Circumcision should be banned.

Yes. People on the pornismisogyny subreddit is also mentioned this. It's a clear demonstration of violence against men to make them conform to male norms, causing pain, decreased pleasure, mental health issues often...

& then it affects women through male insecurity and sexual problems fuelling the demand for anal, which influences porn.

This is an intervention recommended in boys and men of the most potentially sexually active age group in populations where the risk of HIV is very high and the availability of treatments used in other places is much lower.

Risk of harm vs benefit will take the above into consideration, so if a proportion of these men get infections and lose their penises, or can't get it up as easily, or develop chronic pain during sex or when having an erection, it's still absolutely worthwhile for WHO to recommend as all of these are better than increased spread of HIV and the resulting morbidity and mortality in men, women and children.

WHO absolutely don't recommend it in countries where HIV is lower and interventions such as antiretroviral treatments and preventatives such as PrEP are widely available with adequate follow up. The risk/benefit would be completely different.

I was actually speaking to someone this morning who had this done for their son. I asked why, and the answer was “erm, I don’t know actually, it’s just what we do in my country” and said they actually regretted it because they feel their son was so traumatised by it. Child was under one so I disagree they could be traumatised by it, but still think it’s barbaric and unnecessary (unless there is a medical need of course)

So on a practical basis the outcome might be different for most (but not all) recipients. I say not all because, although I appreciate it’s rare, some men do suffer life long complications due to circumcision. Are they morally so different though? Given in both cases there is zero benefit to the person the procedure is inflicted upon? (I’m not talking about circumcision for medical reasons, obviously.)

Read some of these stories - eye opening:

15square.org.uk/anonymous-archive-voices-against-circumcision/

It pisses me off that these threads always descend into which type of genital mutilation is worse. Can we just agree that cutting off healthy body parts off children should be banned?

It's like pitting different types of cancers against each other, all are vile.

The best topic where Islamophobia and anti-semitism can live happily together

Circumcision is bloody disgusting.

Mutilating a part of a child's body, and without consent. Vile. It's abuse. If they want to scar a part of their body when they are older through their own choice, go ahead.

However not sure I'm comfortable banning it given its religious (Jewish) connotations. Same way I'm against banning the veil even though it's a form of subjugation.

As a way to navigate round this I'd ban circumcision for non religious (backward) reasons.

A lot of MRAs are. They do have legitimate complaints about some things. The issue is other stuff they say. Women are often jointly responsible for circumcision, so I think women need to get more involved in opposing it, plus it's just morally wrong to do this imo. I actually wonder if some MRA's misogyny is rooted in circumcision anger- they ought to blame their fathers too, generally it's just the mother who is blamed.

It depends. Not all FGM is the Type Three that you seem to be thinking of. Some "just" cut off the clitoral hood protecting some "just" cut off the labia. I'm no more OK with that and I do wonder if they are more comparable to circumcision of the foreskin.

According to the NHS, "Apart from the initial swelling, bleeding and infection are the 2 most common problems associated with circumcision. Other possible complications of circumcision can include:

- permanent reduction in sensation in the head of the penis, particularly during sex
- tenderness around the scar[...]" so I'd say it might be relatively level pegging there.

In the WHO classification of types of FGM the least extreme is described thus:
“This is the partial or total removal of the clitoral glans (the external and visible part of the clitoris, which is a sensitive part of the female genitals), and/or the prepuce/clitoral hood (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoral glans).”

Removal of clitoris.

Horrific and extreme. IMO.

I am totally against circumcision for non medical reasons. To me it is ethically and morally wrong to cut bits off kids bodies without their consent.

We don’t need to make circumcision of boys comparative to FGM to decide whether or not it is wrong. It either is or isn’t, on its own terms.

As it happens I think the misogyny and the fear of women’s sexual pleasure as a threat to patriarchy and men’s power is a different dynamic to male circumcision, which seems to be about offering a covenant to your god and making your son a valuable powerful male member of your tribe.

But, irrespective of all this, cutting bits off babies or non/consenting (under the gf if consent ) children is wrong.

My take away from the thread so far is that anyone here saying it's fine doesn't believe in consent??
I've seen people on her appalled at a baby even getting their ears pierced but theres actually a higher amount defending mutilating a babies body with no consent

My DS was circumcised for medical reasons when he was ten years old. It was a long, painful recovery and all I could think was how can anyone subject babies to this for no need.

Yes, but surely they wouldn't be recommending it if it commonly caused lifelong problems, which is the statement I was responding to.

Not that I approve of it for babies or little boys - I think it’s ridiculous- but I don’t think it should be automatically lumped together with FGM as the probabilities of complications are so different.

Unbelievable. This needs to be spoken out on, I wonder if there's anything on Change.org?

If male circumcision is such a terrible thing it's surprising that more men aren't up in arms about it.

YANBU OP.

It's barbaric and should have no place whatsoever in this century.

Are you having a laugh! FGM is a complete mutilation of a girl’s genital area involving removal of her clitoris and often resulting in fistulae. Sometimes the girl’s vagina will be stitched over, only to be ripped open again forcefully during sex. Other effects include infection, scarring, chronic long term genital infections, obstetric problems, urination problems and even death from sepsis. Obstruction of the vaginal opening may lead to painful menstruation (dysmenorrhea), irregular periods and difficulty in passing menstrual blood. The girl is unlikely to ever go on and have a pleasant sexual experience following FGM.

Male circumcision had fewer less severe complications and may be carried out for medical reasons in NHS hospitals. There are NO medical reasons for female circumcision.

The two are really NOT comparable.

I disagree. Most issues I'm involved in don't involve male anatomy, (or female for that matter). This one does, so if I were involved in some action, eg a petition, I would research before doing anything, as I've done. Similarly, I wouldn't expect gay men to know about female anatomy, unless they were involved in an issue like maternity care, dangers of vaginally surgery etc. This doesn't apply to me, but some gay & lesbian people find fundamentally unpleasant to think about the opposite sex's genitals. I think tho certainly anyone possible needs to become aware of these issues, pain and suffering are everyone's concern.

hiv in uk
https://nat.org.uk/about-hiv/hiv-statistics/

Seems to me that is this wasn’t culturally accepted in many places and someone suggested you chop your newborn babies foreskin off they’d be arrested. It’s madness and the only reason people don’t get locked up is because it’s culturally acceptable. By any objective measure it’s abuse, surely? Have I missed something?

What WHO actually say is: "VMMC should be supported as a key HIV prevention option, within combination prevention for adolescents 15 years and older and adult men in settings with generalized HIV epidemics."

Not babies, not toddlers, not primary school age boys. Not in Europe, not in North America, not in places in the African continent that's don't have a generalised HIV epidemic.

I believe so, just seen two HCPs say they've seen it done with no anesthetic. Even blood draws and cannula insertions have pain relief, DS had sugar water for those when he was tiny.

Yes, it makes me feel a bit queasy when people seem to be saying that if FGM wasn't so radical it would be...fine? So if they just cut off the hood of the clitoris it would be ok?

Of course not! Children shouldn't have their genitals messed with to any degree without clear medical benefit to them, not to god, not to their marriage prospects, not to keep granny happy, not to make it easier to wash, after all other avenues have been exhausted.

Show us your evidence that there are "common lifelong problems" from male circumcision.

And, as noted above, the WHO recommends voluntary male circumcision in Africa. https://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-programmes/hiv/prevention/voluntary-medical-male-circumcision