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.

It’s not comparable to FGM

The reasons for doing so are completely different and the ongoing impact on their lives isn’t the same.

I can’t see laws changing given that not enough men are actually challenging laws to be changed.

We would have had to make that decision if we’d had a boy. Ex-DH had a hereditary condition that meant it would have been likely that a son would have needed the procedure.

That's a circumcision for medical reasons. I was specifically referring to circumcision for reasons of sexual health in adulthood, in response to the PP who brought it up.

You said 'it's largely underground already'.

I'm saying it isn't 'underground' in the sense of being hidden and secretive. Relevant medical practitioners are informed and everyone I know personally - can only speak from my own experience - chooses a doctor to perform it.

I'm not arguing for the practice to be legal in this country, I'm surprised it is to be honest.

I also think it should be banned.

I find the US approach to it quite strange. I have seen on several occasions characters in TV shows refer to having been with a man who was 'uncut' as if he was really strange and disgusting. This article refers to them as "the butt of jokes"
//www.google.co.uk/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1380359/amp//

I was specifically referring to circumcision for reasons of sexual health in adulthood, in response to the PP who brought it up

Ah I see! Well yes I agree with that. I assumed by “health” as in the quote it referred to health in general not just sexual health.

Ah, I meant underground in the sense of not being performed in hospitals or surgeries etc or needing permission or co-operation from outside agencies.

I still want to know why a PP compared genital piercing to a circumcision!

It’s already being carried out by people who are not medically trained and often in non medical, non sterile environments. So let’s atop pretending that allowing this to be legal makes it safe.
The NHS on the whole refused to carry out circumcision for non medical reasons. In our area the private hospitals refuse to do it. I know an American mum who literally couldn’t find a Doctor here who would do it. Those who do could be on dodgy ground if there was a serious complication, because they have essentially carried out totally unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a child. That’s why our local surgeons and GPs won’t have anything to do with it.

As a Country we need to grow a pair and make it clear we aren’t going to continue to accept the unnecessary mutilation of baby boys genitals. Fear of offending different cultures isn’t an excuse.

I thought they meant ear piercing should be banned for under 12

This American article gives an interesting perspective on circumcision. Particularly the medical benefits of it.

It doesn’t mention meatal stenosis though, which affects 5-20% of circumcised males. The foreskin protects the meatal head and prevents the urethra. Without a foreskin, the urethra is exposed and can become dry and scarred. This causes urinary difficulties ranging from poor flow and burning and discomfort to renal impairment, depending on severity. It needs another operation to repair it.

A paeds surgeon I know said this used to be a common problem in male children in Australia when most were circumcised. Now that most aren’t it’s seen much less frequently.

The foreskin has a purpose, it protects the urethra and should be left alone.

You cant really compare circumcision of boys to fgm.

However having said that I 100 percent agree that no one should be circumcising babies or children unless absolutely medically necessary. Its barbaric and baby boys are perfect just as they are. They do t need bits altered and removed I cant fathom.why they would even think about doing it.

If consenting adults want to thats up to them. But leave babies and children alone.

*protects the urethra

I don't think the PP was comparing genital piercing to circumcision / the were saying infants shouldn't have their ears pierced.

FGM and circumcision are two completely different things. Piercing a babies ears is something else entirely. All three are unnecessary procedures inflicted on children without their consent.

Banning circumcision would send it underground. There should be strict laws around it, though, IMO.

As a country that is multi cultural we need to understand that people have different opinions on what is and what is not acceptable

If harm is caused and deliberately caused then we have laws and they should be implemented sadly not often enough

Male circumcision is not seen as a harmful procedure if done correctly and often is done for medical reasons

FGM is never done for medical reasons

I thought they meant ear piercing should be banned for under 12

Ah. I assumed they meant genitals given that’s relevant.

Would be smashing to have a discussion around banning circumcision on its own lack of merits!

YANBU (apart from mentioning FGM, which is a separate topic and thankfully illegal).

My friend had it done on her underweight little twin boys, one of them got an infection and ended up back in hospital for a week after only just getting out, then had to have some unspecified other surgery later as a result. Other than wishing him better, I have been unable to say anything to her, because what on earth can I say that doesn't involve telling her I think she was a total dick to take the slightest risk with their health at such a delicate stage of their lives. They aren't even particularly religious, so that's not an excuse. Since having my boy I find it even less understandable, I love every millimetre of him and wouldn't have him nor his future sexual enjoyment harmed for any negligible unproven benefits. (I've had boyfriends both cut and uncut, it is really not the same for them, the poor head is so tough!)

There are only two things to be said:

• male circumcision is in no way comparable to the more severe forms of FGM where a woman is not only unable to experience sexual pleasure but has to be cut again to enable her husband to have sex with her or to have children.

• both should be banned because they are painful non-medical interventions without consent.

I know many men who respond to FGM with whatabouthemenz and “feminists are up in arms about FGM but don’t care about male circumcision” and cannot understand that it is entirely possible to be against both whilst still thinking one is worse than the other.

UTIs are about 10 times more common in uncircumcised males than circumcised infants. However, even with this increased risk of UTI, only 1% or less of uncircumcised males will be affected.

There’s a good British study (can’t be bothered finding it, though can if asked) showing that you have to circumcise 111 baby boys to prevent a single UTI in a boy with normal renal anatomy. Bearing in mind that UTIs are easily treatable with antibiotics and more common in baby girls.

It should be banned. But it won’t be. Cracking down on this would alienate the Muslim and Jewish communities at a time where both are experiencing an upsurge in racism.

I think it’s barbaric and ridiculous. Why should a boy only be considered’ properly’ Jewish or Muslim if he has his foreskin removed? There has been a drive to encourage families not to mutilate their girls but sadly I doubt there will be a similar campaign to encourage them not to circumcise their boys as it’s way too controversial.

I’m Jewish and had I had boys there would be no way anyone would have done this to them unless it was medically necessary. My DM caved in to family and my DBs both had it done. One of them has had problems due to it all his life and bitterly resents being ‘butchered’.

It’s rarely done in an appropriate environment and often not by a medically trained man. If you removed religion from this it would be banned as totally unsafe.

I was the one who mentioned ear piercing for under 12s.
Apologies if it wasn’t clear. I’m not equating piercing with FGM or circumcision but I think that ANY bodily modification for non medical reasons should be illegal.
As for the argument that circumcision has medical benefits, firstly I’m not convinced that’s true and secondly boys are usually born WITH a foreskin - should we remove bits in case they cause a problem later?

I completely agree with the opening statement.

Male circumcision is not seen as a harmful procedure if done correctly and often is done for medical reasons

It can lead to a loss of sexual feeling and sensitivity. Losing that, or the risk of losing that, for no valid medical reason is "harm" enough IMO.

So logically the result is that if circumcision isn't made illegal

You would want fgm legalised

Because otherwise its not fair on boys and men

I mean that's where your argument ends up

Is that what you would like

Because realistically circumcision will not be made illegal in uk in foreseeable future for a variety of reasons.

I agree it should not happen though.

As for the argument that circumcision has medical benefits

Most of them don’t stand up to scrutiny. I’ve posted about UTIs upthread and most of the time balanitis is easily treatable and preventable.

There is a (small) STI reduction in sexually mature males having unprotected sex with regard to HIV and HPV but that’s a terrible argument for circumcising a newborn and a good discussion for your teen to have with a HPV when sexually active. At which point they can make an informed decision about their own bodies in the context of their own sexual practices.