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?

Sirchenjin, yes, agreed. And again I am not advocating for circumcision. I am saying it isn't comparable to FGM.

For example, the penis heals. More often than not, the vagina doesn't.

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

Nor me.

And I have a sneaking suspicion it would lead to less and less circumcisions eventually.

AF won thread on first page

No, I really am not grossly ill informed about FGM. I do promise you that.

Op hasn't put her question in an acceptable way for some on Mumsnet, agreed. The procedures are not directly comparable, agreed.

But still two wrongs don't make a right.

I think op makes an excellent point. I couldn't agree more.

I have said this before but I'll say it again; just because someone recognises that FGM and male circumcision are not the same thing and cannot be compared does not mean that they think male circumcision is okay. I really have no idea why so many people find that such a difficult concept to grasp.

FGM is barbaric and cruel for all the reasons already mentioned. Comparing it to male circumcision is just downright offensive.

It's all going to be fine-

That isn't correct. Most research shows that there is negligible difference for men who are circumcised versus those who aren't.

Sexual health wise, uncircumcised men have a slightly higher risk of contracting infections (sexual or non sexual)... Otherwise it's pretty much the same in terms of outcomes.

However as I say, I am not a circumcision advocate. My point, as you so craftily ignored when I was saying about the women I know who have had FGM, is that the two practices are not really comparable.

op you need to read up more of FGM

it is called genital mutilation for a reason

men can function without their foreskin (if removed correctly) it will not impact their ability to have a sexual relationship and should not cause them any pain, should they have a choice of course but the reasons why it is done is very different this has changed throughout history but never has men's desire for sex been questioned as being wrong or as being unnatural and something that needed to be managed (though who they wanted to have sex with of course has)

for women who have had any form of FGM it will always throughout their lives have an impact on them from sex being painful, to difficulties in reaching orgasm, very painful sex and very serious issues where menstruation blood has not been able to fully clean out from the vagina and causes infection so server it has killed women and young girls and has left many infertile

Did I say something wrong, Olivia?

Worraliberty. I am with you on this.

Nor me. Male genital mutilation is what it is - but the religious lobby is still getting away with far too much (again, imo).

Physically it is not comparable to FGM - nothing is, and I agree with that. However, it's abuse - just on a different level.

Not an excellent point at all. If the thread title was if fgm is now illegal why is ear-piercing still allowed? OP would have been rightly jumped on. I don't believe that any child should have pain or changes to their bodies inflicted for no good reason.

But I don't think that the horror that is FGM should be compared to anything else. I'm glad it was banned and I hope they prosecute every person who has anything to do with it.

LondonStill83

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

here
here
and here

Why is circumcision so different when done on a child rather than an adult? Is it because they won't remember the pain and the aftercare, and they won't miss what a fully functioning penis feels like?

No, because an adult has a choice, obviously!

Do you even know what your point is?

Also a circumcised penis still functions fully.

This thread is doing my head in.

Some of you would be opposed to the procedure if it was known as "male genital mutilation" but you don't have a problem while it is known as "circumcision".

Does anyone remember that thread about FGM - someone's lecturer was almost advocating it iirc. On my phone so can't link to it, but a HCP from an area in the UK with a high rate of FGM explained that it was not appropriate for her to refer to it as mutilation in front of the women - that they didn't see themselves as mutilated? Horrifying and fascinating at the same time.

This thread would have been so much better without FGM been brought up.

If the OP had simply started a thread wondering why circumcision was allowed without mentioning FGM then the replies here would have been much more in her favour.

She has put people's backs up because she has compared the two.

A lot of women I work with have had FGM and they don't believe it was abuse.
Much of our work now is stopping aunties and mothers from tricking their young girls to go home to have it done.

Toads, exactly!

I don't have an issue talking about whether circumcision is abuse or is not abuse, or if it should be illegal, etc.

But comparing it to FGM?!

Crazy.

It is now law that any HCP must report to the police if they know of, or suspect, any cases of FGM

They can be prosecuted if they do not.

It is in the statute books of our society. She/he would be breaking the law if publically sayign those things.

Minty - no one is saying they don't have a problem with it!!! Just that it isn't comparable to FGM.

Are you even reading the thread? I assure you I have punctuated all my work.

But it's not male genital mutilation Minty. That's something completley different and just as FGM is, it's illegal.

and exactly what Toad said

The OP comes across as passive-aggressive and goady and weird because it's trying to make some point about women being over-privileged by being concerned about female issues.

If they actually gave a shit about male circumcision they'd start a seperate thread.

Yes OP. Was this thread about male children having parts cut off them or was at about whataboutery and the menz?