Circumcision should be banned.

People on the thread are saying they put their infant’s bodily integrity first. You put your child second, behind something else (you don’t say what and it doesn’t really matter).
Perhaps it didn’t hurt. But if he ever wants that part of his body or that extra sensation back, he can’t get it. You’ve decided that for him. What gave you the right?

I think collaboration is important, & mothers are presumably 50% of the decision to circumcise infants, tho in some v conservative communities they may not have much say. But I agree meen need to challenge the male rabbis, imams who promote it, the doctors & the men who promote it without taking account of those who've suffered bc of it.

I’ve got two sons…. should I not take care of their wellbeing?

You realise we are talking about infant children here, right?

Why shouldn’t men advocate for male infants? Find me a board where men are up in arms about this?

Yes, I think the key thing is to keep them separate.

And the in lies a lot of the problem - women being the caretakers of male health and wellbeing.

@Cunningfungus No - we don’t need to help men’s issues. Let them do that for themselves.

What you have said here is that women should not help infant boys, and that it's only the responsibility of men to protect infant boys.

You have well and truly gone to looney land then.

There’s threads are just an echo chamber without much understanding. My son was circumcised using a plastibel (I think it’s called) by a paediatric surgeon, the small amount of skin literally dropped off (wasn’t cut) he suffered absolutely no trauma and didn’t even cry and is the most loved happy and well adjusted child you could hope for. I am not a child abuser and I love my son more than anything in the world.

Im not sure who ‘we’ is, but I’m interested in men’s and women’s issues actually so speak for yourself.,

I get why it's frustrating for you, I think we reflexively worry people like incels will misuse circumcision discourse to claim that women haven't been disadvantaged in comparison to men.

I do think any comparison to FGM should stress that both have barbaric aspects, overall FGM is worse, esp infibulation, &the total clitoridectomy that occur in type 1 & 2. They're more akin to castration. I can see that FGM comparisons could benefit men in that it points out the barbarism in circumcision that are too often overlooked, but overall I think it's best if the awful aspects of circumcision are spelled out independently. It's a bit like when misogyny is compared to racism, anti-black racism to anti Semitism, it can make important points, bit overall I think it touches too many nerves to be really useful in public discourse.
Obvs in all male support groups the language used is up to those men, that's a private matter. I'm talking about public campaigning & outreach.

Key words being 'adult' and 'voluntary'.

I'm completely opposed to the circumcision of infants and children, except for medical reasons.

The 'it's cleaner' argument doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all because:

a) Most adult men who are not circumcised are perfectly able to keep themselves clean. When our DS got to the age where he started bathing/showering by himself, my DH explained to him (without any need for physical demonstration!) how to keep his penis clean; similar to how I told our DD to wipe from front to back and how to keep her genitals clean.

b) Even if it were true (which I don't believe), it wouldn't be sufficient justification for mutilating the child. If FGM was shown to help women stay cleaner and reduce the spread of STIs, would those posters support it?

YANBU
Absolutely should be banned

That is the natural conclusion for anyone who thinks that doing physical harm to a minor (with no proven medical benefit) is abuse.

do you not think that is true?

No - we don’t need to help men’s issues. Let them do that for themselves.

@Cunningfungus I disagree with you. Severe forms of FGM are common in many African and Asian countries.

You will need data to show me that Type 3 is the most common form.

Male circumcision has positive outcomes - the WHO recommend it to reduce the transmission of HIV - again - there are NO positives to female circumcision no matter how “minor” it is.

You need to do more homework. First of all, the WHO does not recommend routine circumcision in infants. It recommends "voluntary medical male circumcision." The word "voluntary" means the subject has agreed to it.

https://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-programmes/hiv/prevention/voluntary-medical-male-circumcision

Second, almost all studies regarding HIV and male circumcision have been completed in Africa. There is no evidence that the same intervention has the same benefit in western countries such as the UK.

Third, circumcision of an infant to reduce HIV transmission is making some very big assumptions about the child's future sexual behaviours. You would look very silly if you circumcised an infant boy and he grew up to have little or no sexual activity (note that about a third of young men in their 20s have not had sex within the past year).

It really makes me so sad the way so many women are prepared to stand up for males for spurious reasons and whataboutery whilst women and girls the world over are fucked over minute by minute.

This last part is a bit strange. I'm pretty sure all of us are universally opposed to cutting girls too.

