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?

But they are medical reasons aren't they?

I do not agree at all with male circumcision. I think it is very wrong except, as ever, for medical reasons. And I think there is a bit of irony in the fact that a discussion about male circumcision is getting derailed because the OP compared it to FGM.

With that in mind, I shall derail further. The problem with comparing FGM and male circumcision, as I see it, is that every time women try to discuss FGM, someone will always pop up and say 'But what about male circumcision?' which is essentially saying 'Women, STFU and go to the back of the queue, we can't possibly deal with YOUR problems until we've dealt with everyone else's'

I'm not sure but it's certainly one to think about.

I suppose it could be argued that a child with (for example) a large imposing facial birthmark, may become very shy and withdrawn which could shape the rest of their life as an adult, but there's no guarantee that will happen. The parents however, may not want to take that risk - thinking that perhaps by the time the child is old enough to have it removed, they may have suffered socially. Therefore they may feel as though they are making a decision that's in the child's best interests, welfare-wise.

Compare that to parents who have chosen to follow a certain religion/practise a certain culture, and therefore decided their baby will also have to do the same (until they're old enough to decide), and you're left with the fact the baby had part of their body removed - not for their own welfare, but for a religion that they had no say in joining.

It's a far cry from tipping some water on their head and sending them home with a certificate for example.

The water will dry, the certificate can be ripped up but the foreskin cannot be sewn back on.

So in whose interest was the foreskin removal? I would say it was definitely done in the interest of the parent only, who chose to follow a religion/cultural practise.

I don't see it that way at all - I see it as a way of opening up the discussion. My view is that removing parts of another person's body for cultural or religious reasons is tantamount to abuse, and while the level of abuse is obviously far more severe in FGM, that doesn't mean that male circumcision isn't also abusive as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean 'STFU women' - that means, imo, we need to be prepared to look at all forms of genital mutilation (if you take it right back, the origin of mutilate is to cut off, iirc).

"no more traumatic than cutting the umbilical cord or cutting nails."

Cutting off the foreskin comparable to cutting nails? Just because the OP is making crass comparisons, doesn't mean you have to make even worse ones.

The question isn’t whether it is better to do it when a baby or older, but why it should be done as a matter of course at all. Religion isn't (or shouldn't be) an excuse. (Even so, it is not as black and white as you make out that if you are going to have it done it is better as a baby. The foreskin provides a definite function. We have lots of advice about not retracting the foreskin at a young age, yet people are more than happy to just chop it off!) I remember talking to a Jewish friend who said he didn’t mind being circumcised, but then was shocked to discover that those of us with a foreskin didn’t have to get out the baby oil when we wanted a wank.

Well said SirChenjin

No-one should be told to STFU about either of the two

Not that I think they're comparable.

I have asked for this thread to be removed it was crass and I'll thought out apologies if I've offended

I wish you'd been on some of the threads on other sites that I've read SirChenjin because ime, threads, not necessarily on MN, have often gone the way I posted about. I'd rather have your POV as I do actually agree with you.

Why on earth have you asked for it to be removed?

I don't think it was crass or ill thought out - it's raised some really interesting points, and I certainly don't feel offended. Sorry you feel that way OP.

Removed? Why??

Hopefully HQ will let it stand.

If anyone's offended there are literally 100s of other threads to choose to participate in instead.

I worked with a lady who went through FGM, years of pain and then married her husband ended their marriage as sex was impossible. Her family then dis owned her for the shame her dissolved marriage formed. She lived in a bed sit with her work friends her only company. She died, no one knew the cause as no one had any contact with next of kin. I am not sure if FGM is comparable to any other form of torture, or should be used as a benchmark for other abuse.
But any highlighting of a subject is a good thing, but I am not sure how she would of felt reading this thread.

Thats awful bluebolt. My SIL was infibulated as a child. One of the reasons she would never go back to Somalia as she said over her dead body would anyone ever do it to her daughter. She is still happily married though.

One of my close friends is married to a sudanese man, and she says that when she goes over she tries to talk to people about not getting their daughters done. Tries to show them that she can be a good faithful wife even without being infibulated. Tells them about how easy she found childbirth compared to the women there who have a really really high rate of C sections because of the infibulation damage, and her husband talks to the men about it at times too, because its so ingrained that if they dont do it, the girls will grow up to be oversexual and out of control and they will never find a husband. In fact the only sudanese woman she knows over there that hasnt been infibulated, is not married and is gossiped about.

Making things illegal doesnt change much. Education is key.

Surely it doesn't need to be removed?
Circumcision is not on the same level a FGM , it is obviously a lesser 'evil'.
I do believe that circumcision for any other reasons than medical is abuse.Not as abusive as FGM but still a cruel practice that puts the parents selfish needs above the needs of the child.People do awful things in the name of religion.

Carpetlady - you can believe it's abuse, just as you can believe any unlikely scenario or cause. Do you think circumcised people could turn up at meetings of (genuinely) abused people, or would they be told not to waste everyone's time?

While we're at it, perhaps they could ask to compete in the paralympics due to their "mutilation". I'm sure that wouldn't offend anyone....

Sam That post makes little sense.

sam, minimising abuse by using comparisons to other forms of abuse, doesn't mean it isn't abuse.

It just means you're having a go at minimising it.

Worraliberty - quite the opposite - by referring to it as abuse, I think you are minimising genuine abuse.

If a circumcised person feel they were abused by having their foreskin removed without their permission then they were abused sam.

Your paralympics analogy makes no sense whatsoever. The clue is in the name of their Games - nothing to do with abuse.

The reason male circumcision for non-medical reasons is still legal in this country is the same reason it's legal to cut the throat of a conscious animal (how's that for some whataboutery?)
But it's not as bad as FGM so I'm glad that was concentrated on first.
As far as circumcision reducing the incidence of HPV/HIV in this country is concerned - girls are routinely offered HPV vaccination. Are the atheist/ Christian/whatever parents of all boys routinely offered circumcision for their baby boys?

I don't believe anyone has been prosecuted for fgm. Given the fact that nearly all Muslim boys are circumcised then making it illegal would cause all sorts of problems. I think they tried this in Germany but it was seen as picking on the Jews again.

I have a Sudanese friend. I remember chatting to her about my awful birth that ended in an episiotimy. She was surprised that they sometimes cut white women too in order to give birth. Put my moaning into perspective a bit.
She does have two daughters and I wonder if they have been cut.

Well I'm with Op completely. Although it's stating the obvious to say that more serious genital trauma is caused by fgm than male circumcision surely the op was relating to it in terms of consent?

How can circumcision male or female be justified in any case, except for medical reasons?

The child can't consent can they? As a parent you are allowing someone to permanently alter your child's natural physiology which cannot ever be reversed.

Some men believe that they have been violated as children by having this done to them. Are men's views to be taken less seriously than women's on this? Outrageous.

I also believe unfortunately the we still live in a men deciding world, so I want no ambiguity it what FGM involves. Somethings are allowed to stand alone even if there are similarities such as concentration camps/ slave trade so why can't FGM? FGM was given such a strong name so mutilation could make it clear the procedure was horrendous to tie it again with circumcision is a step backwards.
bran your sil and friend sound amazing.

OP, I've reported your thread to MNHQ as I don't think you're here for a debate. I'm studiously avoiding the t word.

In any case, there was a long thread on male circumcision a few weeks ago. Have a search for that.

Worraliberty - quite the opposite - by referring to it as abuse, I think you are minimising genuine abuse.

Taking away someone else's body part, for a non medical reason without their consent, is in fact abuse.

And I'm sure you would agree sam if you were to wake up tomorrow and find someone did this to you.