Circumcision should be banned.

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2025/01/judge-and-parents-call-for-boys-to-be-protected-from-circumcision

Article describes an upsetting case of two doctors performing these ops without anesthesia, and with sometimes serious side effects. One boy nearly died.

The National Secular Society is running a concurrent campaign to ban all 'religious cutting' - that includes both FGM and male circumcision. I wholeheartedly agree that no baby or child should suffer in this way. More info:

https://www.secularism.org.uk/religious-surgery/

YABU - circumcision for religous reasons is fine
YANBU - circumcision should be banned (unless there is a medical reason)

I think wanting it to be banned in the UK is also a complete non-starter. It’s far too important to the Jewish religion.

This topic is neither of those things.

Good question, I'm not Jewish- actually Muslims also circumcise don't they, I remembered when I saw pp. For Jews it's a physical symbol of the covenant w God, to set them apart as following special rules & having particular responsibilities.
In Islam, it's not in the Quran, but in the Hadith & Sunnah, accounts of Muhammad's life & sayings. It's complex & seems to me mainly promoting it as a sign of belonging, like Judaism, perhaps also as a simple continuation of pre Islamic customs?Not so clear, I need to check.

It is not something I could ever imagine being able to do after carrying a child inside me for 9 months. It seems a direct contradiction of the belief that God creates man in his own image and the religious logic that says God does not make mistakes. I think it is an act of violence against a baby.

Those suggesting it has no impact on the male experience of sex - how do they know? There's a relatively small population of men who can quote before and after experience where it was done for non-medical reasons.

Terfarina, How did it happen..? Well, aside from the story, which is a matter of faith, I haven't looked into it, but probs for historical reasons to set the Jewish religion apart? It was v long ago, I am interested in religious research & it seems that some things like kosher laws may have been instigated by priests who wanted to have a monopoly on what was permitted and what was not, so perhaps circumcision was for a similar reason? I don't know much on this topic.

I guess the thinking is that it's not a mistake, but not essential either, so can be symbolically removed to show allegiance
? But research seems to contradict that.

I am against any body modification without consent. Anyone who wants to be circumcised can surely do so ar 16+. I also don't agree with sticking small metal bars into babies and young children. I am pretty sure I have had 14 piercings in my life, so certainly not against it, I just did all of them understanding what was going to happen.

@AliasGrace47
Yes, I understand that religion is about ritual, etc so why cant they replace the act with something symbolic but non physical - like a special ceremony, complete with all the meaning and weight of other sacraments/events but one that avoids cutting the baby. It is not beyond the scope of faiths to have special prayers that give the same gravitas and meaning to an event in the way say, confirmation is done, that can then be respected within the community and strengthen its bonds.

Thanks it’s genuinely something I’ve never understood as it appears to me to be critical of a creator.

IDGAF about “practicalities” and moral arguments. Moral relativism has no place in a civilised society. The whole aim of FGM is to mutilate girls and deprive them
of any sexual sensations. There is NO real or perceived benefit. At least with male circumcision the intent is to make the male “clean” (there is some evidence that cervical cancer rates are lower in Jewish women possibly owing to males bring circumcised) rather than to deprive and control them.

Also - you appreciate that lifelong complications are rare with male circumcision but they are guaranteed for ALL females undergoing FGM - can you really not see the difference here?

I am a white 'Christian' with two brothers who are both circumcised. Both have experienced problems as a result into adulthood. My objections are nothing to do with religion. They are to do with performing unnecessary procedures on babies, whatever their skin colour or religion.

For both males and females, their genitals are being mutilated largely by unqualified, non-medical people, all in the name of culture/religion.

Its an area which is even more susceptible to infection due to being covered, warmth, moisture and bacteria from urine etc.

They should both be illegal and only performed by a medical professional at 16 years old with consent

I agree. Unless there's a real medical need, any body mutilation, be it circumcision, FGM, ear piercing etc, should be banned. It's not right that a baby/child's body is altered, sometimes irreparably, without their consent.

Also - you appreciate that lifelong complications are rare with male circumcision but they are guaranteed for ALL females undergoing FGM - can you really not see the difference here?

I've posted a couple of links to info on different methods of FGM upthread. There are varying methods and degrees. From a needleprick to clitoridectomy to the very extreme infibulation etc.

Exactly.

I can see what you mean.... also as @shuggles posted, Class IV (pricking) is less extreme than circumcision. But it seems that the majority does involve some fairly drastic injury to the clitoris.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47131052
(This article is good on the 4 types & reason s)
The motive for a lot of FGM is to stop sexual pleasure, bc of beliefs about control & sin. Spurious health & cleanliness reasons can figure too.While health & cleanliness reasons can be cited for circumcision, they seem debatable at best as a reason to do it to infants, & there does seem to be a definite aim to control sexual pleasure underlying male circumsion, at least in some cases & contexts.
Ultimately, I agree w both your posts: the key thing is that no infant should have their genitals mutilated. What a world, where we have to spell that out... What if we used the term MGM? Often female circumcision was called that to downplay it, but perhaps instead the severity of the male procedure should be emphasised?

I agree.

I will die on the hill that any person who allows their child to be circumcised, for non medical reasons, is a child abuser. How any mother can willingly allow their child to be mutilated is beyond me, it’s absolutely vile and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself

I disagree with you. Severe forms of FGM are common in many African and Asian countries.

Male circumcision has positive outcomes - the WHO recommend it to reduce the transmission of HIV - again - there are NO positives to female circumcision no matter how “minor” it is.

It really makes me so sad the way so many women are prepared to stand up for males for spurious reasons and whataboutery whilst women and girls the world over are fucked over minute by minute.

On the 15squared linked earlier website men who had it done in the 50s say preventing masturbation was a reason given. Also, on a Jewish subreddit I've looked at sometimes, some unhappy ex-Hasidics said they had heard that circumcision was to prevent men getting distracted by sex from their religious duties. Disclaimer: I don't know how widespread that reason is, or even if it's accurate, it was just a few reddit posts.
In Freud's Vienna, & other parts of Europe, women labelled hysterical, incl ones who masturbated, could have their clitoris removed as a treatment, as Steinem has pointed out. (Remember, Freud said a woman who had clitoral orgasms was 'immature'!) The more you look, the more you see common motivations to control sexualiry underlying both practices.

Inflicting pain and suffering for no good reason and with no consent is fucking barbaric, male or female.

Hiding behind religion to justify it is no excuse.

I always thought as well as the covenant, the real reason for male circumsicion was for infection control (in ancient times). Young boys are prone to getting infections. Remember those in Biblical times were living in hot climates with limited hygiene. Antibiotics did not exist, therefore it was safer to circumcise when a young baby. That’s a social historical view rather than scripture though. However, if you think of many scriptural rules they are to do with health and safety.

Well the issue is that many believers read their Holy Book as the word of God or at least inspired by God, so why would God have let this mistake continue & cause harm for so long if they didn't want it to happen? I think if I were Jewish I would rationalise that it must be a mistake or distortion as I can't believe a loving God would be so brutal. Otoh Muslims have an easier way to reinterpret as the Hadith & Sunnah are accounts of Muhammad's life, whose authenticity is sometimes disputed in various ways. Only the Quran is taken as the word of God.

FFS. Why are you so determined to push the narrative that males have it just as bad as females?

Find me practices comparable to Indian suttee or Chinese foot binding. They don’t exist. Women and girls are systematically and continually abused in the name of religion and culture - the harm inflicted on males comes no where close.