To think circumcision for baby boys should be illegal if not done for medical reasons

[Tyarami]

I saw a thread on here a couple of days ago and it got me to wondering why on earth circumcision is still legal for infant males despite FGM being banned.

To me there is no difference, both practises are barbaric unless of course the circumcision is medically necessary. I'm talking about the parents and doctors who allow and inflict this because of cultural tradition.

Why is it ok to do this to an infant male even though FGM is illegal, what is the difference really? To me there is none and would be interested to hear from others about their perspectives.

AIBU to be of the opinion that parents and medical professionals should be prosecuted for inflicting this on infant boys who obviously cannot consent, because of cultural conditioning.

I will never understand why anyone would want to chop bits of a child's genitals off for no reason. Genuine medical reasons only. Any intrusive and unnecessary surgery should be made illegal. It is truly barbaric. Wait until we have adult males suing their parents as they did not give their consent to be mutilated.

Lynette - I think you're right. I read a biography of Orwell which said he was teased at public school because he hadn't had the op (having been born in India), presumably because most of the others had. And Alan Turing apparently regretted that he had, while the gardener's son hadn't...

Royal children were always circumcised until Diana put a stop to it.

What's that I hear?
A dog whistle.

Jew stereotyping?
Eh?

Sorry too subtle a joke? It was play on the stereotype of Jews being wealthy.

Why did routine circumcision not catch on in the UK? Probably because it wasn't offered on the NHS, and most British families couldn't afford (or want) to pay for non essential surgery.

NHS didn't exist at turn of century when this took off in Canada, USA, Australia etc.

USA I imagine linked to more religious society and more keenness to ban things seen as bad. Prohibition. It was to reduce wanking, the theory, the reason it took off in usa.

UK men have always been wankers?!

For those in favour of circumcision - would you cut off another body part from your child, without medical need and without anaesthetic, or is it just their genitals that you're ok with doing it to?

I can't get my head around how any parent would seek to hurt their child in this way. Nor can I understand how a supposedly civilised country could allow it.

Just to add, I wonder what the figures are like for adult men deciding that they would like to be circumcised. I bet the number is vanishingly small.

For me, this tells me all I need to know about whether we should do it to our kids.

It was done on the NHS for medical reasons. Now many of the medical problems are resolved in non-surgical ways with surgical intervention being the last resort not the first as it was in the past.

Even now it is still viewed (I admit that my research started and stopped in wikipedia) that UK performs the surgery too often not exploring non-surgical approaches sufficiently.

I think many men dont speak up about it out of embarrassment . Let's face it, many men are still unwilling to go to the doctor about non-intimate issues. Many men also take the view is that what is done is done.

When our DS was born there was absolutely no need for discussion. It was not going to be done. No thought that DS 'wouldnt look like his DF' or any other such nonsense I have seen wittled on about on MN from time to time.

Dh and his brother were both circumcised just after birth in the 1960s. Because it was "just what was done" in their area. Dh has never thought it was a big deal one way or another - we didnt choose it for our sons but I can't get too excited about other people choosing it for theirs. It's an incredibly widespread practice world wide, which seem strange if many men felt it was deleterious.

It's an incredibly widespread practice world wide, which seem strange if many men felt it was deleterious

People often don't question the norm though. In Mali, 75% of women and girls support FGM despite 73% having undergone it, according to UNICEF data.

Note: I am not saying fgm is comparable to male circumcision.

It's an incredibly widespread practice world wide,

So were lots of things that we've now realised were wrong - fgm, slavery, forced marriage, women not being allowed to vote...it's not really a good argument for allowing something to continue is it?

Like I said, are you as relaxed with chopping off any other body part?

So why do you think the millions of circumcised men around the world arent out there protesting then? With GM, slavery, forced marriage the people affected have no, or little voice (and when they speak up no-one listens). But circumcised men have agency and yet most dont see it as a problem.

Well lots of men are protesting about it aren't they?

I ask again, would you consider removing any other body part from a child, especially without anaesthetic? I'm just wondering why you think it's ok to do this and not chop off a finger for example?

Tequila there is a lot of clear water between what I would or not do and what I feel comfortable dictating to others. Just because I wouldnt (didn't) choose to circumcise my sons doesnt mean I necessarily think that choice should be removed from others. It's not something I feel strongly about, it's not something the circumcised men I know feel strongly about, and, despite what you say, there is no huge worldwide mens movement seeking to change the status quo. Maybe over time people will slowly move away from it, maybe the (millions of) men it's happened to will start to speak up. Until that happens I'm happy to live and let live.

100% agree it should not be allowed

doesnt mean I necessarily think that choice should be removed from others.

But what choice are these babies being given? Their choice is being removed. What good is it when they are men to express how upset they are? They can't become uncircumcised as men can they?

Why not change it so that it can't be done until the boy is over 18 and can make his own choice?

Maybe over time people will slowly move away from it,

But this has already happened in Australia. 9-11% of newborns are circumcised here now, with most of these for religious reasons. A few generations ago nearly all infants were circumcised - this means that a whole heap of men have actively decided not to circumcise their sons. They’ve done it without vocal activism but there’s been a huge shift.

Yes it should be banned, and as a pp said, anyone who puts their child through it should be prosecuted. The religious reasons argument is bullshit. There is no reason other than a child having medical problems, that it should be allowed.

I agree op, likewise ear piercing on babies and young children.

We're a half Jewish family, if males want it done they can do it themselves as adults.

Agreed.
It's barbaric.

Agreed, it’s abusive and barbaric, should be banned like fgm.

KennDodd

Agree about ear piercing, it should be banned until the child can decide themselves. I witnessed a little girl, I would say about a year and a half old I'm Aires yesterday, being held down by her mother and I'm presuming grandmother, to have her ears pierced. She was screaming. It made me feel a bit sick that someone would do that to their baby, and for what?