Circumcision should be banned.

That’s nonsense. Look at the crusades, the Middle East, Gaza, Sudan.

Men will find any excuse to go to war, but to suggest religion isn’t the most used one is fallacy.

I appreciate it’s important to your religion - but why on babies?

Can’t adults or competent older children decide? Tie it to bar mitzvahs?

I was christened because it was important to my parents, but chose not to be confirmed because I don’t believe. Giving me the autonomy to decide my own faith was incredibly empowering to me, and I’m grateful to my parents.

Why would any religion force belief on its children? And as an extension of that, permanently modify their bodies?

Just let them choose to be circumcised in the same way as they choose to have their bar mitzvah.

That’s different - it’s correcting an abnormality and any intervention needs to be weighed against potential harm.

My ears protruded because the cartilage wasn’t formed properly. I did have it corrected, but when I was 18, after I begged my parents because I was bullied about them so much.

It was probably character building for me, and I was a smart, confident child, so I don’t mind that they waited - but perhaps another child would feel differently.

But cutting something off that is meant to be there is not the same as correcting an abnormality.

So there are no Jews in america?????????

None of those things are acceptable.

Who is arguing in favour of poor diet and unfettered access to screens?

No one I know.

I don’t know anyone who doesn’t swiftly act on mental health issues in their kids, nor anyone who doesn’t foster friendships and community.

You have no issue with your ear piercing because culturally, it is accepted. You have been conditioned to believe it is ok, so you do.

That doesn’t change the fundamental truth that it was a modification made to your body without your consent. I don’t think it should be allowed for any child incapable of consenting.

It is a mild one, as holes almost entirely close if left alone, but it is still an issue of consent.

Circumcision is much more invasive and permanent but also fundamentally about consent.

If men want it done when they are old enough to consent, then fine, that is entirely up to them, in the same way getting their nob pierced or forearms tattooed is up to them.

We don’t allow child brides or underage sex because of the harm it does to children - in some cultures those are religiously motivated.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting we ban circumcision entirely - just that we lay out the correct legislation to ensure it is done only with the consent of the person having it - ie when they reach an age where they can consent.

That might be 13, when they have their bar mitzvah, or 16 when they want to start having sex and ‘look better’ 🤮 (don’t agree it does), but it cannot be at a week old.

"Strongly suggest you research"

Haha. Ok troll.

Strongly suggest you research what causes BV...
There is a reason it was done to start with (that has nothing to do with sewing up vaginas to keep virginity or slicing off clit' to stop women enjoying sex at all) so you might want to check your understanding of both concepts.

"Men don't seem to be able to wash properly, so the cleanliness and health implications for both"

I'm sorry but this is misandrist rubbish but may reflect the men you know/.associate with.

Imagine a man posted that women struggled with BV and smelly vaginas so FGM should be allowed for health reasons....

I actually think it should be allowed for health reasons. Men don't seem to be able to wash properly, so the cleanliness and health implications for both sexes are widespread and under studied.

So let me get this straight…because promiscuous adult males won’t use condoms, we should mutilate babies?

That is a wild take.

" It is to my mind a hypothetical question anyway as in our multi-cultural society any such ban would discriminate against those cultures which demand it, and that should (quite rightly) never happen."

Nonsense. People have no issue "discriminating" against certain cultures which "demand" FGM which is rightly illegal.

The original question of this thread is "Should circumcision be banned" (for other than medical necessity) - in other words, made illegal. It is to my mind a hypothetical question anyway as in our multi-cultural society any such ban would discriminate against those cultures which demand it, and that should (quite rightly) never happen.

@AlBee3

I have to disagree with you vigorously here! No culture or religion should EVER EVER top trump the rights of children, children I may add that are FAR too young to understand what their penis is, let alone consent to having parts of it removed. There is not a religion or a culture in the world that should be able to have laws and governance consider them when it comes to the rights of children or indeed humans of any age.

