Circumcision should be banned.

I suppose that's the starting point isn't it:

Ask a large selection of circumcised men, if they could have made a choice, cultural and/or religious expectations aside, would they have had it done?

Yeah, I remember being desperate to have my ears pierced, I think my mum made me wait until I was 12 or something like that.

I think if we’re going to ‘throw stones’ at some people’s cultural practices we also have to acknowledge that it’s a sliding scale rather than being binary. No one you know complains as an adult about having their ears pierced young? That doesn’t surprise me. I guess there’s also millions of boys without foreskins who don’t mind that either, now they’re adults. Does that make either practice morally right? I don’t think it does tbh.

Just to confirm, Human Rights Watch says that the most common internationally (85%) are Type 1 (partial or total clitoral removal, most common in Iraq & Kurdistan) & Type 2 (partial or total clitoral & labial removal), both risk birth complications later. In Somalia, Sudan & Central African Republic, Type 3 is the most common. I don't know yet how common total clitoral removal would be, but given it has severe effects often, & there is considerable worry from organisations, I think total clitoral removal probs common. And partial is v bad, surely, too?
An important point is that FGM is mainly carried out by people who are not Medically trained, & risks many further problems which are harder to treat in developed countries. I get that you want to emphasise the harms of circumcision, but I don't think you should play FGM down and spread wrong information like this. Type IV, the pricking you mentioned, is only 15% worldwide, & even if it's clitoral hood w or without labia minora (& sometimes majority too), that's still severe imo.

www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/16/qa-female-genital-mutilation
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9436112/

Yanbu. Horrific reading. Those poor poor boys.

@Icanttakethisanymore @Simone9 yes you're both right - I suppose there must be pain during the healing period. Nasty.

@Icanttakethisanymore to be honest all the children I know who have had their ears pierced both now and from when I was a child, requested it themselves at 7 or 8 years old. Often for birthdays. Our parents explained how it would feel (I wouldn't call it pain - it was just a click and it was done) and the need to clean and be careful for a few months till healed. We agreed and I don't remember any children regretting it or having pain or infections.

Just from my experience though.

I can't imagine the recovery is painless though once the anaesthetic has worn off?

YANBU

FWIW Circumcision won’t be painless because the child won’t be anaesthetised through the recovery period.

So, are you saying that it doesn’t matter that you’ve caused your child pain (through piercing its ears) because the holes will grow over if you take the piercings out? That’s the moral difference? You’re not bothered about the unnecessary discomfort at all?

bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-020-1952-2

This is a case report and states that it's a very rare complication, and preventable if you follow hygiene procedures, but I don't think they're going to be delighted by their ears when they're older.

I have several friends with earlobe scars from getting earrings ripped out as children and infections were pretty common (it was very common when I was growing up to get your ears pierced really early and obviously most of us were fine).

None of this was the same as circumcision at all, but none of these injuries would have occurred if their ears had been left alone.

It is not the same at all.
The hole from an ear piercing can and will grow over given time.

Circumcision/FGM is the literal removal of tissue that will never grow back.

No not because of the pain level, circumcision can be painless with anaesthetic - because of the permanent change to the physiological function of the genitals.

I think ear piercing works extremely well as an analogy. The vast, vast majority of those of us who had it done as babies just don't see the problem. We find your obsession with it a little wrird and, tbh, it smacks of intolerance rather than children's rights. I mean look at childhood in the UK. Stuff your kids with crap til they swell up like butter balls, fine - you do you. Give them no freedom, no community and shove them on screens all day - good parenting. Their mental health's in the pan, they're eaten up by anxiety - shall we tackle any of those things? Nah, chavs and foreigners piercing their children's ears is the problem.

I used to be on the fence about circumcision, seeing it as a matter purely for parents.
This was until I saw a 17 day old baby with a severe wound infection that led to penile tissue death. The baby was admitted the PICU and had to a large chunk of his penis amputated to stop gangrene.
Yes it really was that serious.
The parents weren't even religious. They just wanted their little boy to look the same as his father.

That poor kid, forever maimed, will never have a fulfilling sex life, will have severe body issues, and who knows what else, just for his dad's ego.

Because the FGM/circumcision procedures permanently alter the working physiology of the genitals.

Piercing of the ear cartilage doesn't do that so, for that reason, it isn't comparable.

Why? Because it hurts a bit and not a lot?

The most sensitive part of the penis is the edge of the glans. The foreskin is there to protect that edge.

With this removed the glans must become desensitised otherwise the boy/man would be in constant pain just walking around - ask any non circumcised male about those occasions where the foreskin got retracted in their pants.

Its basically circumcised men making the decision to mutilate their sons - with the argument 'it didn't do me any harm' but there's no way they can understand what they are missing.

I doubt it's been researched but I might guess it would be natural for circumcised men to prefer rougher sex - only women would know.

I don’t think parents should be allowed to modify their child’s body for non-medical reasons until the child is old enough to decide. It’s the parents’ religious belief in play, not yet the child’s.

Agree

It doesn't need to be exactly the same. Sometimes it's useful to mentally consider how you feel about the more minor procedure and work through how those justifications work with the other procedure, and vice versa.

So one is ok and the other isn't, but why is that? How much pain is too much on a newborn?

How much risk of complication is too much? What complications are ok (scarring, bleeding, infection) and which ones aren't (body part loss or permanent damage, chronic pain, death).

What about if the serious complications aren't at all common - some baby boys die but not very many. Worth the risk?

I think in Indian culture it's standard to pierce both girls & boys' ears. Otoh I've seen non-Indian kids here around 7 & even babies w pierced ears (SW London). By children, do we mean under 18s in general? Or younger, I'm guessing? Lots of my friends got their ears pierced before Year 7. I think this is key: a parent can conceivably let their 11yo get their ears pierced. I think they might surely hesitate a bit at least...if their 11yo wanted to be circumcised, or they should.

I honestly don't think there is.

The holes caused by piercings grow over... and they are just holes. Circumcision/FGM is the literal removal of tissue that will never grow back.
Totally different.

I don't really get the piercing analogy...I know it does have risks, but surely none comparable to circumcision? A procedure on the genitalia just feels quantatively different by itself.

I think it would lead to a huge reduction in ear piercing tbh. I don't think it's all that strongly cultural in general. Some groups such as Travellers might. I can't speak for them.

Same with circumcision. I suspect it would wipe out non-religious circumcision completely. Other groups would depend on the level of religious observance but again, there would likely be a reduction.

In response to: 'is there a better analogy than ear piercing'

I don't think there is one.
There is nothing as unnecessarily mutilating to a child's body as FGM and circumcision.
They should both be banned and religious and cultural leaders should guide their people to unharmful practices instead.