Why is child circumcision not treated like FGM?

[MyMabel]

Unless there’s a medical need for circumcision.. why is it ok to cut off part of a male baby genitals?

Just scrolling through tik tok and saw a video of a lady’s baby who she waited until he was 1 years old to do it instead of a newborn and it “didn’t go to plan” whatever that shall mean.. and the comments about people doing it because it’s ‘cleaner’ and ‘he won’t miss what he can’t remember having’ just shocked me.

I just can’t understand why you would want to multilateral you baby unless necessary for medical reasons.

Is there a legit age reason behind it being ok for male babies? - genuinely wondering if anyone has anything factual based behind this?

It's only really accepted because it's the cultural norm in the US which is a western super power and because of the religious links. It was mostly brought in in the US to reduce sexual pleasure and prevent masturbation.

But isn’t that mirroring what FGM is? To stop pleasure etc in girls for cultural and/or religious reasons?

@QueenStromba

It's only really accepted because it's the cultural norm in the US which is a western super power and because of the religious links. It was mostly brought in in the US to reduce sexual pleasure and prevent masturbation.

This - it's a barbaric practice and one that can cause distress in later life.

Not factual just anecodotal.

My DH is circumsised and he prefers the look of it and tells me it is easier to keep clean. His friend was circumsised as an adult for a medical reason and he prefers his 'new' penis - again, so he says.

Where as FGM is a much more intrusive, dangerous and does really cause pain and problems. So whilst on the surface level they are the same - the modification of the body, I think they are different.

I think there is no way men would perpetuate male circumsison if it were not good for them in some way. Tradition isn't enough - men are wimps and so there must be something about it that serves them.

Yeah, but they don't do it in the US or in the western religions

I'm very uncomfortable with the thought of circumcision and especially of the 'tradition' of putting the penis in the mouth of the person doing the procedure. I don't see a possibly justification for it and I hope it is very super rare these days.

FGM is done to appease men and always results in lifelong discomfort, pain and stunts sexual practices.

Circumcision does have some medical advantages in certain situations and in most cases does not discomfort the male in the long-term.

I don't agree with either but they are not comparable.

@ParityJ

I'm very uncomfortable with the thought of circumcision and especially of the 'tradition' of putting the penis in the mouth of the person doing the procedure. I don't see a possibly justification for it and I hope it is very super rare these days.

Eh?

@myohmywhatawonderfulday

Not factual just anecodotal.

My DH is circumsised and he prefers the look of it and tells me it is easier to keep clean. His friend was circumsised as an adult for a medical reason and he prefers his 'new' penis - again, so he says.

Where as FGM is a much more intrusive, dangerous and does really cause pain and problems. So whilst on the surface level they are the same - the modification of the body, I think they are different.

I think there is no way men would perpetuate male circumsison if it were not good for them in some way. Tradition isn't enough - men are wimps and so there must be something about it that serves them.

It's mostly a circle of abuse - fathers circumcising sons because it was done to them.

@myohmywhatawonderfulday

Not factual just anecodotal.

My DH is circumsised and he prefers the look of it and tells me it is easier to keep clean. His friend was circumsised as an adult for a medical reason and he prefers his 'new' penis - again, so he says.

Where as FGM is a much more intrusive, dangerous and does really cause pain and problems. So whilst on the surface level they are the same - the modification of the body, I think they are different.

I think there is no way men would perpetuate male circumsison if it were not good for them in some way. Tradition isn't enough - men are wimps and so there must be something about it that serves them.

Yeah, it's 'good' if medically required or if you can't be arsed with basic hygiene as a man.

Mutilating a baby boys genitals is despicable especially when justified by cultural or religious reasons. How any can justify it is beyond me.

@ParityJ - I have never heard of it being done like that.

@happydays2345

Sorry I wasn't very clear it is called "Oral Suction Circumcision"

@QueenStromba

It's only really accepted because it's the cultural norm in the US which is a western super power and because of the religious links. It was mostly brought in in the US to reduce sexual pleasure and prevent masturbation.

Do you have a source for this please? That it was introduced to reduce pleasure and masturbation?

If you are comparing FGM to circumcision then you really need to do some research prior to posting

I get that if a fully grown adult male chooses to have it done for whatever purpose (looks or medical reasons) then great, women have breast augmentations to improve the look of their breasts.. but we don’t do it to newborn babies because it ‘looks better’

I’m not against it in a medical sense, I get that it needs to be done in some situations, but I don’t understand why you would choose to have a part of your child genitals cut off for any reason other than medical necessity.

@happydays2345

Eh? indeed. Read up on it. It's a thing. Google 'oral suction circumcision'. Fucking vile.

Why oh why did I just google that. I didn't need that info in my life.

Male circumcision is routine in the US “for hygiene reasons” - or at least that was the cant 20 years ago when my 2 nephews were born there

It was mostly brought in in the US to reduce sexual pleasure and prevent masturbation.
WHAAAAT?
I can confirm, on the basis of one lustful example, that if that was the case, it doesn't seem to have worked.

I did a quick google and it was historically to prevent masterbation as it was seen as self abuse

I only realised that circumcision was the norm in America after watching that episode of sex and the city where they discuss it and some of them are grossed out by foreskin!

Firstly very odd that all those babies are having a medically unnecessary procedure without being able to consent. Secondly, It never even occurred to me that it was a big deal- men either have foreskin or they don't, I certainly don't have a preference either way.

It should all be illegal unless for medical reasons.

Its very normalised in the west so its okay, its whole superiority complex of certain people in the west.

If someones religion requires them to multilate their child, the correct thing to do is to put their child first, sadly many value their religion over their own children.

Absolutely @doodleygirl!

@Hoppinggreen I completely agree. I just can’t fathom why unless needed you would want to put your child through that.. and why it’s even allowed. It seems bonkers.

“Please cut off the skin of my newborn penis because religion. He doesn’t need it done.. we want it done!”

Who would give the OK for that?!