Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

282 replies

southeastastra · 26/11/2015 20:55

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

OP posts:
HeiressesGiltnor · 26/11/2015 21:27

I agree that it is comparable in terms of lack of choice but that is where the similarities end.

If it's just about lack of choice, where does one draw the line?

ilovesooty · 26/11/2015 21:27

I don't think the two procedures are comparable and neither is comparable to ear piercing.

Sallyingforth · 26/11/2015 21:31

Here we go again :(

It's allowed because if it was banned it would upset too many Jews and Muslims who like to hack bits off innocent children

southeastastra · 26/11/2015 21:31

i am educated i have a degree and everything

OP posts:
AnyFucker · 26/11/2015 21:32

my toddlers went through a stage of not wanting to wear any clothes at all

even in December

I didn't give them the choice

HamaTime · 26/11/2015 21:32

Even if male circumcision was 'upscaled' to remove a third of the penis it wouldn't be comparable. It wouldn't have the same impact on UTIs as FGM and the boys would never have to deal with menstrual blood dripping through a tiny hole and causing infections. Nor would they have to give birth and I'd bet my house that a man with a removed penis would not be forced into painful, pleasureless sex.

Tanaqui · 26/11/2015 21:33

Actually make circumcision is more horrific than commonly thought, and should certainly only be done for medical reasons- a good overview here:
madsciencewriter.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-foreskin-why-is-it-such-secret-in.html?m=1

However it is, despite being horrific itself, less horrific in degree than fgm. That is absolutely no reason to support it though.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 26/11/2015 21:34

I thought the "mildest" form of FGM was pretty analogous to male circumcision?

I agree with the OP.

The NHS says this about FGM:
"Female genital mutilation (sometimes referred to as female circumcision) refers to procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. The practice is illegal in the UK."

And about male circumcision:
"However, most healthcare professionals now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision, such as infection and excessive bleeding, outweigh any potential benefits."

Yet one is illegal and one is not.

An ear piercing is not comparable to either - it is simply a puncture wound as opposed to the removal of healthy body parts.

Circumcision for non-medical reasons should be made illegal.

LondonStill83 · 26/11/2015 21:35

Sallying - it's not that at all. Most men in North America are circumcised in my experience, so not just a "Jew or Muslim" thing.

The main difference: historically, circumcision was seen to be good for the boy. It was believed to be cleaner, to enhance sexual pleasure, to reduce risk, etc. Some research backs this up, other research doesn't, but the INTENT wasn't to harm or reduce pleasure for boys/men.

FGM on the other hand was designed specifically to harm and reduce sexual pleasure for women. There are three levels of FGM, the least of which removes at least 1/3 of the vulva and the worst of which doesn't even leave an opening through which women can wee. It leads to lifelong infections, death, women becoming septic, inability to pee, inability to give birth, and tons and tons and tons of pain.

Whatever your views on circumcision, it is disgusting and incredibly ignorant to compare the two practices. Let alone to compare it to EAR PIERCING!!!!!

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 26/11/2015 21:36

Also reading through the thread why is FGM even relevant to the question. Yes FGM is more horrific and has worse outcomes , but it is already illegal in the UK. Why should removal of a healthy foreskin be OK because its "not as bad as FGM"?

Junosmum · 26/11/2015 21:37

FGM has no medical reason, ever. Male circumcision does. I don't agree with mc for none medical reasons, but the fact that there can be a medical reason makes it very very different.

Mintyy · 26/11/2015 21:38

Omg at this thread.

I thought it was a reasonable question.

HaydeeofMonteCristo · 26/11/2015 21:38

Totally agree with AnyFucker, and pretty much everyone else.

I don't agree with male circumcision of children except for medical reasons. Adult males should be free to chose to have it done if they so wish.

However, there is no comparison whatsoever between the two.

HeiressesGiltnor · 26/11/2015 21:41

itsall nobody has said its fine, just that it's not comparable, which it really isnt.

london summed it up nicely about intent to harm and reduce sexual pleasure. Thats never been the intent of male circumcision.

Mintyy · 26/11/2015 21:41

The vast majority of circumcisions are not for medical reasons are they?

I've known a few older child and adult males who HAVE had it done for medical reasons and it was painful, unpleasant and require a long healing period.

To just do it as a ritual - how does it differ to FGM ?

HaydeeofMonteCristo · 26/11/2015 21:41

I think a reasonable thread title would be "why on earth is circumcision of male children still legal?"

Rather than bringing fgm into it at all.

