Circumcision should be banned.

Yes, quite.

The bit in bold was a quote from a PP, not me.

The foreskin has a major purpose (not so sure about earlobes!) and contains numerous nerve endings that enhance sexual sensitivity. It also serves a function in intercourse with a woman, as it helps the penis glide in the vagina. A circumcised penis is drier and causes more friction and irritation to the vaginal mucosa.

The foreskin is not just a random bit of unnecessary skin, it’s an important part of sexual pleasure.

The foreskin has a major purpose (not so sure about earlobes!) and contains numerous nerve endings that enhance sexual sensitivity. It also serves a function in intercourse with a woman, as it helps the penis glide in the vagina. A circumcised penis is drier and causes more friction and irritation to the vaginal mucosa.

The foreskin is not just a random bit of unnecessary skin, it’s an important part of sexual pleasure.

The foreskin has no purpose

Nor do earlobes really but I bet you'd be less than impressed if someone sliced yours off?

In hot countries it's easier to keep clean and less sweaty, so I understand why most of the countries near equator circumcise boys at birth. The foreskin has no purpose, doesn't affect sex, removal at birth prevents problems later on like foreskin being too tight.

I was referring to a PP who called FGM unnecessary. It isn't unnecessary, it's illegal

I really look forward to the day one of these cut kids sues their parents and the practitioners who did this to them.

The fact that no-one in the UK seems to have done this might indicate how upset people are in RL.

I have read that the equivalent of FGM on a male would be if they had about 2/3 of the penis removed, let alone the terrible complications FGM often causes

I really look forward to the day one of these cut kids sues their parents and the practitioners who did this to them.

Unnecessary.. how is it not?

FGM is illegal, not unnecessary

Ignorant comment alert

Yes. I agree. But who appointed us king and Queen of the world and entitled to impose our opinions on others

The issue is the culture often imposes itself on people living in some area without their consent.

The baby boy getting circumcised isn't active member of the culture, but he gets mutilated for life. Yes, we can talk about parents, but they often aren't free to choose either (one of the most sad parts of some FGM document was that the mothers didn't see it as valuable, they just felt that neither here nor her daughter wouldn't be able to live in the community otherwise and they had no way to leave).

Some women aren't covering heads because they consider it culturally valuable, but because they don't have a choice.

It is hard to respect a culture which doesn't respect it's own people.

There's nothing wrong with campaigning for a universal system of human rights.
There are objective values that apply to child circumcision: the denial of individual self-determination, immediate traumatic pain, risk of serious consequences, impaired sexual pleasure through de-sensitivity etc

Try re-writing your comment - substituting child marriage, FGM or stoning adulterers for circumcision. There are many activists campaigning inside the cultures and communities that you are othering.

It's a reasonable question, not ignorant at all.
Maybe you should explain why you think it isn't.

I think it comes down to the fact that there is no objective grounding for moral judgements. They're all a matter of personal taste and that taste is conditioned by the culture we find ourselves in. If we impose our cultural values on those from other cultural groups because we are the stronger of the two and able to do so, that still doesn't make us right. Might does not make right. There is nothing we can appeal to which would legitimise our arguments that something is "wrong". Therefore we have as much right telling Uganda that they must accept homosexuals as Islam does telling us women must keep our heads covered. It just becomes a power game - liberal tolerance is what we settled on as a way to avoid the war of all against all.

I think it comes down to the fact that there is no objective grounding for moral judgements. They're all a matter of personal taste and that taste is conditioned by the culture we find ourselves in. If we impose our cultural values on those from other cultural groups because we are the stronger of the two and able to do so, that still doesn't make us right. Might does not make right. There is nothing we can appeal to which would legitimise our arguments that something is "wrong". Therefore we have as much right telling Uganda that they must accept homosexuals as Islam does telling us women must keep our heads covered. It just becomes a power game - liberal tolerance is what we settled on as a way to avoid the war of all against all.

Ignorant comment alert

I know this is an old post but I had to comment.

I’ve always disagreed with this. FGM is basically a tool to subjugate and control girls and young women, male circumcision, although used differently, is still totally unacceptable if it is done to children - with or without their consent. The fact it’s done for some archaic religious purpose is irrelevant. We don’t stone women for adultery here and wouldn’t tolerate it. There are many things that were done a very long time ago that were part of our own indigenous culture and religion that have been rightly discarded. This is surely a human rights issue - how can it not be?!

Ppl are up in arms when babies have their ears pierced, but this is somehow tolerated bc it’s in the scary realms of ethnicity and religion. Fuck that.

Circumcision is unnecessary mutilation or body modification, to put a more sanitary spin on it. Once it’s done - that’s it, forever. How can it ever be justified?!

How can the imposition of such a significant alteration to another person’s genitalia be approved and carried out by qualified surgeons - if they’re ‘lucky’?

This should not even be up for discussion and should not be tolerated here or anywhere else for that matter - it should carry the same stigma as FGM - I’m amazed it doesn’t.

Ppl like the poster I am quoting sum up the view a lot of ppl seem to share - they don’t want to be seen to be critical of another culture or religion. So child abuse should be tolerated if it’s done by a non-British/christian parent? We’ve managed to outlaw child brides and raised the age to 18 but for some reason physical abuse via non-medical surgery is acceptable ?! What if it was part of a culture to have sex with your brother at the age of 16, or FIL before getting married? Or having your fingernails removed at birth?

I cannot understand why ppl would rather not say or do anything for fear of being labelled a racist at the expense of protecting vulnerable babies and children. But then the whole child grooming travesty highlights the gross hypocrisy we have as a society for turning a blind eye to child suffering and abuse in specific circumstances.

It has to stop.