Circumcision should be banned.

It would be excellent if those who object to this sort of discussion could give us examples of permissable wording so that we can avoid this sort of tedious derailing.

Would simply saying 'genital mutilation of children' be sufficient? Or anytime circumcision is discussed is there a phrase you'd like us to insert, for example "obviously FGM is much worse" which will make it acceptable to mention foreskin removal without consent of the patient?

I know (hopefully) that you just intend to advocate for women and girls, and quite rightly so, but when no-one is saying that FGM is anything but Utterly Abhorent, it does come across as whataboutery.

As do the tired claims of the benefits to adults of surgery carried out in early infancy when there are no benefits to the child.

I have no issue with adult males electing to have their foreskin removed to please god, reduce HIV or cervical cancer risk, or because they like how it looks.

Note: because FGM is much worse, it is always illegal to conduct it in the UK, including into adulthood, and quite rightly so.

I’m English and my partner is not. He is Muslim and comes from a country where circumcision is the norm. We did circumcise our son when he was around 1 week old for my partner’s religious reasons but obviously I agreed. We did it in a private hospital with a specialist doctor and I believed they used local anaesthesia. To be honest, despite it not being the norm in my (English) culture, I agreed to do it as I don’t believe it is a bad practise. It is more hygienic and when done at such a young age the recovery time is minimal and I didn’t see my son in any pain after the procedure even when changing nappies etc. I felt that it was better to do it at his young age rather than him wait until he’s older and decide to do it as I presume the recovery might be more noticeable? My partner was actually circumcised at around 6 years old I believe and he does have bad memories of it. I also know a woman who had her son circumcised by a rabbi in her home. These I disagree with due to the trauma to an older child and due to the lack of hygiene/anaesthesia in religious ceremony type circumcisions.

I find the comparisons with FGM quite offensive tbh as FGM is carried out to stop girls/women from having sex / feeling pleasure and is a form of control and oppression. There are 0 benefits to FGM and many terrible effects, mentally and physically. Circumcisions do have hygiene benefits and there are very rarely any negative effects. It is carried out generally by parents who mean well and believe they are doing the right thing for their child, it is incomparable with FGM.

I’m not looking to argue my point as I see people have strong aversions to circumcision but I wanted to provide insight to why people do circumcise. I did so believing it was the correct thing for my son

How sad foe your brothers.

I totally agree. It's nothing to do with beliefs. For me, it's about altering a body that does not belong to you.

Mt parents were Christians. They didn't christen us. They gave us the choice at around 12. If it was what we wanted great. They would organise it.
If we didn't they were also totally fine with it.

It's to do with choice. I find it so sad I really do.

The babies don't have nappies put on them and in the case of a newborn son, the family will pay for what is needed, if an infection occurs, which doesn't happen often. However the infection at six years old, because of a lack of clean water and the heat/dirty soil etc is more of a problem and one that the family might not want or be able to afford to treat. Uncircumcised boys in some countries are at a high risk of infection, not grown men.

But what you failed to grasp is if it isn't done as a newborn in Africa/India etc then the child is at risk and needs it done, which means a loss of life. Your condom comment shows how little you understand about some cultures.

The op is about banning male circumcision, which I disagree with. Female circumcision SHOULD be banned, as there is no benefit.

I’ve not said anywhere non medical qualified people should be allowed to carry out such a procedure.

in the city I live in (uk) the local nhs hospital does it (!)

More whataboutery.

Yes, it's a bit like many Vedic superstitions were sensible in ancient India. But now India is modernising the superstitions are mainly not so relevant or even harmful sometimes.

It does need to be spoken about. It's horrific.

FFS. Why are you so determined to push the narrative that males have it just as bad as females?

Find me practices comparable to Indian suttee or Chinese foot binding. They don’t exist. Women and girls are systematically and continually abused in the name of religion and culture - the harm inflicted on males comes no where close.

