To think that circumcising baby/young boys is the equivalent to FGM?

[Cress42]

I’m part of a baby group - our babies are all younger than 12 months and there are parents looking to get their sons REcircumcised 😢

They’re all based in America. I understand it’s a cultural norm there and nobody is talking about any medical issues to warrant having them circumcised.

It’s a fact that it causes desensitisation and part of me feels that along with the general pain of the operation this is similar to FGM.

The baby can’t consent to the mutilation. Also mutilation isn’t too severe a word, it literally means: act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.

YABU - It’s not similar to FGM. There’s nothing wrong with it, snip away!

YANBU - It’s similar / the male equivalent to FGM and unless carried out for medical reasons it should be up to the discretion of the person who is being circumcised

It’s not acceptable but no, it’s not the equivalent of FGM

I don’t agree with it but it’s not as invasive and as excruciatingly painful and damaging as FGM.

So their baby has already been circumcised and they want to have the procedure done again? Is that what you mean by ‘REcircumcised?’

Regardless, I don’t think it’s the same as FGM

Your options are ridiculous- it shouldn’t be done if not medically needed, but it’s not comparable to FGM

Absolutely not the equivalent, it’s often done for medical reasons not to ruin someone’s sex life ffs.

A Jewish colleague some years back said she was glad her children were girls as she would have hated having to take a baby for circumcising.

Please stop minimizing the horrendous practice of FGM by conflating it with circumcision they are in no way the same.
Oh I don't agree with circumcision BTW.

I don't see how anyone can know that it isn't as painful as FGM, seeing as how there's never going to be anyone who can go through both procedures to compare. Bit of a weird assumption to make, especially because there are a few different types of FGM, some more invasive than others. YANBU btw.

I can't vote either, because whilst I don't agree with it, it's nowhere near as bad as fgm

It comes with far fewer risks than FGM so is significantly less likely to cause permanent problems, but the principle is the same. Unnecessarily operating on children, especially without pain relief is barbaric whichever sex it is done to.

No it's not at all comparable, nor equivalent.

That doesn't necessarily mean that I think it's right to 'snip away' either.

They are still doing something totally unnecessary, it’s definitely not in the child’s best interest to do this and I should imagine some children are permanently scarred when things go wrong. It’s not always carried out by professional.

I think it’s very similar, even if the reasons differ.

I can't vote because I don't think "there's nothing wrong with it, snip away" but it's not comparable to FGM.

Can you clarify what you mean by "REcircumcised"?.

Yep, for whatever reason the first circumcision didn’t work and there are multiple people who are getting it done again, only this time the babies (all less than 1 years old) have to be put under general anaesthetic to have the procedure. They’re all seeking reassurance from one another. I can’t/won’t bring myself to comment

Medical reasons are not just to improve sex life it is one of the reasons that a boy cannot pee straight (not than many can anyway)

How am I minimising FGM - if anything I’m bringing male circumcision up to the same level?

Why is it always about minimising something rather than elevating other things?

Not comparable and not your concern!

There is no medical reason for FGM so it can never be compared.

A lot of grown men have to get circumcised for medical reasons, aswell as a lot of young boys, and it does have some benefit with regards to STI transference.

With FGM there is no benefit.

Yep

Women and girls die from fgm op. They live in pain. It is not the equivalent.

I also think it is wrong to circumsise boys but it is not the same. That's why they renamed it fgm, rather than female circumcision.

Weird hill to die on, by the way.

Who said I was dying on this hill 😂

It’s called AIBU.. not AIBUHTDO (hill to die on)

It does minimise FGM, as people are more aware of circumcision, a procedure which is often done on males of all ages for legitimate medical reasons.

Circumcision does not destroy sex lives, cause a lifetime of pain and discomfort and is rarely done in unsterile circumstances. If people think FGM is like circumcision they are minimising it, which is the risk of equating them.

Circumcising babies is wrong, but not equivalent to FGM.

YABVU, as PPs have pointed out.
No culture in our patriarchal world would ever systematically subject males to anything as horrific as FGM.

It sometimes needs doing around the age of 5 because the foreskin remains too tight. Other than that, not ok in my book. It’s a permanent unnecessary change to the body before they can consent.
Is it as bad as FGM? The equivalent of FGM, at least the more extreme forms of it, would be removing the whole penis so that sexual pleasure was never a possibility, then sewing up most of the anus and forcing him to have penetrative sex in it when he’s older, regardless of whether he felt attracted to men or not. So no, not quite that bad.