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?

And circumcision does not include chopping the boys bell end off. It just takes the loose skin off

Did nature get that bit wrong so that it has to be removed? Seems unlikely.

For those here who believe that male circumcision is comparable to FGM, please look up Hibo Wardere. She's a Somali woman who campaigns against FGM and her writing will soon set you straight.

FGM is a barbaric practice steeped in misogyny.

@doodleygirl

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

This

Christ, there’s so much misinformation on this thread

The OP asked why circumcision is not treated like FGM. People have gotten hung up on FGM being “worse”, which it is on many measures. However, the reality remains that circumcision can be the unnecessary genital mutilation of a child. As with FGM, that practice should be illegal.

Am in the US. Had my son done in the hospital on Day 2, before he was released. Three doctors recommended the procedure (one female and two male.) Reasons were cleanliness and less likelihood of penile cancer.
He is an adult now and there have been no complaints or complications.
It doesn't really compare with FGM - more like docking a puppy's tail.

How about we all decide to treat any level of mutilation of a child's genitals to be a medical procedure of last resort?

@GeorgiaGirl52

Am in the US. Had my son done in the hospital on Day 2, before he was released. Three doctors recommended the procedure (one female and two male.) Reasons were cleanliness and less likelihood of penile cancer. He is an adult now and there have been no complaints or complications. It doesn't really compare with FGM - more like docking a puppy's tail.

One of those is illegal. The other is child abuse

- more like docking a puppy's tail

...which is illegal in the UK.Maybe the US needs to catch up.

the history of this (not that i agree wirth circumcision) is that it was the cleanest way to deal with the bleeding. The mohel took the blood away with his tongue or sucked it away with a hollow straw

Yeah 'let me lick the blood away by putting your baby's penis in my mouth, it's the only way'. Ffs

By the way docking a dog's tail is barbaric too.

I had an exP who had it as an adult for medical reasons. He said you couldn’t compare, sensation wise, and really struggled to achieve pleasure in the same way as he had previously.

I don’t think it’s ok. Babies cannot consent.

Disclaimer: DH is Jewish. He was circumcised, despite his mother losing her faith as a Holocaust escapee. She submitted to religious and cultural expectations.

I’m not Jewish. In my early 20s I met a Jewish man whose circumcision had gone wrong. He had no sexual sensation and was angry and bitter that this had been done to him as a baby without his consent. That anguish has stuck with me.

When I started seeing my DH I embraced the family’s culture - my own family were philo-Semites. When I fell pregnant with my DS the assumption was that he would be circumcised. This was the sticking point for me. My MIL wanted it, DH was on board with it, so was my Dad. I didn’t want it. I was working for an Israeli company at the time & canvassed the men in the office. They all said don’t do it. One said ‘we don’t live in the desert any more, it’s not necessary.’

I came under HUGE pressure from my my MIL. To her, it was the final break with the family tradition. To me, it’s the mutilation of a child, the removal of something they’re born with and a procedure that can go horribly wrong. I oppose it utterly.

@godmum56

Livinghereinallentown Sun 15-Aug-21 20:25:18 "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."

I’ve just googled this and can’t quite believe what I’ve read. What kind of parent would let a grown man put their baby’s penis in his mouth. Sexual abuse of a baby hidden behind a banner of religious. Absolutely horrific

I have no idea what you have read...do post the link if you like...but I am betting that what you have read is not the factual truth.

I don't want to break rules, if this is rule breaking please delete:

www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-what-is-oral-suction-circumcision-1.5311796

What is oral suction circumcision, or metzitzah b'peh, and where did it come from?

After the mohel cuts off the foreskin, he uses his mouth – oral suction, rather than say a sponge - to effectively clear the wound on the baby's penis of blood, lest it clot and decay.

So factual truth for you is:
A healthy baby has the foreskin cut off. The the Rabbi puts the penis in his mouth and sucks. This led to many kids getting herpes from the same rabbi, some died.

@WitchBaby

the history of this (not that i agree wirth circumcision) is that it was the cleanest way to deal with the bleeding. The mohel took the blood away with his tongue or sucked it away with a hollow straw

Yeah 'let me lick the blood away by putting your baby's penis in my mouth, it's the only way'. Ffs

By the way docking a dog's tail is barbaric too.

more than 2000 years ago it was

and yes I agree about docking dogs tails.

I am not trying to excuse or support the practice of circumcision. I disgree with it strongly. But to add in statements that are not factually correct doesn't help in a discussion.

A foreskin is retractable to expose the gland of the penis head and this allows for cleaning to maintain hygiene. Its not really a valid reason to remove the foreskin for this reason except if you're too lazy to clean yourself properly.
You don't remove your finger nails because they accumulate for under them!
Circumcision of infants is generally due to the fact that their father was and previous generation were too.
The foreskin has thousands of nerve endings the inside pleasure during masturbation and intercourse and circumcision remove these to de-sensitive the penis, this is traditionally main reason behind the removal to stop masturbation which historically was sinful is many religions.
There are a few medical reasons for the procedure to be carried out the rest are purely for religious or asthetic traditional reasons.
Whilst it is certainly not as extreme as FGM it is still genital mutilation and should be stopped. Why would you wish to put a baby or child through this unnecessary surgery especially as infection and incorrect surgery can lead to complications that could leave the penis useless (again many internet articles im this)

I'm Jewish and refused to have my sons circumcised. Should they wish to go through with it when they're much older and able to give fully informed consent, so be it.

