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

Exactly. Whataboutery makes me sick.

Women aren't allowed to have anything there's always men suffer similar.

They don't. Male circumcision is necessary I'm some cases for medical reasons FGM never is.

We don't even have exclusive rights of the word women anymore in case it upsets some deluded men.

No it's different, very different.

Male circumcision is generally unnecessary and I disagree with it unless there is a medical need, but for the significant majority the males who are circumcised retain full use of their penis.

Female genital mutilation at its most severe includes cutting the clitoris off and sewing the labia closed so only a tiny hole remains to urinate and menstruate through. When the woman is married her husband has to literally force his penis through that hole ripping it open to satisfy his needs. The woman can have no sexual pleasure due to the removal of her clitoris and the agony of the process. If she is then impregnated then the act of giving birth causes further tearing in order for the baby to get out.

There really is no comparison.

It’s not comparable to FGM, but that doesn’t make it right. No one should be cutting and mutilating healthy body parts for so called cultural or religious reasons or any reason at all.

Rates in the US were falling, I hope they still are. None of my friends back there had there boys circumcised and are disgusted by it.

This

I completely disagree. Not that I personally agree with male circumcision (for no medical reason), particularly with no anaesthetic, but they are not comparable.

What many others have said

The definition of comparable is “capable of being compared; having features in common with something else to permit or suggest comparison.”

FGM and male circumcision DO have features in common - and can be compared.

When we compare them we can say:

-Similarities are that we are cutting off useful and necessary body parts of non-consenting minors, mostly for cultural or religious reasons.

-Differences are how much more horrific FGM is in life long impact on the victim and that sometimes male circumcision can have medical benefits.

Even though FGM is much worse, they are similar in some important ways. I would say that there is no true male equivalent to FGM, but male circumcision is certainly the closest thing to an equivalent.

I don't agree with it unless for medical reasons but on the other hand, I've had a Jewish boyfriend who was circumcised due to his religion and he didn't seem any the worse for it or traumatised in any way.
You are bonkers though if you think it's remotely the same thing as FGM!

As a circumsised man I'm very against it, think it's tantamount to child abuse. Unless it's a medical necessity, noone should be chopping bits of another humans body off, especially when they're too young to speak, let alone consent.

However, it's not remotely comparable to FGM, which is a thousand times worse and more abhorrent.

Comparisons between the two aren't helpful in either case, they minimise FGM while also stopping people taking your argument against circumcision seriously.

You can be against both while accepting that they're different issues, with different causes and different outcomes, that need to be tackled differently.

Of course it's not equivalent. The damage and harm from FGM is much more severe than the removal of a boys foreskin. Even the "less severe" kind of FGM is more damaging. Of course, removing a baby boys foreskin for religious or cultural reasons is unnecessary but that's a separate issue.

Nothing in your description of the discussions around circumcision in this baby group need any kind of comparison to FGM. You can object to the circumcision of boys without needing to mention FGM.

Your voting options are ridiculously loaded. Posters should be able to choose yes or no to one question. You can't answer several questions with one answer.

It is nothing like FGM, although thanks for giving even more stress and guilt that I've 'mutilated' my child, who's currently in hospital post medical circumcision, although you've graciously said this is OK....

Without a medical reason it's child abuse, but still not the same as FGM.

My DS had to be circumcised (for medical reasons).

I don’t feel he’s been been mutilated. (I know you did specify ‘unless for medical reasons’) and I wouldn’t have done it if he didn’t need it, yet ‘mutilated’ feels too strong a word still.

It’s nowhere near comparable imo.

Theres no benefit to FGM, and never a medical need.

It's abhorrent and should be illegal. But not comparable to FGM.

"With FGM there is no benefit."

Only to their husbands, who assume the wife won't fuck anyone else because she gets no pleasure from sex.
I've always thought it odd that it's the female relatives that do it to their own daughters.

FGM is illegal in this country, it is also illegal to take a female out of the country to have it done. If you suspect a female is being taken out of the country to have it done and you report it to the authorities they can stop their passports. It is classed as abuse / assault and people can go to prison for it. Females die from it, infection and blood loss is rife. They can die later in life as their vulva and vagina is so badly misshapen they cannot give birth.

Circumcision, whilst unnecessary (medical reasons aside) rarely comes with complications and believe it or not there are lower HPV rates in men and woman in communities where it is common so can have some benefits.

However, the two are at completely different ends of the spectrum to this AIBU is ridiculous to be honest

I don't agree with it if not medically necessary but it's not anything like FGM

Chopping bits off the genitals of any child is unnecessary and barbaric. The routine circumcision of baby boys one one of the (many) reasons I left my nursing job in USA and came back to the UK. I think parents should be forced to watch, that would soon stop it. It is a brutal money making exercise that inflicts pain and distress on baby boys.
FGM is much worse, and neither procedure is acceptable IMO.

Because it only slightly lowers the risk of HIV it doesn’t remove it. Saying that circumcised men are less likely to get HIV leads to complacency and anyone having sex with a partner who is HIV positive (or their HIV status is unknown) needs to be using condoms and ideally PrEP medications. Also, the highest risk sexual activity for contracting HIV is receiving anal sex and in that case it won’t make a difference if the person receiving it is circumcised or not.
While there might be some benefit at a population level for circumcision in countries/communities where there is poor access to HIV testing, treatment and education this really can’t be extrapolated to countries where there is better access to sexual health resources that can provide prevention interventions that are far more effective.

Also, the number of boys/men who need circumcision for medical reasons is fairly low. There’s absolutely no justification for circumcising babies just in case they might need a circumcision for medical reasons later on (much like we don’t remove everyone’s tonsils or appendix ‘just in case’).

Male circumcision is very different to FGM (which is truly awful), however that doesn’t make it ok or acceptable.
It’s also worth noting that some of the risks of male circumcision are partly mitigated by the fact that in many countries it’s legal and can therefore be carried out by trained health professionals in hygienic and safe environments. In countries where there is less access to these services male circumcision can definitely lead to serious infections and complications that cause serious long term damage.

So much amateur dramatics from OP. Get a grip. There is no equivalence.

I don't think it's the equivalent of FGM, but it's still barbaric.
I also don't agree with piercing baby ears, so I'm pretty set on how I feel about these things.

@PaperSky hope you don't mind me asking, how long did it take to heal?
My baby (he's only 5 months) had other surgery they did at same time and ontop of general anaesthetic he had a spinal so am a bit stressed from lack of sleep and everything on him just looks so sore!

My idea of using mn as a distraction probably not a good idea opening this thread!

Yabu

Sometimes boys need it for medical reasons. I don’t agree with it for cultural reasons but sometimes it’s medically necessary. It is in no where comparable to FGM which is just purely barbaric

In terms of extent, severity & harm male genital mutilation is not as bad as female genital mutilation.

In principle, it is exactly the same. A defenceless, vulnerable child’s body is being mutilated in ways it cannot consent to. FGM is illegal in the U.K., and quite rightly so. MGM should also be banned, that ban should be robustly enforced and if that means certain communities feel unable to remain in the U.K., so be it.