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?

People here are talking about circumcision as abuse of children when it is done for non-medical reasons without consent.

Well, yes. Any unnecessary medical procedure which causes pain and removes a necessary part of the body is abusive.

For example, the penis heals

But the removed skin doesn't grow back.

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

^

What SirChenjin said.

Flash bang, yes this happened to my friends husband also. Sex was extremely painful until he had the op and now he is much happier!

Although according to it's all going to be okay, his penis is now only functioning "adequately"

Gruntled one- yes, I don't know why you are throwing those words back at me. I don't disagree. I was asaying that in response to someone talking about adult circumcision, which isn't really the point here.

And obviously the foreskin doesn't grow back! But the man doesn't spend the rest of his life unable to pee properly, menstruate (if he would normally), conceive children, or enjoy sex.

In that sense the penis heals.

London

www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
Results

Skin and mucosa sufficient to cover the penile shaft was frequently missing from the circumcised penis. Missing tissue included a band of ridged mucosa located at the junction of true penile skin with smooth preputial mucosa. This ridged band contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa and exhibits features of specialized sensory mucosa.
Conclusion

The amount of tissue loss estimated in the present study is more than most parents envisage from pre-operative counselling. Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis.

www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/milos-macris2/
Circumcision performed in the newborn period traumatically interrupts the natural separation of the foreskin from the glans that normally occurs somewhere between birth and age 18. The raw, exposed glans penis heals in a process that measurably thickens the surface of the glans and results in desensitization of the head of the penis.

When circumcision is performed after the normal separation of the foreskin from the glans, the damage done by forcible separation of these two parts of the penis is avoided, but the glans must still thicken in order to protect itself from constant chafing and abrasion by clothing.

The thickened, drier tissue covering the glans of the circumcised penis may necessitate the use of synthetic lubricants to facilitate nontraumatic sexual intercourse. Often, it is erroneously considered the woman's lack of lubrication that makes intercourse painful rather than the lack of natural male lubrication, which is more likely the cause. During masturbation, the circumcised male must use his hands for direct stimulation of the glans, and this may require synthetic lubrication as well.

In addition to the predictable physical changes that occur with circumcision, there are inherent risks and potential complications from the surgery. These include, but are not limited to, hemorrhage, infection, surgical damage and, while rare, death. Surgical damage and healing complications can result in extensive scarring, skin bridging, curvature of the penis, and deformities of the glans penis and urethral meatus (urinary opening). Extreme mutilations have resulted from inappropriate electrocautery use in circumcision, causing loss of the entire penis. Sex-change operations have been used as a ``remedy'' for this iatrogenic condition.

m.ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.abstract
Conclusions Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.

Sex was extremely painful until he had the op and now he is much happier!

The issue is not with circumcision for medical reasons - obviously if its for a medical reason circumcision will cause an improvement. However, removal of a healthy, correctly functioning foreskin is a detriment.

Flash bang, yes this happened to my friends husband also. Sex was extremely painful until he had the op and now he is much happier!

I think phimosis, to use the medical term, isn't that rare, and according to my DP, who only realised it was a problem when he was 19 after his friend had the op after he couldn't urinate properly due to the foreskin closing over the hole. He says he lost some sensation, but the 99% that remains means he doesn't seem to miss it much!

Instead of bleating out random shit about circumcision when you clearly have no idea what it is, why not use your time to read some of the science on it? There are hundreds of good quality, peer-reviewed studies on circumcision, ranging from its health benefits, lack of any significant or measurable impact on sexual function or pleasure, role in the prevention of HIV/HPV, ideal age (infancy) etc. This way you could make up your own mind about it rather than basing your opinions on prejudice and anecdote.

Mumsnet turns into the Daily Mail everytime circumcision is mentioned.

Agree Toads

the new legislation that came in is not really anything that new as in it makes a difference to how prosecution can take place any abuse or suspected abuse has to be reported now that includes FGM but it has been illegal for 20 years

it was written up under pressure because its been 20 years of FGM being illegal in this country and how many people have been prosecuted one and sent to jail - none

this government and the previous government have tiptoed around this issue and while they have hundreds probably thousands of british girls have been mutilated

why one because its female mutilation and secondly it isn't white European girls and also we have allowed communities to totally close themselves off from having any social services intervention some will call it being too PC its not being too PC its being not really that bothered and using the excuse we can't change they way people think. But we can we can change how the younger generations think in school, through social media and also religious leaders making more of a stand against this most cruel act against girls. and yes before anyone points it out I know it is not a muslim tradition but its around 98% of muslim girls/women that suffer from FGM

My brother was circumcised at around seven due to his foreskin being too tight and there being numerous incidents where it got stuck and swelled up.

Apparently it was just awful for him, emotionally and physically.