Religion is simply a belief. Rights and the right to choose blasts that clean of the water and should be treated as such. If they feel the are being ‘discriminated’ against then cry me a river. For too long religion governed as a way to silence. Make it stop.

Thank you for your kind words. You too have suffered all your life as a result of a decision taken when you were young and you have my sincerest sympathy and understanding. At least, if I had been circumcised as a result of that examination when I was 3 my mother would have been able to reassure me with honesty in later years that it was done on medical advice and that I had benefitted as a result, whereas you had no such comfort.

I think our two cases illustrate the enormous difficulty that mothers face in seeking to make the right decision on behalf of their sons and the fact that the pro vs. anti debate can and will never be satisfactorily settled. The original question of this thread is "Should circumcision be banned" (for other than medical necessity) - in other words, made illegal. It is to my mind a hypothetical question anyway as in our multi-cultural society any such ban would discriminate against those cultures which demand it, and that should (quite rightly) never happen. My point remains, however, that if the society builds up a taboo against circumcision to such an extent that societal disapproval makes it regarded as abnormal that could prevent medical practitioners and parents from making the right choice at the right time (and I am a living example of how damaging unnecessary delay can be) and also that those boys who have to have it done may feel freakish and, yes, "mutilated". And you and I both know how this subject can cause life-long mental anguish when it appears to the individual that the wrong choice has been made on their behalf.

Perhaps I really have said enough now!

I hope you are right.
Every individual is their own exceptional case, but I just feel that in my case the wrong decision was taken when I was very young and I suffered for it as a result.
I would not like any societal attitude to risk putting other boys in the same situation.

Perhaps I have said enough on this topic!

That said, I think that there is also a risk in our society that in seeking to demonise circumcision and create a taboo around it some mothers will be put off from making the right choice for their boys when the indications are that it is or on the balance of probability might be necessary for them

That is very very unlikely, I doubt any Mother would refuse a medically necessary procedure for their son because some people maim their child for religious reasons.

I did say at the start of my post that I wasn't sure that I was posting on the right thread, so I apologise for my error and any annoyance/upset/offence I might have caused.
However, I think my case touches on a number of different issues that have been raised over the Mumsnet forum generally about the dilemma that some mothers have in making the right choice for their sons, and about the dangers of delay if the medical professionals advise alternative approaches first when the case indicates that circumcision would be the best course.
I should add that I am most definitely NOT in favour of routine circumcision and I refuse to be drawn into the argument surrounding religious practice as I do not come from the faiths that demand it.
That said, I think that there is also a risk in our society that in seeking to demonise circumcision and create a taboo around it some mothers will be put off from making the right choice for their boys when the indications are that it is or on the balance of probability might be necessary for them.

My ex husband was Jewish - I was very very clear when we had children there would be absolutely no circulation that I considered it to be totally and utterly unnecessary. Fortunately he agreed with me. His parents didn’t like it but tough.

Some cultures say FGM is tradition or religious - so was stoning people to death - things change and move on.

Breast Reduction?! Where did I mention a breast reduction?

It is different though, as having a breast reduction is major surgery in comparison to circumcision. If circumcision carried the same risks and healing time I don’t think it would be as widely accepted.

You can’t compare apples and oranges. A comparison to ear piercing would probably fit better.

Saying it’s okay in this instance but not in this one when the outcome is the same doesn’t make sense. It’s like when people get annoyed for kids being on iPads - EXCEPT IF THERE IS A SEN DIAGNOSIS, the outcome is the same. A child is rightly or wrongly sitting in a pushchair staring at a screen.

@AlBee3But surely you can see that medical circumcision is entirely different from the unnecessary, cruel mutilation of little boys based on cultural or religious bullshit? My tits have caused me a world of pain and anguish in my 41 years, starting at 7 years old - should I have had them lobbed off at 7 ‘just in case’? No.

Medical - necessary surgical procedure
Cultural/Religious - unnecessary mutilation

No, boredom was not the main thing I was feeling while reading that long story about your penis.
This thread is about religious circumcision, not medical

@AlBee3 but the vast majority on this thread have said it's fine for medical reasons?

