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

Imo it's wrong as baby get no choice

Diff for medical

I don't believe it should be done for religious either tbh

If older and man wants it done or as my friends son at 11 as having issues with foreskin /pain/infection

But their choice

My views are Same as ear piercing a baby

No need

If at it done at 5/8/13 when older then fine

Personally I think it should be illegal to remove or modify any part of the body of anyone unable to give informed consent unless such removal or modification is medically necessary.

The only body someone should be allowed to just chop bits off of in the game of culture or religion is their own.

Do the majority of posters here believe that all practising Jewish and Muslim parents in the UK should be imprisoned for 7 years?

Do you think it’s right that babies are harmed for religious reasons?
surely these practices are outdated now? Most religions are based on kindness and caring - this goes against that.

This basically equates child ear piercing with FGM which I know is basically the mumsnet view.

The UK is not going to start imprisoning rabbis any time soon so it’s a moot point.

My view is that men are highly unlikely to perpetuate practices that diminish their own sexual pleasures as a sex, so the harms are exaggerated.

How would they know? If it’s been their culture since childhood and all their community have it done, they won’t necessarily compare and contrast.

My view is that men are highly unlikely to perpetuate practices that diminish their own sexual pleasures as a sex, so the harms are exaggerated.

Outside of religious practice, circumcision became popular in the Victorian era because of an attempt to curb the immoral practice of masturbation. Circumcision can most definitely result in negative impacts on the masturbation and sex practices of men:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17155977/

63% masturbation difficulty after.
20% worse sex life after.

When it’s done to babies, they don’t get to weigh up this evidence. When it’s done to everyone in your community and country, no one ever considers any alternative outcome. When it was done to men as babies there’s nothing to be gained from dwelling on what might have been. It can’t be put back on.

I would welcome legislation prosecuting parents and practitioners from practising circumcision. I don’t think religion freedom should be extended to cutting of healthy functioning body parts of non-consenting children because of a belief in sky fairies.

Its not the same 🤷‍♀️ FGM happeneds when the girl is older, normally woth unsterile equipment and causes life-long pain and consequences.

Maybe you should post on an American forum instead if you are American? Thankfully, i am (perhaps nieve-ly) hoping that most "average mn user" would not have to deal with FGM, or indeed circumcision. Male circumcision is very, very rare oursode of religious reasons.

Totaly - “most religions are based on kindness and caring”.

Where did you get that idea from? I’d’ve thought the opposite…..