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?

Can you put some punctuation or something in your last post AnyFucker as I don't understand it.

Stooping low there, mintyy

FGM is abuse

Circumcision is abuse, unless done for medical reasons.

That is where the comparison ends in my opinion.

The reasons for the abuse is what differs, and in that respect FGM is far worse.

When unable to counter an argument, pick apart the punctuation. Always a winner.

No, I actually don't understand your post. You really ought to know me better by now AF.

Mintyyy- I think you are grossly ill informed about FGM. Why don't you do a bit of research and come back to the thread and see if you still feel they the two are comparable.

FGM is a horrific practice which results in a lifetime of pain, infections, difficulties menstruating, weeing, and is borne out of cultures which subjugate, abuse, and dominate women.

Circumcision for non medical reasons can also be seen as a form of abuse because of the lack of choice around it, but that is where the similarities end.

It's fine to have a discussion about the ethics and legality of circumcision but disgusting to compare it to FGM.

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..

So what? Vaccinations are necessary, circumcision mostly isn't. And vaccinations don't leave you with a raw edge of amputated skin.

Lopping off bits of anyone else's body without their express permission and while there is no medical need to do so is abuse (imo) - just to differing degrees.

Gruntled one- having been with a fair few men who are circumcised, I have never seen a penis with a raw edge.

I have also never met a man who has complained about or been hindered by his circumcised penis.

I know two women who have been subjected to FGM and one of them is 26 and cannot masturbate or menstruate properly and has never had sex for fear of the pain. She is unlikely ever to marry because of the state her vagina is in. The other was raped, the skin that was torn shut was forced open, she hemm oranges and lost a lot of blood, was given a transfusion, and now has HIV.

So pretty much the same thing as circumcision, yes.

Circumcision for non medical reasons can also be seen as a form of abuse because of the lack of choice around it, but that is where the similarities end.

Actually that's a bit of an ignorant statement too (sorry!) The foreskin does actually exist for a reason - removing it does "disadvantage" the owner in future life, its not just about chicie or consent, the foreskin performs a variety of functions eg the glans of the penis is a mucus membrane which is meant to be protected by the foreskin.

I thought I did, mintyy

I have also never met a man who has complained about or been hindered by his circumcised penis.

That's because he wasn't allowed to experience his body in its normal state. How would he know any different if the people responsible for his welfare, chose to do that to him?

It should have been his choice and no-one else's.

I have also never met a man who has complained about or been hindered by his circumcised penis.

Have you met a man who had his removed in adulthood?

LondonStill83
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

I know that of course. US doctors encourage it because it's a nice earner.

Fortunately in the UK doctors aren't so mercenary.
But the reason it is not banned here is because of the religious lobby.

London - my friend had his foreskin removed in adulthood for medical reasons. He assures us that it was incredibly painful and that the edge was very raw indeed.

I think routine circumcision should be made illegal.

But not by lobbyists jumping onto the FGM bandwagon.

Sirchenjin- that isn't what we're talking about though. People here are talking about circumcision as abuse of children when it is done for non-medical reasons without consent. Like adult tonsillectomies, adult circumcision is a whole different kettle of fish.

Apparently (according to American MNetters on other similar thread) it's becoming less and less common to circumcise over there.

Sallying- actually, I am from Canada, where it's free. So there goes that argument.

FGM used to be described as 'female circumcision'. The reason why that term was rejected is because there really is no equivalence between male circumcision and FGM.

Ahem

I have an idea.

Circumcision should be renamed male genital mutilation. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Nothing to see here, Olivia.

We are talking about that London. Penises which have their foreskin removed have a raw edge until they heal, irrespective of the age of the owner.

Itsallgoingtobefine- yes, but that's not what we are talking about. We're talking about people who are saying circumcision is abuse of children when it is done without consent and for non-medical reasons. Adult corcumcision is entirely a different topic.