Mintyy · 26/11/2015 21:42

Its a simple two wrongs don't make a right isn't it?

Am amazed at this thread.

HeiressesGiltnor · 26/11/2015 21:45

Haydee I agree.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 26/11/2015 21:47

ondon summed it up nicely about intent to harm and reduce sexual pleasure.

Actually, from the link posted up thread, circumcision was originally all about sex, and discouraging masturbation.

This modern-day phenomenon has its roots in the 1800's, when sexual pleasure was considered immoral. It was also when doctors had all sorts of strange beliefs about 'vital energy', and weren't quite sure what caused diseases.
You know, the good ol' days, when magical water was a better bet than some of the treatments of medical doctors. One outmoded belief was that people start with a certain amount of energy and inevitably run out. A pre-scientific model of disease based on this idea was called 'Reflex Neurosis', which pathologized genital stimulation. It literally meant 'self-nerve overstimulation': If you touched your highly-innervated genitalia (whether sexually or not), you would drain yourself of energy, and a disease would occur in your lungs, eyes, heart, etc.
` It was also believed that men would eventually run out of sperm, and that ejaculation was injurious to the health -- and moral constitution! Many people not only shunned masturbation, but were terrified of losing "life force" through nocturnal emissions.

In order to prevent boys from having emissions, as well as erections that are part of a normal sleep cycle, some parents were conned into buying all manner of horrific devices designed to associate pain with the genitalia.
There were penis-cooling devices, contraptions with spikes on the inside, and even one that activated a phonograph player. Chastity belts were a product of this era, rather than medieval times, as is commonly believed. They were invented, along with armored night-wear, to sell to parents as a way to keep their kids from causing themselves "harm".

In Battle Creek Michigan, anti-masturbation big shots such as surgeon John Harvey Kellogg, recommended punishing both girls and boys for "self-abuse" by holding them down, kicking and screaming, and excising their most "abuse"-prone parts.
The trauma of genital mutilation, as well as the resulting loss of sensitivity, were meant to keep these adolescents from wanting to do it again, lest they make themselves sick. (This is clearly stated in Kellogg's Treatment of Self Abuse and its Effects.) A bland vegetarian diet was believed by many to curb sexual feelings, and so Kellogg also invented Corn Flakes, and provided them at his sanitorium in Battle Creek Michigan -- along with yogurt enemas and electrifying baths. (Yes, very much like in The Road to Wellville.)

Kellogg believed that all sex was harmful, claimed to have never had sex himself, and adopted 42 foster children -- who I don't envy. He would travel around the country, paying various medical societies to have a Chair of Circumcision for promoting genital mutilation as a health measure.
In girls, he preferred using carbolic acid to burn off the external clitoris. (Later forms of medicalized 'female circumcision' were not usually as extensively harmful, or even done for the same reasons.) When this was being promoted in the U.S. and some other countries, even the female circumcision rituals of foreign cultures were interpreted as being done to get rid of 'foul-smelling' smegma in females, thus ignoring their religious significance.

HeiressesGiltnor · 26/11/2015 21:47

minty nobody has said its right. I don't think male circumcision is right (unless for medical reasons) but I also appreciate that the whole procedure is a world away from FGM.

Yes both can be bad but one is certainly worse.

Room101isWhereIUsedToLive · 26/11/2015 21:48

I totally disagree with circumcision except for medical reasons.
To compare it to FGM though, is crass and thoughtless. For so many reasons, most of which have already been mentioned.
YABVVU.

Branleuse · 26/11/2015 21:48

castrating boys is illegal - which is the closest comparable thing to FGM - NOT male circumcision.

GruntledOne · 26/11/2015 21:48

Over 100 newborn male babies die per year in the US as a result of circumcision. So it really can't be described as a safe procedure.

AnyFucker · 26/11/2015 21:48

I am amazed that anyone could compare the two and then add in a third comparison with ear piercing

Campaign against circumcision, I am with you.

Reduce the sexually exploitative, degrading, dehumanising impact of FGM by bemoaning the fact it is illegal but circumcision is not is quite sick on a female-dominated board in my opinion and deserves to be massively challenged

umiaisha · 26/11/2015 21:50

I held my son whilst he was circumcised and I have to say he was more distraught when having his vaccinations. Of course none of the anti-circumcision brigade on mumsnet would believe that..

Most of the men I know are circumcised and they are totally fine with it. I am sure if you asked the same of women who had undergone FGM they would tell a totally different story.

Swipe left for the next trending thread