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?

Also from the NHS site, relevant to Larry's list of benefits:

"However, there are much more effective and less invasive ways of preventing these conditions. For example, practising good hygiene to prevent UTIs, or using a condom to prevent STIs."
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx

The CDC is an American organisation, and like the NHS makes reccomendations on the best care for the citizens in that country.

ITsall,

'The CDC is an American organisation, and like the NHS makes reccomendations on the best care for the citizens in that country.'

So clearly, males in the US and the UK have different needs? Really?

There may be different incentives to the researchers but the advantages versus the disadvantages have to be the same.

larrygrylls

"The issue is decidedly not one of consent."

You can write that as many times as you like but it is an issue of consent.

It is interesting in your link that they said the side effects were rare in England.
Even more selectivity!
"complications from circumcisions carried out for medical reasons are rare in England"
and
"Problems with circumcisions carried out for religious or cultural reasons may go unreported."
(my underlining)

However many excuses and diversions you may come up with, the basic fact is that you are trying to justify cutting bits off babies for no physical benefit - just your own satisfaction.

Sallying,

Your last post is just insulting and shows you have not read the thread. I did not actually circumcise my own boys, so clearly it is not for my own satisfaction.

The reality is that I have posted links to studies and showed, by analogy, that we do many things to children, for essentially cultural reasons. It is just that you feel more comfortable with it (and come up with a lot of excuses of your own) if it is your own culture. In addition, I have demonstrated that there are arguably, meaningful medical benefits both for those who have been circumcised and their partners.

I have finally made the point that where an issue is marginal, the ultimate decision should be up to individual parents.

At the end of the day, we vaccinate our children. They have no consent in that. It is done because parents (and society) feel that it is in the children's best interest (as do I, in case that is in any doubt).

So clearly, males in the US and the UK have different needs? Really?

Males in different countries have different behaviours. From reading reports on the CDC recommendations (have you got a link to the actual report Larry because I can't find it) it seems the main benefit is that it reduces men's risk of being infected by HIV/herpes/HPV. Ie these benefits are conferred on those who have unprotected sex. I'm guessing that because the US population is much larger than the UK it is also more diverse, so at the "lower" end of the scale may have far greater ignorance about the important of protected sex. Of course if I was being cynical I'd say it was because it is a nice money spinner...

I did not actually circumcise my own boys, so clearly it is not for my own satisfaction.
I apologise for missing that part, larrygrylls

I should have said "the basic fact is that parents try to justify cutting bits off babies for no physical benefit - just their own satisfaction."

Sallying,

Do you really believe Jews and Moslems take some weird sadistic pleasure from circumcision?

I can understand that you have strong feelings about this but that does not mean that someone with another view is a perverted sadist, which is what you are implying.

I find your choice of language strange and provocative.

Itsall,

I included a link to the CDC study in my post above.

Yes you are right in that the risk benefit analysis is different for different populations. All the more reason to allow individual parents to make the decision on behalf of their own children. You are also right to wonder about financial incentives. Equally I can see good reason for the cash strapped NHS to not be keen to offer circumcision.

Late to this. My husband has been cut, and wishes he'd been left alone.
He is from America, where obviously (as has been said) it is much more 'acceptable'
I have an English friend (living in the US) who had her son done. My relationship with her changed after that. I didn't have any respect for her.
My nephew had a botched job at birth (at the insistence of my brother in law) having it corrected at 14 was embarrassing and agonising.

Equally I can see good reason for the cash strapped NHS to not be keen to offer circumcision

I'm sure that if the costs of circumcision were less than medical issues caused by non-circumcison they would...

Equally I can see good reason for the cash strapped NHS to not be keen to offer circumcision

I'm sure that if the costs of circumcision were less than medical issues caused by non-circumcison they would...

Given the total cost of HIV treatment and the improved life expectancy sufferers now have, if circumcision had any significant impact on infection rates it would not only be offered, it would be pushed at parents as hard as vaccines are.

What's God got against foreskins?

I don't buy the doesn't make a difference sexually, I'd say it's pretty integral.

Because, clearly, with your huge experience of penises, you would know better than all the men in all the studies that have demonstrated otherwise.

Because all those men know what it's like to have a foreskin. And of course the thought of being diminished sexually would in no way impact on the responses.

Your attitude of "Oh there are reasons for and against so there's nothing wrong if parents choose to do it" is completely wrong bith medically and ethically.

Your post is missing 3 important letters: 'IMO'.

I am on page 1 of 11. Clearly have not read the full thread.
However, I started to read the bible this one time. And in a methodical fashion, I started at the beginning. And in the first chapter (I doubt I got as far as the second chapter), there was a load of bollox about boys being circumcised so that they would be sons of Abraham..... Maybe it was the first chapter of the new testament, don't ask me, but it was then that I confirmed to myself that I was atheist.
I have never known much about fgm apart from reading a book written by an african model (can't remember her name).

larrygrylls
"Because, clearly, with your huge experience of penises, you would know better than all the men in all the studies that have demonstrated otherwise."

I posted up-thread links to groups of men that have been circumcised that are against it.

As for protection against HIV, there are other less invasive ways to protect against HIV.

If the experience of penises was aimed at me. (Ahem)

I haven't got experience of other men's, but I have of my own.

And if someone cut my foreskin off, it'd make a hell of a difference.

And if you've never had a foreskin, how would you know what you're missing?

Nope Larry, not IMO. Occasionally there are absolutes. This is one. (And whilst the concept of this thread is pretty crass, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't argue that the rightness or wrongness of FGM is just an opinion).

The OP is not a troll Roller - that's already been confirmed.

Thanks, I didn't get past page 4 before I had to post so may have missed a lot of other stuff.

What's mumsnet coming to when genuine posters start threads like this..

Buy me,

FGM is an absolute. There is zero research in favour of it. No civilised countries perform it as a norm. There are clear serious risks and unequivocal diminution of sexual pleasure,

None of the above applies to circumcision.