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

I completely disagree with male circumcision for anything other than medical reasons but it isn't the same as fgm, nothing close. Something can be bad without being equal

Very wrong in my view to compare the two.

Yabu for making your two options so biased. And while male circumcision for religious or cultural reasons is wrong, the impact on the man’s life is not comparable to a woman who has undergone FGM. By comparing the two you are misrepresenting what FGM is. So yes, YABU, even though I disagree with circumcision that’s not medically necessary

Have you actually read much about the procedures involved in FGM? I have to do training on it every year and it’s hideous.

I don’t agree with unnecessary circumcision either but they are just nothing alike. You can’t ‘bring it up to the same level’ becuase it’s nowhere near it in terms of pain, invasiveness and long term health consequences.

My husband is circumcised (American - very common). This is what Dr Google tells me:

Is there any benefit to circumcision?
The possible medical benefits of circumcision include: A lower risk of HIV. A slightly lower risk of other sexually transmitted diseases. A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections and penile cancer.

And of course, there are some conditions where the removal of the foreskin can help and it is supposed to improve hygiene.

Does FGM have any of these benefits?

I don't agree with male circumcision for non medical reasons but it's in no way comparable to FGM. Not even close.

The only two men I've 'known' who were circumcised had it done due to medical reasons.

I don't agree with the practice in general.

But no way does it compare to FGM which very often causes life-long difficulties (at a minimum). Desensitisation after circumcision doesn't compare at all.

I'm surprised so many people think that circumcision is level with FGM. They are both wrong in my books but not comparable.

It likely shows that many aren't aware of just how horrific FGM is.

I am Jewish and chose not to have my sons circumcised. I don't think it's necessary. That said, it is not the same as FGM and it is an offence to those poor women and girls who have been subjected to FGM to have that comparison. So YABU.

As so frequently happens, the first response absolutely sums it up.

In practice it is sadly done much more often for cultural and religious reasons.

No way is circumcision on males on a par with FGM. FGM is barbaric and ruins girls/ women's lives. Circumcision on boys is done with anaesthetic for medical or religious reasons in a safe, sterile environment.

Doesn’t fgm completely destroy all sexual pleasure? And circumcised men have orgasms, based on them having kids? Obviously individual cases here and there but that seems to be the general rule.

One thing to have a convo if circumcision is necessary or not, but the comparison is not quite right.

Because male circumcision, however much I disagree with it, isn't comparable with FGM.

FGM is designed to destroy sexual pleasure to appease the insecurities of men.

It can cause life long health issues.

Girls/women can die from those issues.

Sex is often unbearably painful.

It serves absolutely no benefit to any girl or woman ever.

I'd suggest that, if you think they are in anyway comparable, you may well need to look up what FGM actually involves.

That's ridiculous. It should be a concern for all of us if boys are being mutilated wholly unnecessarily.

Do you think that FGM isn't anyone else's concern either?

It shouldn't be done without medical necessity but it is absolutely in no way comparable to FGM.

I'd say it's equivalent. It's male genital mutilation. It's not as bad as most forms of FGM but if it's not medically necessary, it's mutilation the same as FGM.

It is perfectly reasonable to compare circumcisions that are not done for medical reasons, which are probably the majority.

FGM is done for the sole reason of controlling women's sexuality.

Circumcision is not. So not comparable.

Your researches are leaving out the other side of the coin in terms of the damage that can be done by circumcision.

Same.

The first time I sat through one, I fainted and had flashback images for months afterwards.

The thought of girls going through the process are the most upsetting images I've ever had.

Utterly, utterly horrific and in no way comparable. I cannot imagine how those girls/women even begin to live with it.

It's hugely ignorant to suggest a comparison.

Not remotely comparable in terms of the extent of the damage done.

I wouldn't do it to my boys without a medical reason, but it's NOT the same. I do think it's a strange cultural practice. But it does relatively little harm so its not one I concern myself about.

I would never consent to this being done to my child unless it was for medical reasons.

Maybe it isn't as awful as the extreme types of FGM but it's unnecessary and religious beliefs should not excuse it.

There is plenty of solid medical evidence (much from South Africa) that there is a strong link between lower rates of HIV and circumcision. Many young boys (e.g., ages 5-8) need it for medical reasons. Being circumcised as a child or adult (as opposed to a newborn) is much more traumatic and painful. So what's the harm in preventitive procedures?

I think you need to do some research on what FGM entails and the horrific lifelong consequences.

I don’t agree with male circumcision but I think it is very dangerous to equate fgm with male circumcision. Yes it does minimise FGM because in peoples minds they think that the pain and lifelong impact must be broadly equivalent if you’re talking about them in the same breath. But they’re not in any way equivalent.

Ive donated money over the years to clinics in Africa dedicated to helping women who have undergone FGM.

I’ll ask again and echo what others have said - please do read up more on FGM.