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?

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

yy to this.

Mutilating a child (of either sex) in the name of some superstition is something I will never get my head around.

I can't believe male circumcision can be that bad as virtually all Muslim men are adamant about having it done to their own sons. You could say the same about fgm.. But I think fgm is done because of fear and extreme poverty.
I have yet to meet a circumcised man who describes it as abuse.

I have yet to meet a circumcised man who describes it as abuse

There are some links up thread to info on the long-term physical impacts of circumcision. There are also some links to sites where men describe their unhappiness about their circumcisions.

But this is all by the by, the important point is that it is wrong to remove perfectly healthy body parts without consent of the owner for non-medical reasons.

I have to admit I read "I have yet to meet a circumcised man who describes it as abuse", and my first thought was how often do you discuss a man's penis when you meet him?

Aside from with partners, it's not really the sort of thing one discusses is it?

I think the majority of male circumcision is for religious cultural reasons and therefore just as bad as fgm as not medical reasons. Both unnecessary. I have seen really bad male circumcision that has taken away nearly the whole of the penis.

Please watch an listen to this video before you start claiming that FGM and MGM must not be compared. And by the way: Forbidding FGM and allowing MGM is kind of 100% sexism, isn't it? ;-)

Difference Between: Male & Female Circumcision

Well the men I know that had it done don't seem to think it's a big deal and certainly it hasn't been a problem in anyway with my dh. So maybe if fgm and male cicumcision are the same thing.. Perhaps fgm isn't that bad after all. I don't have the guts to ask my Sudanese friend though.

I had my ears pierced aged 2. I don't think it's remotely comparable to FGM. I'm not permanently injured and disfigured from it. I have no medical problems as a result. I came home and went on with my day afterwards unlike the poor girls who are subjected to FGM.

I don't think anyone other than the OP has even alluded to them being the same thing?

Just that many people have repeatedly said, circumcision is also abuse when it is done to a child for non medical reasons...

Comparing MGM to FGM is like comparing punching someone with stabbing them.
Stabbing is far worse, but punching is still wrong. Both are illegal and the sentences are set accordingly.
Mutilating a child's genitals for non medical reasons is wrong. FMG and MGM should both be illegal and the sentences set accordingly.

Sorry, my last post was to stairway

This is what FGM looks like, its not really comparable (sorry if this is triggering but I was actually interested as never knew)

As others already said, the two are not even close.

Yes, circumcision of babies without medical reasons should be illegal, but there's a conflict with religious freedom, while FGM is purely cultural and cultures are less protected by law.

Circumcision is also something that is done to male babies on behalf of men. It is done to mark them as member of an elite, while FGM is done to girl babies to make them easier oppressable and exploitable by patriarchy.
Therefore the different attitudes of people to the practices.

Piercing the ears of babies should also be illegal, but apparently is not. I see no reason why it is legal, as it doesn't even touch the issue of religion.

@stop: That last one looks a bit like the doll I had as a child. The male version had a penis, but the one I had looked like this - one tiny hole.
(It was the sort of doll one could bottle-feed. I don't know if the boy version was circumcised, it was not detailed enough for that. )

those pics have massively bought it home for me. quite traumatised!

Circumcision is also something that is done to male babies on behalf of men. It is done to mark them as member of an elite, while FGM is done to girl babies to make them easier oppressable and exploitable by patriarchy

That's not completely true. FGM is often done to older girls by the family matriarchs and marks her transition to womanhood and ability to marry. While we may believe it oppresses (to say the very least) it is also embedded within the culture - and accepted by both men and women, something I cannot get my head around.

Just had a look at some figures, and in Egypt (that well known holiday destination) 91% of women are 'cut'. Fucking hell .

FGM is brutal horrific and wrong, no-one disputes that.
However, seeing as people insist in comparisons, type 3 male circumcision (more commonly known as castration) is at least as brutal, horrific and wrong, and also motivated by the need to make them more oppressible and exploitable.

Unlike FGM we are fairly unlikely to come across it in the UK.

But comparing the two is pretty pointless, they are both very wrong except for legitimate medical reasons.

Leelu

Glad you are 'avoiding' that. The OP is a long-standing poster not a 'not t-word'

This is a valid date and I don't think you should ask for it to be removed southeastastra

debate, not 'date'

SirChenjin FGM is often supported by women and done by women

but why to stop a woman being sexually out of control and also so they are marriage material

I am sure idea came about to suit men not for women. The family matriarch is still living under a very oppressive patriarchal society that has moulded women into a role that is far more beneficial to boys/men than it ever is to girls/women

I agree with all that Enthusiasm, which is why I said I cannot get my head round it - my point was more about it not being done to girl babies as was claimed. Sorry - probably not explaining myself well - trying to have a conversation with DS about his lego house and type at the same time.

Does anything apart from removal of the foreskin actually happen to men in this day and age for cultural reasons, itsall?

Depends how you define culture.

www.humanrightsdefence.org/index.php/articles-sp-724795164/361-eunuchs-of-india-deprived-of-human-rights.html