I had sex with a guy who'd had terrible trouble after being circumcised as an adult for medical reasons. His usual morning erection basically repeatedly ruptured his stitches and he had to have multiple operations to repair the damage. His poor willy looked a bit like a daisy head due to the scar tissue.

I can understand why a parent might feel that circumcisions are better done when their sons are tiny babies, in order to avoid both situations I've described, although, isn't it the case that in America it is the norm because there's a buck to me made? In countries where there's free medical care, it doesn't happen on the same scale at all.

And comparing it to fgm just makes me feel fury about fgm....

I am currently pregnant and considering having my son circumcised (if it's a boy, we don't know). For medical reasons, both his father and grandfather have tight foreskins, which were not detected until teen years. OH has decided not to get circumcised due to long recovery in adults despite him regularly ripping his foreskin slightly. Recovery in children is quicker (due to fewer/ no involuntary erections) so I'd prefer he had it done younger. However I disagree with make circumcision without medical reasons but am torn, as like the other males in the family a medical reason may not present until adolescence. My husband wishes he'd had it done as a child.

1. Male circumcision in infants/young boys may be required for medical reasons. There is never any medical reason for FGM.

1. Where male circumcision is performed on infants/young boys for non-medical (i.e. religious/cultural) reasons, in the vast majority of cases this does not lead to lifelong physical harm. Whereas FGM always leads to lifelong physical harm. Always. The degree of harm depends on the degree of FGM (ranging from the removal of the clitoral hood to the radical excision of female genitalia).

1. The purpose of both procedures (assuming non-medical reasons for infant male circumcision) is conformity with a religious or cultural norm. But while circumcised males will grow to adulthood able (in the vast majority of cases) to urinate normally, have pleasurable sex and so on, females who have undergone FGM will always (to a greater or lesser degree) have difficulty urinating; be prone to infection; find sex uncomfortable at best, and extremely painful at worst; and be unable to give birth without first being cut open.

By all means, disapprove of/campaign against non-medical infant male circumcision, but please remember that the whole point of FGM is to restrict a woman's sexual activity. Infant male circumcision has no such aim.

I can't see how the two can be directly compared in terms of purpose, procedure, or outcome.

Still less can I see how FGM can be compared to ear piercing. IMO that trivialises the trauma experienced by victims of FGM.

if your baby is a boy, Juno, I recommend you get referred to an andrologist to discuss the options and the chances of a son with his (potential) strong family history having the same problems in the future

I wouldn't judge you in this specific situation (if you got as much balanced, individual, medical advice as you could)

Princess: Yes, yes and YES.

I can't be bothered repeating myself again, but YES.

Is it just me or are many of the people posting here just doing so out of a feeling of intellectual superiority? I don't believe that the OP was comparing FGM to male circumcision in the sense of they are as bad as each other - more like for non medical situations male circumcision is a barbaric act to carry out on someone.

I get the feeling some just want to feel superior to the OP, or they just want to argue.

Ohbehave, as I read it - the posts from the OP do tend to suggest she is comparing FGM to male circumcision as being as bad as each other. E.g. the OP says:

if fgm is now illegal why is male circumcision still allowed? / (pretty self explanatory by my title)

it [i.e. male circumcision and FGM] is comparable as children do not have the choice. same with ear pierciing

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

To me, that all sounds as if the OP thinks that male circumcision is the same as FGM.

And I'm really not trying to pull any "intellectual superiority" shit!

I don't approve of circumcision unless done for explicit medical reasons, HOWEVER, comparing circumcision to FGM just makes you look like an ignorant twat of the highest proportions.

What Princess said and explained far better than I could.

Is it ok to permanently modify your child's body for anything other than a medical reason?

Do we not remove birth marks, moles that need not be removed from children

No medical reason but an assumption that it may cause them stress when they are older or it's easier to do so when they are younger as less scaring

So yes we do at times permanently modify a child's body for no medical reason

I think, after knowing people who have had their children done as either a tiny baby, as older children, and as adults, the babys were slightly grumpy for a day or two, yet the older children found it traumatic and took weeks to heal, as did the adult who had to stay in hospital (my brother)

If anyone is part of a religion that requires it and will need it done at some point anyway, then i would say without hesitation, just do it as a baby. Its so so much quicker to heal and recover from and is no more traumatic than cutting the umbilical cord or cutting nails.

Insisting for it to be done when older is cruel, and almost sounds like a punishment for being religious, which is what i suspect some islamophobes and antisemites here actually want

There are lots of medical reasons to have birthmarks and moles removed from children.

And often it is done for no medical reason as I mentioned in my post

Just the assumption that the child will want it removed and doing so while they are young there will be less scaring

I agree, modifying a child's body for cosmetic reasons is extremely similar (if not the same) as modifying it for religious/cultural reasons.

It's a decision that should be left to the child when they're older.

Is it abuse to do so?

I am not sure many will agree it is