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

@spookehtooth "Can't we just call them both awful without comparing? I see no benefit to suffers of either experiences from any comparison."
Because while they are both abhorrent acts performed on children unable to consent, FGM has long term serious impacts on girls/women physically, sexually and emotionally. Circumcision, while also wrong, doesn't. It's a false equivalence, which minimises women's lived experience.

@LoopyLooooo

I actually do think ear piercing should be done on adults rather children, b ex abuse it is cosmetic. But not because there's anything wrong with it, there's no identifiable harm that impacts a persons quality of life. Nobody lies awake at night wishing their parent didn't pierce their ears because now they can't orgasm, or suffer excruciating pain. It has no place on a thread about FGM or even circumcision.

And I still have heard what's 'wrong' with it.

YABU for your YABU options. I don't agree with circumcision for non-medical or religious/cultural reasons but you cannot compare it to FGM. Posters aren't 'jumping to' the most severe version of FFM it exists and by comparing circumcision to it you are including all types. i'm not sure whether you are being deliberately provocative or just 'what about the menz'.

I'm from North America, born in the 70s. Every boyfriend I had there was circumcised, as were all my friends' NA boyfriends. I have literally never heard of a single one of them having an issue with it, and certainly never heard of one of them having it redone!

@CurlewKate it's only a false equivalent if you're comparing, if you're not then there are no comparisons false or otherwise. Even if it was beyond doubt two things were similarly bad .. why? What point or benefit? Besides turning suffering into some sort of top trumps like card game of facts and intellectual arguments

Maybe if both were criminal and you wanted to compare punishments for both it might be justified.

This. FGM is rightly a crime (albeit one that continues to go on because the authorities are still too scared of being accused of racism to deal with it properly).

It is not racist to stop cruelty to children!

YANBU - diabolical practice

@spookehtooth Putting the two even in the same sentence/Mumsnet post minimises women's experience. Everyone knows a man who has been circumcised. If you don't know a woman who has undergone FGM then it would be natural that they are not dissimilar. Women's experience is routinely minimised.

If you think that male circumcision is the same as FGM then you clearly know very little about what happens to girls when FGM is done to them.

Circumcision which isn’t medically necessary is equivalent to FGM only in the sense that it is driven by some of the same motives- basically that the religion or culture you are born into owns your body and has the right to insist on it being altered in order for it to be acceptable.

However it isn’t done in order to control and limit men in the same extreme way.

It isn’t equivalent in terms of long term pain/damage or ongoing trauma. It doesn’t limit sexual experience or reproductive capacity in anything like the same way.

Its totally wrong though.

But in essence it’s mutilating innocent children for ‘cultural reasons’. Neither is acceptable. It’s not a competition

I think the numbers of posts on here which could be taken as answers to "tell me you don't know what's actually involved in FGM without actually saying you don't know" are absolutely staggering.

Then again, this is MN and if there's a thread a thread about piercing babies' ears someone's bound to pop up and say it's just like FGM

I sometimes wonder if it's the result of ignorance, or if there are still people who wish to trivialise FGM by persistent comparisons to less extensive, non-life changing issues.

For circumcision to be the equivalent of FGM about one third of the penis would need to be cut off, so they are not equivalent in that sense.
There are cells under the foreskin that can facilitate the transmission of HIV so removing the foreskin can be part of measures to help reduce HIV transmission.
I absolutely agree the procedure should be done only with the consent of the boy/man, so not to babies at all

I follow Hibo Wardere on Twitter (X). She was subjected to FGM at the age of 6, and has lived with its consequences, although she was fortunate enough to have had some surgery since moving here at 18, which I think has helped. Most girls and women never have that option and many live in agony and with dreadful medical problems for the res of their lives. I am sure the mental health repercussions are huge too. How would you ever trust anyone again when your own relatives put you through something like that?

Anyway, reading her words and that of other who have experienced FGM, it is clear that MGM is not comparable in terms of its severity or the long term consequences for health, except where it goes wrong. And it does go wrong. And for those men amd boys, the potential implications are dreadful.

I think there should be a campaign to discuss banning non medical circumcision until adulthood when men can choose for themselves.

However, MGM and FGM are very different and conflating the two helps noone.

Only if a portion of the penis is chopped of with a rudimentary blade and then the gaping wound is sown up, meaning zero sexual pleasure and your only available orifice for your partner to use is your anus - would it be in any way comparable.

Ignorance sure is bliss.

I think it’s fair to compare circumcision to FGM, because both involve non-consensual genital mutilation. But having compared them it’s fair to conclude that they’re not equivalent, because FGM is much more damaging.

As for circumcision… I am Jewish and have had one Jewish sexual partner. He struggled to reach climax other than through masturbation, and blamed a lack of sensitivity caused by his circumcision. I’ve never encountered this issue with uncircumcised men. Obviously this is just an anecdote, of course.

I have daughters and don’t have a son. It’s impossible to say what I’d want to do if I did have a son, but my other half (not Jewish) and I have spoken about it theoretically, and both of us are against it. If I did have a son it would seem to me almost inconceivable to permanently mutilate his genitals, without anaesthesia, without his consent.

I understand that sometimes it is required for medical purposes. That is very different, and parents must do what’s in the best interests of their children there. But for religious reasons? No way. The pervasive bullying of a religion which makes eternal heaven contingent on circumcision is awful.

Because it used to be called, "female circumcision", the term was changed in order to name it for what it is.