Well the issue is that many believers read their Holy Book as the word of God or at least inspired by God, so why would God have let this mistake continue & cause harm for so long if they didn't want it to happen? I think if I were Jewish I would rationalise that it must be a mistake or distortion as I can't believe a loving God would be so brutal. Otoh Muslims have an easier way to reinterpret as the Hadith & Sunnah are accounts of Muhammad's life, whose authenticity is sometimes disputed in various ways. Only the Quran is taken as the word of God.

I always thought as well as the covenant, the real reason for male circumsicion was for infection control (in ancient times). Young boys are prone to getting infections. Remember those in Biblical times were living in hot climates with limited hygiene. Antibiotics did not exist, therefore it was safer to circumcise when a young baby. That’s a social historical view rather than scripture though. However, if you think of many scriptural rules they are to do with health and safety.

Inflicting pain and suffering for no good reason and with no consent is fucking barbaric, male or female.

Hiding behind religion to justify it is no excuse.

On the 15squared linked earlier website men who had it done in the 50s say preventing masturbation was a reason given. Also, on a Jewish subreddit I've looked at sometimes, some unhappy ex-Hasidics said they had heard that circumcision was to prevent men getting distracted by sex from their religious duties. Disclaimer: I don't know how widespread that reason is, or even if it's accurate, it was just a few reddit posts.
In Freud's Vienna, & other parts of Europe, women labelled hysterical, incl ones who masturbated, could have their clitoris removed as a treatment, as Steinem has pointed out. (Remember, Freud said a woman who had clitoral orgasms was 'immature'!) The more you look, the more you see common motivations to control sexualiry underlying both practices.

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

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.

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.

I will die on the hill that any person who allows their child to be circumcised, for non medical reasons, is a child abuser. How any mother can willingly allow their child to be mutilated is beyond me, it’s absolutely vile and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself

I agree.

I can see what you mean.... also as @shuggles posted, Class IV (pricking) is less extreme than circumcision. But it seems that the majority does involve some fairly drastic injury to the clitoris.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47131052
(This article is good on the 4 types & reason s)
The motive for a lot of FGM is to stop sexual pleasure, bc of beliefs about control & sin. Spurious health & cleanliness reasons can figure too.While health & cleanliness reasons can be cited for circumcision, they seem debatable at best as a reason to do it to infants, & there does seem to be a definite aim to control sexual pleasure underlying male circumsion, at least in some cases & contexts.
Ultimately, I agree w both your posts: the key thing is that no infant should have their genitals mutilated. What a world, where we have to spell that out... What if we used the term MGM? Often female circumcision was called that to downplay it, but perhaps instead the severity of the male procedure should be emphasised?

I agree. Unless there's a real medical need, any body mutilation, be it circumcision, FGM, ear piercing etc, should be banned. It's not right that a baby/child's body is altered, sometimes irreparably, without their consent.

For both males and females, their genitals are being mutilated largely by unqualified, non-medical people, all in the name of culture/religion.

Its an area which is even more susceptible to infection due to being covered, warmth, moisture and bacteria from urine etc.

They should both be illegal and only performed by a medical professional at 16 years old with consent

I am a white 'Christian' with two brothers who are both circumcised. Both have experienced problems as a result into adulthood. My objections are nothing to do with religion. They are to do with performing unnecessary procedures on babies, whatever their skin colour or religion.

IDGAF about “practicalities” and moral arguments. Moral relativism has no place in a civilised society. The whole aim of FGM is to mutilate girls and deprive them
of any sexual sensations. There is NO real or perceived benefit. At least with male circumcision the intent is to make the male “clean” (there is some evidence that cervical cancer rates are lower in Jewish women possibly owing to males bring circumcised) rather than to deprive and control them.

Also - you appreciate that lifelong complications are rare with male circumcision but they are guaranteed for ALL females undergoing FGM - can you really not see the difference here?

Thanks it’s genuinely something I’ve never understood as it appears to me to be critical of a creator.