In fact I don't think I've read a single post that says a doctor shouldn't circumcise if there's a medical reason to do so?

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this post, and it will be a long one, but it is a story that I have wanted to tell for most of my life, so here goes...

I was circumcised when I was 50 for medical reasons (more on that later) but I have suffered with problems with my penis all my life, as will become clear.

Among my earliest memories is being taken to see the doctor in the early 60s when I was about 3. He examined my penis and pulled my foreskin back as part of the examination This was very painful as I don't think it had ever been done before. I remember my mother and the doc. talking for what seemed like for ever before we left, and I am convinced that they were in a discussion about whether I needed circumcising or not. I don't know if my mother was arguing for it and the doc. dissuading her, or the doctor was recommending it on the basis of his examination and my mother was resisting ( I suspect it was the former - knowing my mother she would have taken the doctor's advice). Anyway, I remained uncircumcised.

As I grew up I became more and more aware of my penis (as boys do) and was always troubled by it. Whenever I pulled my foreskin back the glans was messy with smegma and try as I might I could not keep it clean. It was also incredibly sensitive and intolerant of any sort of touch, making it too painful to wash properly even in the bath. One of the things I noticed when I was about 10 was that many of the boys at school had a different sort of penis to me (ie they were circumcised) - I think the division in those days was about 50/50. It occurred to me that they could not have the same problem as me.

Anyway, as I grew older the problem of keeping clean improved but the hyper-sensitivity did not, making adolescent masturbation painful unless I kept the glans artificially wet. I should add that although I devoutly wished that the situation would improve I was always too shy to take my problem to a doctor, but I always carried the notion in the back of my mind that circumcision may be an answer. When I started dating I was always fearful of the pain that might be involved in sexual contact and with the few girlfriends that I had a full relationship with I had to steer them away from over-enthusiastic endeavours with my penis, which surprised (and disappointed) some of them (for instance I could not tolerate oral). I am sure that my shyness over my problems with my penis severely limited my ability to date and enjoy relationships with girls.

When I was in my late forties I noticed a rash on my glans (painless, but very visible and ugly) which I eventually took to my GP, who I knew well. He initially thought it was a fungal infection, but it failed to respond to treatment. He referred me to a dermatologist who diagnosed Zoon's Balanitis and started treatment with steroid creams. I suggested circumcision as almost all medical websites pointed to that being the only sure solution, but he insisted that the creams had a very good chance of working. After a year it was no better so he reluctantly referred my to a urologist who having examined me (v. painful!) said " I wish you had been sent to me a year ago". Apparently the scarring on my foreskin was now very bad. He said he would do the best he could for me and the hospital appointment was made (all this was private on insurance, so there was little delay). Given the state my penis was in he made a very good job, but the skin is fused to the rim of the glans on the left side whereas the scar line sits behind it on the right as it should, giving it an uneven appearance. Sorry it this is too much information (!), but I feel it is relevant to the story.

There was very little pain following the operation, but in the early days after the psychological shock of realising that the protective covering of the glans had gone when all my life I had depended on it to keep me from agony took some getting over. It took more than 6 weeks to heal and settle down, but quite suddenly it all seemed to resolve itself; my glans had become mercifully much less sensitive (to the point where dry touch is pleasurable not agony). The difference in not just my sex life but life in general is massive.

I think that my story raises several important points about the circumcision debate in general - though clearly this is about circumcision for medical reasons and has no bearing on the argument surrounding religious and cultural practice.
I often wonder how different my life would have been if the outcome of that fateful visit to the doctor had gone the other way; about if I had not been so shy and had gone to the doctor as a young man; even about if one of my girlfriends had insisted that something was wrong and had pushed me to get the operation done?

The moral (if that is what it is) is that circumcision is not always wrong even when it is not strongly indicated; that mothers sometimes have an incredibly difficult task in making the right decision; and then when there is a clear indication that your son needs to be circumcised don't be frightened of being bold.

I hope I haven't bored you and thank you for reading my story.