Exactly, they don't wait till boys are 6-9 yrs old, hold them down in front of a load of people, slice large portions of their genitals off, stitch them up using unsterile instruments without any form of anaesthesia, then tie their legs together for 2 weeks to ensure the wound stays closed. All so that they can never experience any form of sexual pleasure and to ensure their husband will know he had the pleasure of being the one and only person to slice her genitals open and use her sexually.

It's like comparing a punch up in the playground to WW2.

YABU. Male infant circumcision is not comparable to FGM. The terminology was changed from Female Circumcision Female Genital Mutilation to reflect this.

I didn't vote because I don't agree with circumcision for no medical reason, but from what I understand it's usually done by a doctor in a medical setting. So it's probably much safer than fgm.

Tick ✅ or cross❌ if applies to both or not, FGM vs newborn (not adult) circumcision:

Done on non-consenting children ✅
Done by non-medical professionals ✅
Done without anaesthesia ✅
Done in non-sterile places in many parts of the world ✅
Done for cultural not medical reasons ✅
Results in permanent alteration of the genitalia ✅
Can have significant complications ✅
Can result in death ✅ many boys have died from newborn circumcision.

Results in significant alteration of sexual function ✅❌: there are more men that aren’t bothered compared to those who do suffer problems and are outspoken about them (reduced sensitivity, erectile issues) but that number is not zero. Equally, remarkably there are women who advocate for FGM (which is inexplicable to me) but they are a tiny minority.

Importantly though, men suffer harm. Many men have no idea what sex could feel like if they hadn’t been circumcised. This is from late circumcision data.

Exactly, they don't wait till boys are 6-9 yrs old, hold them down in front of a load of people, slice large portions of their genitals off, stitch them up using unsterile instruments without any form of anaesthesia,

No, they do it to newborns instead. This is exactly what happens with cultural newborn male circumcision. How do you think they do it?

And there are cultures around the world, such as some Aboriginal Australian tribes for example, who do this to boys at puberty as part of “Men’s Business” to initiate boys into manhood at around 13 years of age. It’s done out in the bush, and boys can’t complain or they’re not “men” in that tribe.

They are absolutely comparable, and they only reason male genital mutilation is not considered as bad is because middle class white people do it to their children in America.

Putting holes in a baby, cutting bits off a baby is all abuse. It's inflicting unnecessary pain for no good reason. But back in the day parents were thick about a lot of things. There's no excuse for it these days though.

Thank you for this - you’ve worded this far better than I have.

As a mother of a young boy, circumcision generally(and especially as a baby) is absolutely barbaric to me.

To those saying that it has no impact on men whatsoever I would ask how exactly they know (as a woman), and as a circumcised man they know no different - the sensations could be completely muted compared to what they could have had/ not possible due to erectile dysfunction as other PPs have noted.

It is a mutilation of the genitals when there is no medical reason, done for cultural reasons, normally Because It's Always Been Done so in that way it is the same.

But what is actually done is often in no way comparable.

A (more often than not) infant boy has his foreskin removed (wrong imo. Unless there is medical need then it should be left until they are old enough to decide for themselves)

Girls however - it's done often when they are several years old, in some cases at puberty, and ranges from the removal of the clitoral hood to the removal of the external part of the clitoris, removal of part or most of the vulva/labia and the sewing up of the remaining tissue leaving a small hole to pee and menstruate through and the mutilated child has their husband ripping it open on their wedding night to look forward to.

so no. I don't think male circumcision is the equivalent of fgm. Perhaps when the fgm is a symbolic nick across the clitoral hood but far more girls are heavily mutilated than are symbolically cut.

That doesn't mean male circumcision is acceptable. Just that it is not the same degree of mutilation. If half their penis was chopped off and part of their scrotal skin then yes. It would be the same level of barbarism.

My husband comes from a culture where boys are ritually circumcised at approx 14 years old to symbolise entry into manhood.

When we married he wanted any sons we might have to go through that. I said over my dead body. We agreed that if we had sons it would be their choice when they are adults.

They are in their 20s and are unmutilated. And my husband no longer believes that they should be.

And no family member or community leader has asked to inspect their genitals thus far.

I don't actually buy the religious argument. God created man in his own image so God has foreskin? Or are we saying he had it and chopped it off? If I was god (and one day, hopefully 🤞🤞...) I'd be pretty pissed off if I designed the genitals then people started taking knives to infants and claiming it was what I wanted. If there was a god, I'm fairly sure he/she/they would have made genitals how they wanted them. Babies aren't 'some reassembly required' kits.

And if there is a god and he gave babies body parts purely so that adults could chop them off then that can only mean he wants us to cause babies and children unnecessary pain and therefore he's a psychopath and undeserving of worship.

The sensitivity point is an interesting one. The cultures where FGM is common are, as far as I know, also ones where MGM/male circumcision is routine.

You often see increased male pleasure mooted as at least one reason for FGM - how much of a factor this is, I don't know. However, I do wonder whether the increased sexual pleasure men get from women being much tighter than usual as a result of FGM may have started with their own lack of sensation, and contributed over time to the cultural expectation that women will have it.

I have read at least one account of FGM where a woman who had not had it as a child said her husband required her to undergo it when he no longer got the same satisfaction from penetrating her that he did when she was a virgin. Hideous to read, but it made me wonder if this might be more of a factor than I, at least, have seen discussed elsewhere.

If true, leaving men intact would reduce this as a factor.

Of course, most religions/cultures that mandate male circumcision do not also require or even tolerate FGM, but maybe in those where patriarchal structures are particularly dominant, it could be a consideration.