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'll admit I haven't given much thought to the mechanics and logistics of how you'd ban or stop it.

The incidence for medical reasons has fallen in the UK, and it's falling in the US, where it seems to be largely culturally driven. (Abetted by healthcare firms who profit from it).

I expect both religious and cultural drivers need to be addressed.

Obviously you can't go in depth with every conversation you've had about it, but it comes across that no consideration is made- circumcision is just done.

For myself reading this, its the same 'reason"why women who have undergone FGM arrange for their daughters to undergo it as well. Its 'the done thing'.

In terms of a sense of belonging, tribes around the world that practice body modification (scarification, tattoos, the lip plates), they waited until the child hits puberty/adolescent. The tribes that stretch their necks with plates start at around 5 years. I may be wrong but i think a lot of these tribes do circumcise but they are not babies, usually older boys that tell them when they are ready. Not sure about FGM in tribes though.

There's a very small number that inflict anything painful on a baby, so why is circumcision so normalised on an infants that can't express how they are feeling- not all parents have the intuition to pick up on early warning signs of infection. I also don't understand why cutting genitals can legally be done by a unqualified person with no medical training.

Hitchens in that clip directly blames religion for genital mutilation. Saying it makes good people do bad things, to paraphrase.

It's unclear to me whether religion is always the main driver, or whether it's cultural, and/or whether either or both are being used as an excuse for abuse.

I'd say the opposite - that a cut penis spends a lifetime rubbing up against pants etc and has much less sensation than one that is usually protected.

Edit: Oddly, the post I was replying to hasn't been quoted when the reply posted - it suggested that perhaps being cut was a benefit as it increased sensitivity.

The person who did It is a consultant surgeon in a large teaching hospital as are virtually all the people who do it. I am yet to come across someone who isn’t a medical professional although they may exist. I think that’s really important to clarify

Sorry, i wasn't aiming that last part at you.

I have some friends where circumcision is part of their religion and they informed me that a lot of parents use a non-medically trained person, due to not being able to afford to get it done professionally, or not educated enough to understand the risk of that choice. It may be down to where you live and who you know. Saying that, about 10 years ago a baby died after haemorraging and that had been performed at a GP surgery. So even if parents do seek a medically trained person then they are trusting them to know what they are doing.

I don't agree with circumcision for religious/cultural reasons but I don't think we can ban it, as it will just get done underground. Maybe religious leaders need to be involved in educating their followers in risks and where to get it done. It needs to be regulated so that only professionals trained in urology can do the procedure.

I sort of agree but there are times where it is a grey area. What about a child with protruding ears?

Pinning isn't medically necessary but might have a huge psychological effect.

The same with mole or birthmark removal.

That would be easy. Laws already exist which seek to punish people who harm children..

As I said, it would still be done, banned or not. It would be seen as even more vital to continue. The person allowed to carry out circumcision, would go to the family’s home and do it there. It will be very difficult to police .

It would be hard to police just as other forms of child abuse within the family are hard to detect. It doesn’t mean you don’t legislate against them. Reasonable parents would comply.

Totally agree.

No one has the right to abuse.

Illegal circumcisions would be noticed- and that matter needs to be reported to social services and police.
If it seems a number of illegal circumcisions are clustered around a place of worship then they would be also held accountable.

Lots of things are difficult to police. Doesn't mean you don't legislate against them anyway. If it stops only half of these abusive procedures happening, that's worth it.

@sashh I sort of agree but there are times where it is a grey area. What about a child with protruding ears? Pinning isn't medically necessary but might have a huge psychological effect. The same with mole or birthmark removal.

Well yes, pinning protruding ears or removing moles could arguably improve a child's emotional well-being if they are bothered by their appearance. Granted that it's wrong we live in a society in which children can be made to feel that way, but regardless, that does not invalidate the child's feelings.

None of this is relevant to circumcision because men generally don't walk around with their penis hanging out, so no one else sees it during daily life.

Which do women prefer?

• Sex with a circumcised man , or
• Sex with an uncircumcised man ?

This thread is about babies. Away you go.

No one is talking about men. They're talking about babies. Are you always weird?

Why?

Sorry, it was late last night & I was too curt. I wasn't questioning your opinion on it, you've been v clear how awful it is. What I meant was that in one of your earlier posts you said 'FGM varies enormously, from minor cutting that seems v comparable to male circumcision in terms of being a skin removal procedure' & 'the more extreme types are by far in the minority internationally'.

A lot of people were referring to infibulation (type 3) as the extreme type, so I get that you were responding to that, but I wanted to emphasise that Type 1 & 2 (85% worldwide) are not normally 'minor cutting' and a 'skim removal procedure.' Type 1 can be just the prepuce but can also be total clitoridectomy, & Type 2 includes at least partial removal of the labia minora & sometimes majora as well either partial or total clitoridectomy. They both heighten risks in future childbirth, which is again not comparable to circumcision. From the problems caused worldwide & the concern of charities etc I think it's unlikely that most of the procedures worldwide are milder Type 1 w removal of prepuce.

You also mentioned Type 4, pricking, to counter pp who said FGM is always comparable to castration & always has severe complications. While I agree it's not always as serious as clitoridectomy or infibulation, Type 4 only comprises 15% worldwide. All other FGM, 85%, involves the removal of at least some of the clitoris, & v often risks future birth complications. I don't want to derail from circumcision, I just want to clarify the details as it is very important that they are clear.

. . . Why not ? - why not talk about the impact of the circumcision of male babies on the adult life of both the men and their partners.

Male babies become men, and we're talking about an operation that may make their adult life more enjoyable, or less enjoyable, both for them and for their partners.

It's barbaric, unless for medical reasons nothing will convince me of anything else

It's not on par with FGM but it's not that far off

Do it for religious reasons when the child/adult is 18 if you're so inclined

Parents stop cutting your babies & young children

• spelling

@AliasGrace47 Why do you feel that it is so important to distinguish between genital cutting in men and women? It serves absolutely no purpose except for you to be able to say "women have it worse."

When you start distinguishing between different types of cutting to say "X is not as bad as Y," that is used to normalise a range of different types of cutting in both boys and girls. Whereas if you, and the wider public, simply adopted common sense and said "unnecessary surgery should not be performed on infants' genitals," then it would help to create a stigma around the practice.

None of your business

Yes, I agree with all of that. And at that point in the discussion I didn't have info on the proportion of the different types.

That's not relevant at all.
I find you wanting to discuss that on a thread about the ethical issues very questionable. Maybe start your own thread on the sex board.

"Which do women prefer?

• Sex with a circumcised man , or
• Sex with an uncircumcised man ?"

How misandrist. Imagine if someone asked whether men prefer sex with multilated or unmutilated women?

Although to be fair the original question was onc e a plotline for charlotte in sex in the city...

@Walkden I completely forgot about that! Holy shit, I wonder (not googling) if it's still the norm in the U.S.?