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).

I don't recall DH ever having a conversation with DS about washing penises. I didn't have one with DD about Vulvas either
And yet they both seem to be quite hygenic

Why would it be embarrassing you do it since they are tiny no different to wiping their bum. I suppose men don't change their daughter's either

(1) You never had anything cut off.

(2) I would be happy to see cosmetic surgery banned, certainly on under 18s or under 25s.

(3) I think that there is an argument that sticky out ears and benign tumours and birthmarks or large scars are "defects". In contrast a foreskin or a clitoris or an intact ear is not a defect. I think there is an argument that cosmetic surgery to correct defects is OK but other cosmetic surgery is not.

(4) I would rather ban the pinning back of kids ears than allow MGM or FGM.

They actually don't feel normally if circumcised - the head of the penis gets less sensitive due to constantly being exposed.

Of course it should be illegal, and to hell with cultural or religious traditions.

(It’s of a lesser order of abuse than FGM because it isn't inherently about control, and based on ingrained sexual antipathy. FGM is far more complex a crime)

But circumcision is still a practice which shames its practitioners and reflects very poorly on any civilised, secular nation permitting it.

Incidentally my MIL, from an upper middle class family considered circumcision to be a class thing and a sign that you were posh. She was right in that until recently it was standard practice in the British upper classes. The king was circumcised but William and Harry are not.

Harry seems to think otherwise in his book "Spare"

Would you mind expanding on this for those who don't have the book?

He says a couple of times that he and his brother have been circ'ed

Thanks to all who've commented and voted so far.

Regarding some comments I've received, I did not compare MGM to FGM. I didn't say one was a more pressing concern than the other. I think that non-medical circumcisions are abuse in those who are too young to consent.

I find the points regarding ear piercing interesting. It is a body automation. However, there's a difference between an infant having it done and a 12 year old who has ASKED for it to be done. Ear piercings don't cause problems in the way that tattoos do and ofcourse there isn't the aggravating factor of it being in a sensitive (mentally) area, as is the case with non-medical circumcisions.

It would be good to hear from more husbands who have no foreskin and how they feel about having a part of their body missing, or do they find it irrelevant in their life and who they are?

But even the Jewish community are moving away from it. I doubt any orthodox would but Brit Shalom does exist, it is basically the same celebration without a knife.

Even if the parents don't object if the baby boy is not healthy on the day (6th or 7th I think) then it doesn't happen.

So a Jewish boy who spend his first few days in NICU will be uncircumcised.

I agree with you and think it’s dreadful. But it’s not like FGM.

I don’t protest outside Claire’s about children’s ear piercing. I also don’t protest outside hospitals or places of worship about male child circumcision. I do think both are wrong though.

There's a big difference though, ear piercing is not necessarily permanent, foreskin removal is

I agree @randomchap

Even if the parents don't object if the baby boy is not healthy on the day (6th or 7th I think) then it doesn't happen.
So a Jewish boy who spend his first few days in NICU will be uncircumcised.

No idea where you got that from - you do the brit when the child recovers. I knew a ultra-orthodox couple whose child couldn't have it until 6 months old due to medical problems. They got some funny looks at the doctors. I've never heard of anyone in the UK doing a brit shalom.

Of course I belive FGM is barbaric and obviously wrong and have no hesitation in saying this to any anyone of any nationality or culture. But to tell the billions of Muslims and Jews who do believe in male circumcision that they are wrong, would be whistling in the wind

I do not personally agree with male circumcision but my partner, his family and his culture do. How do I persuade them otherwise?

Not comparable at all.

Thanks to all who voted. Out of a whopping total of 633 votes, 87% of people thought that it's not unreasonable to believe this is abuse.

And 99% thought ‘not this again!’ and scrolled past without voting?

When the 87% are circumcised men then you'll be exactly right @BigFatBully .

It's a mothering forum primarily, so that was never going to happen on here but good to hear some input from husbands via their wives on the matter.

All of my partners have been un-circumcised, which tends to be the norm in European countries. According to The British Medical Journal - The joy of uncircumcising | The BMJ, circumcision has been used as a treatment for masturbation, which would suggest that it has an impact on the patient's sex life as an adult, by having a limited sensation in that area. There are quite a lot of articles online from men who have regretted and even resented their circumcision and try to "restore" their foreskin in adulthood.

We are 25 years old as a forum, it's quite likely that we've ran threads in the past but that doesn't mean new discussions cannot be had. How many times has fox hunting been debated?

I completely agree. People defend solely because it’s part of our culture (to an extent.)

But it’s absolutely reprehensible. And it is MGM. If adult males want to choose that - fine. But leave male children alone.