Their bodies don't belong to me, therefore I have no right to decide that their foreskins should be removed in the name of religion.

I have two sons born in the US and neither underwent circumcision.

My oldest is 47 and when he was born I was told by the hospital staff circumcision wasn't considered medically necessary. I asked, "why is it done then"? My midwife told me 'mostly for looks, for the boys to fit in in the locker room/showers at school - also to look like their father.

My second was born in the late 80's and I had a Jewish pediatrician who wouldn't drop the subject so I dropped him - after I told him "no one is coming near my son's penis with a knife"!

Both my son's are very happy with their penis's. I have been thanked by them for not having them 'mutilated'. The more I think about it, I think it should be illegal to make such a big decision for another person's genitals & future sex life.

My youngest son was made fun of in the school showers after sports but he was so proud of his penis he said he didn't mind at all. He claimed the other boys were jelly. I have even read that some circumcised American men are trying to somehow regrow their foreskins.

From what I have been told, the tip of an intact man's penis is naturally very sensitive which makes it more fun for them, whereas a circumcised man's penis tip is dried thicker skin and therefore less sensitive. Men who have got circumcised as adults have claimed this.

I look at it this way; you can get circumcised anytime if you hate your foreskin but you can never get uncircumcised - I left my sons with the choice.

Off topic but
By the way docking a dog's tail is barbaric too
Some working breeds are docked because their tails are very vulnerable to injury. I know half a dozen dogs who have had chronic tail-tip injuries and whose tail-tips remain tender and vulnerable, and a couple of dogs who have had tail amputations.

It's legal in England for three groups of breeds (terriers, spaniels and HPRs) under certain circumstances.

"So factual truth for you is:
A healthy baby has the foreskin cut off. The the Rabbi puts the penis in his mouth and sucks. This led to many kids getting herpes from the same rabbi, some died."

no he puts his mouth on the wound. Different.

And again, I do not agree with it or support it.

and define "many" please? because I can't find evidence of more than 24 infections although for me, even 1 is too many.
www.timesofisrael.com/4-ny-babies-get-herpes-from-jewish-circumcision-rite-in-past-6-months/

@godmum56
There is no reason for any man to put his lips to a new born infants penis. No ifs, no buts, no how's about that then.

From what I have been told, the tip of an intact man's penis is naturally very sensitive which makes it more fun for them, whereas a circumcised man's penis tip is dried thicker skin and therefore less sensitive

DH - circumcised - has always been ultra-sensitive, which I think is the reason he didn’t see a problem with having DS circumcised. I’d obviously had different conversations with others. But I couldn’t in all conscience take that risk with my son just to satisfy a tradition. I see it as mutilation - I know others don’t, including DH. But nothing, nothing would have induced me to do it, and DH accepted it. My MIL, not so much.

[quote godmum56]"So factual truth for you is:
A healthy baby has the foreskin cut off. The the Rabbi puts the penis in his mouth and sucks. This led to many kids getting herpes from the same rabbi, some died."

no he puts his mouth on the wound. Different.

And again, I do not agree with it or support it.

and define "many" please? because I can't find evidence of more than 24 infections although for me, even 1 is too many.
www.timesofisrael.com/4-ny-babies-get-herpes-from-jewish-circumcision-rite-in-past-6-months/[/quote]
Apologies. The use of "herpes" may have misled. If you click on the link I posted above there is a section I'll copy:

A turning point came in 1836, when an outbreak of sickness was observed among newborn Jewish babies in Vienna.

Rabbi Elazar Horowitz observed that all the infants, some of whom died from the illness, had all been circumcised by the same mohel. Moreover, all exhibited the same symptoms - an outbreak on their skin that progressed from their penis to the rest of the body.

It does not say herpes in that information.
But I have had enough of talking about it now. For all your posting that you disagree with itz you're very quick to defend it so I feel continuing will waste my time as you obviously support it and believe it is a good practice etc. Seem like you didn't even click the link I posted to read the info, just jump to defend.

What i do believe in and defend is sticking to objective facts when discussing stuff.

[quote Postdatedpandemic]@godmum56
There is no reason for any man to put his lips to a new born infants penis. No ifs, no buts, no how's about that then.[/quote]
not now there isn't, more than 2000 years ago, there was....I still don't think that babies should have been circumcised then...but then it wasn't paedophilia either.

There's little to compare between the two. As the major religions are pretty much all ruled by males, you can be sure male circumcision would not exist if it had damaging and life changing effects as female circumcision does.

@ginghamstarfish

There's little to compare between the two. As the major religions are pretty much all ruled by males, you can be sure male circumcision would not exist if it had damaging and life changing effects as female circumcision does.

100% this.