You're the one trying to make arbitrary distinctions, which is just creating a distraction. This is why both circumcision and FGM are able to continue.

We can agree that.

What we can't agree is the forced teaming. It means that by trying to make one thing as important as the other, you end up making the more serious thing as important as the least.

Making circumcision part of FGM, some men will say, "oh I'm circumcised and it wasn't that bad/helped me/is cleaner/I like it". And apply that same logic to FGM, knowing nothing about it.

FGM is mutilation, designed to reduce or eradicate female sexual pleasure. And force virginity until marriage. And make sex painful. That's what it DESIGNED to do. Not a sad, unintended consequence. The male equivalent would be castration.

It's also inflicted on the most vulnerable, powerless, poorest women in the world. The same is not true for male circumcision and the two should not be lumped together to gain support for stopping male circumcision at the expense of the understanding of female.

I agree with stopping both, but FGM is incredibly serious and should be treated as such, as its own stand-alone issue.

I’ve been lurking and following the discussion.

In my view:

1. I don’t think anyone here is trying to minimise FGM or how horrendous it is. It does feel like some posters are trying to minimise circumcision though, and I think when people are comparing to ‘pricking’ or pointing out that there can be lifelong consequences to circumcision, they are doing so to highlight how circumcision isn’t benign - I.e both things are bad. It’s not a competition. More than one thing can be bad and we should stop both.
2. I realise this is going to seem like a personal attack or criticism towards the PP who has defended having her son circumcised but I have to say I find the ‘it didn’t seem bad’ thing really disturbing. From her post it doesn’t sound as though she had any reasons actively to do it, although the father had a religious motivation. The apathy towards letting your son go through an unnecessary procedure is disturbing to me - but I think it may well be how a lot of circumcision end up happening. One parent or set of grandparents say ‘that’s what we’ve always done’ and the other either agrees or just shrugs and says ‘well it can’t be that bad’. When we’re talking about surgery on infants, I find that scary.
3. Some PPs are saying that because the motivation could be to make boys ‘clean’ it is less bad than FGM where the purpose is to limit sexual function. But I don’t accept that at all. Plenty of people who engage in spurious religious or cultural practices will have means to justify those. I’m sure plenty of proponents of FGM will say they have to to ensure the girl is marriageable and not treated like a social outcast, with all the very serious consequences that might have for her life. The intentions of the people doing it might be ‘good’ (in their eyes) but that doesn’t change the fact the act is an assault on the body of a child, and should be illegal in all its forms.

You are misconstruing my comment. I’m not saying it’s the same, clearly it’s different. I’m saying that the same moral argument applies. FWIW I would also apply the same moral argument to piercing a babies ears. It’s NOT the same but they all fail the same moral test.

So you are basically saying the majority of Muslims, Jews and Americans are child abusers?

There isn’t anything inherently wrong with believing that some cultures are superior to others, or that some cultural beliefs are simply damaging and should be banned. All beliefs are not equally worthy of tolerance or respect.

I don't think it needs to be a contest, both need to be campaigned against. Globally, FGM is more likely by far to cause severe pain, danger, loss of pleasure. But this doesn't mean male circumcision can't be severe. As I posted upthread, we need to put women's issues first, as feminism is primarily about women's issues, but help men's issues where possible, esp ones like this, mutilation of infants. As I posted, circumcision is instigated by many mothers & affects the porn industry, anal, which are feminist issues. As a principle, people need to listen to each other reciprocally, although women need to focus on their own issues foremost, & more men should fight against circumcision.
I think it IS key to be clear that FGM is overall worse, bc that is the factual truth. It shoyodn't be a choice, but if one had to be prioritised, it should be FGM.
@shuggles According to Human Rights Watch, this is due to it being 'considerably more invasive' and carrying no medical benfit, which circumcision does seem to, at least in some cases. Overall, types 1 & 2, both involving at least partial removal of the clitoris, are the most common, although I don't know how much is generally removed. I imagine it is normally severe, after all it's meant to curb sexual pleasure. Male circumcision is not meant to totally curb that, although it definitely targets it.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/16/qa-female-genital-mutilation

So, some people put religion above their baby? Is that what you mean? Baffling.

Also want to add that my obstetrician advised doing the procedure at that age and also agreed with us that it is better to circumcise. She is not Muslim/Jewish or from a culture that routinely circumcises