if fgm is now illegal why is male circumcision still allowed?

[southeastastra]

pretty self explanatory by my title, but shouldn't it be a decision made when 18 and an adult?

Because FGM is a barbaric ritual, performed to keep women "in their place" and can lead to life long pain?

A circumcision is in no way the same as FGM. "Genital mutilation"...you arent mutilating a penis by removing the foreskin.

I think linking the two is not a good idea for either campaign against.

I'm not 'pro' either but FGM is in a world of it's own.

Personally I think tying a baby to a board and cutting bits off it to be mutilation.

DS had a circumcision age 9 for medical reasons. Is that ok in your opinion?

Medical reasons.

Who ties a baby to a board gamerchick?

Never heard of a girl who had fgm for medical reasons...

I don't approve of either (except for medical reasons re. circumcision) but the two are not remotely comparable

to attempt to compare them makes one look ignorant, uneducated and like someone who gets a hard on from whataboutery

If FGM was limited to cutting back the clitoral hood, I guess that would make it similar to male circumcision. Would people be happy with that I wonder?

oh hang on, I get it

you forgot to put "light hearted" in your title

silly me

There are different types of female circumcision, some less extreme than others. All are illegal.

I don't mean to equate FGM with the male version - but plainly the surgical alteration of little boy's penises carries some risks.

Ultimately I think if non-medically indicated genital alteration is illegal then it should be illegal for everyone, or at least only possible on older children and young adults capable of giving informed consent.

Plenty of boys have to be circumcised for medical reasons - thereafter they can look forward to plenty of teasing at school. So great thread idea OP - lets add a bit of stigma to it too!

I don't actually agree with male circumcision apart from medical reasons

That being said FGM is, more often than not, on par with male castration.

i am certainly not uneducated af

it is comparable as children do not have the choice. same with ear pierciing

A bit crass to compare FGM with ear piercing.

If male circumcision was the performed to the same 'level' as FGM then the baby would have 1/3 of its penis cut off. With male circumcision the skin removed is to some extent, excess. It does not limit the mans ability have pleasurable a sex life, or to have children. It is not performed by women trying to exert their control over 'their' men. Boys are not routinely taken on holiday to be mutilated without their permission or knowledge. Male circumcision is generally done by qualified medical practitioners, in safe, sterile environments when the baby is very young. Pain relief is generally provided. FGM is not performed by 'professionals' and women are at risk of infection and accidents and lasting damage when surgery goes wrong.

That is why male circumcision is not comparable.

I thinkAF is spot on.

Circumcision should be carried out only with the consent of the owner of the penis. Unless it's for urgent medical reasons then I think it's barbaric to do that to a little boy.

However, it is not analogous to fgm. An analogous procedure would be the removal of the entire head of the penis.

Also, I get tired of this question coming up when fgm is discussed. It's like some men cannot accept that it's a separate sodding issue. It derails the discussion.

And it happens all the time:

Domestic violence "but women can be abusers too!" Yes they can, but now you've derailed the conversation.
Fgm: but what about my penis?!...

See what I mean? It's like we can't have a conversation about a female issue without a "but what about the menz..?" Whine.

Incidentally, foreskins used to be the main source of human fibroblasts for cell cultures :)

^^ educate yourself

well that's the point of my argument, people dont equate male circucision to fgm but it's acceptable compared to other forms of abuse of children...