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.

should we remove bits in case they cause a problem later?

I think that depends. As I said earlier ex-H remembered having his done and the recovery. His parents had waited on the offchance he wouldn’t need it and it backfired. I think in hereditary conditions it is an understandable decision.

'not enough men are actually challenging laws to be changed.'

This is an important point.

*HCP, not HPV!!

Whilst I completely agree with you OP, it should be banned, it is different to FGM.

Also remember that FGM isn't often done to babies - the prime age is 6-9 so the child is very much aware

As I said earlier ex-H remembered having his done and the recovery. His parents had waited on the offchance he wouldn’t need it and it backfired. I think in hereditary conditions it is an understandable decision.

Is it any more ethical to do it on newborns though, when the experience of the pain will be just as bad, irrespective of the *memory” of it?

Although, surely, if down for medical reasons, it was done under GA?

I agree with many previous posters that it's just not comparable to FGM, and trying to draw parallels trivialises the horrors of FGM.

The ongoing impact of and motivations for the procedure are totally different. To be honest I think the last thing we need is to further alienate Jewish and Muslim communities.

Although, surely, if down for medical reasons, it was done under GA?

Yes. He remembers going down to surgery after having agonising pain at home and how much pain he was in during the recovery.

Given the condition can be incredibly dangerous, we felt - and a consultant we discussed it with - it was far more beneficial to do it as early as possible.

I do believe if enough men wanted change or felt it wasn’t beneficial for them to be circumcised then it’s simply wouldn’t happen so routinely - men have always had a voice and power to change things

Some boys/men do unfortunately have complications. The vast majority of men I think are probably happy that they have had the procedure and this is why.

The only objection from men I hear is men who haven’t been circumcised as the pain seems unbearable to them

Of course there are men who have suffered and understandably feel angry

All genital mutilation is wrong IMO. The child has no choice. Let the child choose when they are an adult if they would like to conform to the pressure of their parents beliefs or now.

YANBU

The vast majority of men I think are probably happy that they have had the procedure and this is why.

Yet adult uncircumcised men aren’t lining up to get this done, are they? Anyone who has had sex with both circumcised and circumcised men can’t fail to appreciate that the foreskin has an important role in sexual pleasure. Lots of nerve endings and additional lubrication.

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.

In other words, it should be illegal both to cut bits off children (Except for medical reasons) and to pierce holes in them? While still recognising that FGM is worst, followed by male circumcision and then by piercings, I think that sounds reasonable.

YANBU. It's absolutely barbaric.

I do believe if enough men wanted change or felt it wasn’t beneficial for them to be circumcised then it’s simply wouldn’t happen so routinely - men have always had a voice and power to change things

The problem is, though, that if they had the procedure done as a baby they have never known anything different and therefore don't know what they're missing.

The problem is, though, that if they had the procedure done as a baby they have never known anything different and therefore don't know what they're missing.

And they get super defensive if there’s any suggestion that their sexual pleasure may be diminished.

We were offered it as my sons is foreskin does not completely wrap around. The doctor was quite happy to just whip it off for us ,although it caused no medical problems yet and is unlikely too, it more it's appearance is different.

I was quite happy to say no thank you, my hubby was circumcised, he didn't remember it and it's not scarred him. I just think it's unnecessary.

Had they said there was a reasonable probability it would affect him in the future, I would have seriously had to consider it, it would think it better when a baby and will forget rather than older. Thankfully we never had to make that decision.

I’ve had sex with both men who have and haven’t been circumcised

Personally prefer circumcised no extra lubrication was needed - but think it’s more down to individuals than a procedure they may or may not have had

And no non circumcised men are not in any rush to be circumcised I guess that’s because they are emotionally as well as physically attached to their foreskin (no pun intended) unless converting and it’s for religious reasons

The point I was making if the majority of men who have been circumcised felt it wasn’t beneficial it wouldn’t have been routinely carried out

That’s not the case for FGM as men have always had power to make changes to benefit themselves women haven’t

And no non circumcised men are not in any rush to be circumcised I guess that’s because they are emotionally as well as physically attached to their foreskin

Why would they need to have an emotional attachment to be unhappy at the prospect of any bit of their body being chopped off totally unnecessarily?

There is no question that circumcision can have complications, and an impact on sensation etc with sex.

The foreskin is there to protect the sensitive parts, when removed they rub against clothes etc the skin toughen (obviously) resulting in a loss of sensation.

I don't get the lubricant thing. Men with foreskins can merrily wank without lube, from the boys at school and what they said, without foreskin is more comfy to have lube.

The point I was making if the majority of men who have been circumcised felt it wasn’t beneficial it wouldn’t have been routinely carried out

How do you know?

Yes it should be made illegal.
But it won't be in the foreseeable future because it would be seen as anti-religious.

Because men make the rules all over the world, nolonger.

I think men tend to be very proud of their penis we are not conditioned in the same way to be proud of our vaginas - that seems universal but all of us would wince at any painful procedure

I wouldn’t expect a man unless he needed to for medical reasons or wanted to for religious not to be horrified at the thought of having his foreskin removed so understandably many men do and object to it

I also understand that many men (and I think it’s by far the majority) who have been circumcised are not concerned that they had their foreskin removed as a young child or baby and feel it’s beneficial for them

Because men make the rules all over the world, nolonger.

But an man who was circumcised from birth will never know what they’re missing out on.

I doubt if the millions of men who have been circumcised and in many countries it’s by far the majority felt it impacted their sex life in a negative way the procedure would continue routinely

It just wouldn’t happen men collectively would have decided what was best for them

As they decided what is best for women and in some cultures it was to mutilate women to such a degree that they would never get sexual pleasure so they could control them

They can read can't they. Imagine.
My legs haven't worked properly since birth I have no trouble 'knowing what I'm missing'.

Men make the rules. Men wrote these practices into religion. Men could write them out.

It seems odd that it would be down to women to sort out, when we a. Have much less power globally to make laws or change religious practices and b. have even less idea of what it might feel like to have a circumcised vs uncircumcised penis.

Why is everything up to women to sort out? This is a men's issue surely.

Same as when women need it want something we're told it's down to us. And so we agitate, fundraise, lobby etc to try to do whatever it is.