To Think Non-Medically Required Circumcision Is Abuse?

[BigFatBully]

Circumcision of a child if not required for a medical reason is abuse. I don't believe a child can consent to mutilation and it should be for them to decide when they reach adulthood if they want such a procedure.

I don't understand how anyone could take a happy baby who is otherwise healthy and do this to them.

It's male genital mutilation (MGM).

Of course it is.

YABU. Male circumcision is entirely different to FGM.

You minimise the horrific nature of FGM when you compare it to male circumcision.

Unecessary surgical body modifications of any kind in children is abuse and should be illegal

Yes I do.But I do think direct comparison to FGM is inappropriate.

It's a tricky one. I agree, but my husband is circumcised and says he's glad he is.

We only have a dd so far, but I don't think we would get our son circumcised.

Agreed.

YANBU.

But I'm assuming you're very new to Mumsnet as this thread is done so often, and the majority agree with you.

I’m not sure. I never had a boy, never planned on circumcising any son of mine until my younger brother had to have a medically required circumcision at 20 and that was a big ordeal with a horrific recovery, my nephew had one at 8, less of an ordeal than my brother and it made me think that if I’d go on to have a boy I would’ve seriously considered it.

But you would've seriously considered it for medical reasons.

Absolutely. This should include ear piercing in young children too. But I'm sure the 'my child my choice' brigade will be along to tell me I'm wrong.

Yes, circumcision is abuse, and yes it is male genital mutilation. It is also almost never actually medically necessary, although that's often used as a cover.

It's at the milder end of the genital mutilation spectrum, maybe analogous to some forms of type IV FGM. But it's still mutilation, and calling it that doesn't detract from the horrific nature of most FGM.

Why is he glad?

Yes, but I would’ve circumcised my baby as a preventative medical procedure. It ultimately may not have been necessary or it may have saved my child from the embarrassment/discomfort of my nephew and absolute agony of my brother.

He thinks it's cleaner, and prefers the way it looks.

Yeah it's a bit 'Tomayto/Tomato' considering the OP has ruled out medical stuff.

The prevention would've been to prevent a medical problem, so not comparable.

Well he has no choice over how it looks because that was taken away from him.

And how does he think we women clean the folds around our vulvas?

A circumcised penis isn’t any cleaner than an intact one (unless the penis owner is not very good at washing).

That's just his opinion as a circumcised penis-owner 🤷‍♀️

Good job his parents didn't get an earlobe chopped off at birth, as I'd love to know how it might affect his opinion lol.

The overwhelming majority of uncircumcised men never have a problem with their foreskin. My DH is 48, never had a problem with his, and is perfectly clean. If we’d had a son we wouldn’t have circumcised him. Completely unnecessary unless there’s a medical problem.

For non-medical reasons?

Of course it is. There isn't a debate.

Unless medical issues ,you're born with body parts they stay intact that goes for female/male
Genitial mutilation is a barbaric ignorant practice.

If having an ear chopped off was a part of his culture for centuries, then there would probably be a good chance that he'd feel the same. I don't know though 🤷‍♀️.

If he had a foreskin he’d simply need to retract it and wash it and his penis. Very easy to keep clean. Far easier to keep clean than a vulva with its multiple nooks and crannies and clitoral hood/foreskin.

Around 90% of Scandinavian men are uncircumcised.I presume they are mostly clean.