GJ said...

This is so wrong!!!!!

Can I gather from this that every female, of any age, that had their genitals pieced, by these guys, were also penetrated. I think not!!
If not then I would say that this was a tad premeditated. Taking this sort of advantage of a minor, even if they consent deserves a much much more sever sentence than what was metered out.
Wake up Judge Wendy (I'm guessing only in America)


Rob Baiton said...


Gotta say that I do not know the intricacies or intimacies of female genital piercing.

I am not sure that it was premeditated. I think that it was a crime of opportunity. Simply, the opportunity presented itself and they took advantage.

Minors cannot give consent to this kind of sexual penetration, no matter what the minor thinks.

Nah, not in America but Melbourne in good ol' Australia (Dandenong, I think).

A Feminist Blog said...

What a shocking thing to hear. ...

Rob Baiton said...


Shocking would be one way of describing it.

That said, I am still trying to get my head around the idea that 13-year-olds and 15-year-olds are thinking about, and getting, genital piercing.

GJ said...


That was an Aussie Judge!!!! sometimes I think they are SOOOOOOOO out of touch.
I must say, I haven't heard all the evidence presented but I can't think of any mitigating circumstances that would make this anywhere near a minor event that sees them effectively off with a warning.

Sorry no time for kiddie fiddlers.


GJ said...

PS I'm still getting my head around the light sentence!!!!!

The piercing seems like a parenting issue. On that I saw a beautiful little baby girl last weekend. I asked "how old is she?"
and was told 8 weeks and she had her ears pierced already.
FG has a teenage rule on this "Strictly no ear piercing (or any other for that matter) before 13".
I will clarify her genital rule but I assuming it would be way into middle age.

Rob Baiton said...


Haven't read the decision yet. You would think that there would have had to have been some mitigating circumstances to warrant such a lenient sentence. Then again, who knows?

A wholly suspended sentence for a couple of kiddie fiddlers is on the way too soft side.

On the parenting issue. Yes and no. Maybe the parents said no and the two young girls went and did it anyway. Perhaps they were thinking it is not like mum or dad are going to get us to get our gear off and check anyway.

I would have thought for FG that the rule for the kids would have been "at least" middle age.

Anonymous said...

Home free pornloves watch and tube indianpornxxx tv. for amateur pornmovietube sites.

consejo comprar yate said...

I consider one and all should look at it.