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?

I hate circumcision being likened to fgm, the long term consequences are incomparable. Women have fought long and hard to ban fgm, dont piggyback their efforts start a completely separate campaign

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

Both are mutilation, just to different degrees. 'Less worse' does not make it acceptable.

@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.

If he was circumcised as a child, how would he know it was easier?

Just because and adult is happy with the decision they made about their own body as an adult does not give them the right to make that decision for a baby when there is no medical need.

But it is comparable in some form isn’t it? It’s mutilating a babies genitals for religious reasons. Just because the boys procedure has a lower chance of complications doesn’t make it right.

Hopesakiller

There are quite a few anti circumcision campaigns that are completely separate to FGM.

The issue seems to be that on MN posters are not able to discuss one without the other.

It reduces sexual pleasure, hahaha, that is definitely not the case.

@MySister

It reduces sexual pleasure, hahaha, that is definitely not the case.

Presumably you are male and were circumcised later on in life to be able to answer this?

Both are wrong.

Circumcision is not "less worse" but they are not comparable.

Both involve mutilation yes but that's about it.

FGM is a feminist issue that needs to be discussed separately.

The two are entirely different. Male circumcision is an issue that should be addressed, but afaik most men don't really mind that they've had it done.

They are not held down by their mothers and aunties at the age of 6 and have bits sliced off them with a razor blade, and aren't sewn up afterwards and left in agony.

I have absolutely no problem with men choosing to be circumcised. Their body, their choice and for those who wish to be circumcised for religious or cultural reasons it could be a rite of passage into adult life at 18.

What I do have a large problem with is mutilation of the genitals of children who are incapable of giving their informed consent for the procedure, irrespective of the child’s sex. That should be illegal in a civilised society.

I'm not condoning medically unnecessary circumcision I'm just concerned the conflation of the two procedures will dilute the efforts already made to stop fgm

If I remember correctly, there are four different categories of FGM, and many women are left with horrific lifelong health problems as a result. There is no medical need for FGM, it is mutilation.

I don't think it is ok.
I think that (for non medical reasons) the only body you have the right to cuts bits off is your own.

I had this very argument with my husband when our sons were born. We'd discussed it prior to having children and agreed it was not happening but then when our first was born all of a sudden it was all 'he'll never be accepted as a man" (my husband was ritually circumcised at 14).
I was very clear that nobody was mutilating our child. That I would never have had children with him if I'd known he'd do a U-turn
Culture is absolutely no justification for mutilating a child. None whatsoever.

@Orf1abc

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

Both are mutilation, just to different degrees. 'Less worse' does not make it acceptable.

Yes, you could liken it to cutting off a child’s finger vs their whole hand.

@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.

where on EARTH did you get that from?

Unfortunately male circumcision is tolerated because lots of men have been circumcised as per their religion / culture / family tradition, so they continue it because not doing so would infer what was done to them was wrong. And dont forget the religions involved are powerful ones.

Fortunately Some parents do have the insight to stop the circle of mutilation.

@godmum56

It is well documented within Jewish religion and places online. It is not me making things up. Oral suction Circumcision, please feel free to look it up.

@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.

WTAF? What's this now??

@DoucheCanoe

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.

This ^

Arguably ear piercing in babies could also be considered mutilation. I don't agree with it at all. No-one should have holes made in their ears for cosmetic purposes until they are old enough to say they would like it done.

I can it keep posting the same relies to people. If you read my other posts, go Google.

Sorry, I should have said that I'm in no way comparing ear piercings with FGM, which is utterly barbaric.

Ive never heard of that so I googled.
Jesus Christ! It is outrageous.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/herpes-babies-jewish-circumcision-ritual-link-rabbis-infants-a7620446.html

You must know is offensive to compare circumcision and FGM. If they were similar you'd be talking about removing a boys external genitals, usually with a tool such as a broken bottle neck, and without an anesthetic.
FGM kills girls who dies from blood loss or poisoning; and can cause complications including death of the mother in childbirth.

That doesn't mean women support circumcision. If you want to discuss it in good faith then there's no need for the title.

[quote ParityJ]@godmum56

It is well documented within Jewish religion and places online. It is not me making things up. Oral suction Circumcision, please feel free to look it up.[/quote]

I'm not sure I want to

Circumcising for anything other than medical reasons is wrong wrong wrong.