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).

Nobody compared it to fgm. The whataboutery in this place is INSANE at times.

Unnecessary surgery is known as mutilation. No matter what genitals its performed on!

Are there not advantages to circumcision, as listed on wikipedia?
"The procedure is associated with reduced rates of sexually transmitted infections[6] and urinary tract infections.[1][7][8] This includes reducing the incidence of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men in high-risk populations by up to 60%;[9][10] its prophylactic efficacy against HIV transmission in the developed world or among men who have sex with men is debated.[11][12][13] Neonatal circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer.[14] "

Or are the editors of wikipedia biased? e.g. American doctors who make money out of performing the procedure?

The OP didn't mention or make comparison to FGM. But, since YOU have, are you really saying that one kind of abuse not being as bad as another is a good enough reason to accept the first kind without question?

We recognise emotional and financial abuse but still condone cutting live flesh with no medical reason, consent or anaesthetic and excusing it because it's "not as bad as ..." Makes no sense to me.

OP, you're not wrong. It is MGM and I'd suggest the queue for adult males wanting this surgery with no medical reason or anaesthetic would be very short indeed. Calling it MGM absolutely does not minimise FGM. Perhaps if men could remember it being done it would have ended long ago. As it is, we're relying on the fact that we don't form memories at such a young age to convince ourselves we're not being barbaric. We are.

True, these barbaric practices have poisoned the minds of otherwise intelligent adults for centuries.

Just want to ask you again though, if he thinks his penis is cleaner, how does he think you wash the folds around your vulva?

The OP didn't mention or make comparison to FGM.

How disingenuous. She did make the comparison when she called it MGM to reference FGM.

Why pretend otherwise?

Yes there are men who are glad they've had it. There are also women who are glad they've had it and want to inflict it on their daughters. It doesn't stop it being barbaric.

Very true sadly.

I have no idea. We had a brief conversation about it when I was pregnant and I asked him how he felt about being circumcised.

In the developed world all of that is easily mitigated by using condoms, washing the penis and foreskin with soap, and vaccinating against HPV.

@Justlostmybagel Ask him.

Wrong and unnecessary. Can’t imagine deciding on such a permanent and unneeded procedure for my child with zero input from them. It’s not the same as FGM but it’s wrong in its own way.

Indeed. An even more effective protection against penile cancer would be to remove the penis entirely.

My brother and dad were both circumcised for medical reasons and I remember my brother in particular being in pain before having the op but didn’t consider it for my ds. To be fair I also baulked at the gp offering to snip dd’s tongue tie though, I prefer my dc with all of their original parts please.

Why? It's his own opinion about his genitals. He knows vulvas require washing. He just thinks it's easier to keep it clean circumcised. Not that men with uncircumcised penises are all dirtier.

It's not an issue for us either. We won't be getting any sons circumcised.

If you Google, you'll find this has been done to death on MN.

I agree it shouldn't be done but in the current climate I have caution about these threads due to the Religions who practice circumcision and the possibility the thread may be more about that.

Well it is literally genital mutilation according to definitions but it is definitely not not never comparable to FGM, unless you want to call one mutilation and the other destruction. Until that happens we need to be realistic about it. Boys don’t lose use of their penises from circumcision and some parents for religious reasons have to choose it (I assume Judaism, but Islam leaves parental choice as a key factor)

Of course it is. In a few generations we'll look back on it like we now look back on lobotomies.

Religion is still a choice, so no, they don't have to choose to do something so barbaric to their newborn babies.

In this country, it is not the norm for boys to be circumcised - quite rightly. Then there are those who circumcise for religious reasons. For Jews, circumcision is a covenant with God and attempts to outlaw it by the secular majority will only have a poor outcome.

Do none of those sources quoted on the wikipedia page indicate reduced rates of sexually transmitted disease in the developed world? I've not read them, and I'm by no means knowledgeable, though I find the wikipedia is usually quite reasonable in the scientific articles, and the tone of the article is positive towards circumcision - is this one where wikipedia is not to be trusted? Are there alternative studies that find otherwise? I note the NHS doesn't promote circumcision, so I guess the evidence must not be so clear cut (no pun intended).

I'm not pretending anything. Nor am I jumping to conclusions, reading between the lines or making assumptions. You're clearly better qualified for that than I am.

Cutting off live flesh from children for no medical reason, be they male or female children, is barbaric. Should I pretend to not know that you don't agree with that. Would that be just TOO disingenuous?

Other posters have also understood OP was equating male circumcision to FGM by calling it MGM. Because that’s what happens when you use a recognised term for something that happens to females and apply it to men.

Do I take it your ears aren’t pierced?

In the scheme of child abuse, cruelty, neglect and poverty in the UK, its not really worth getting your knickers (or foreskin) in a twist about. I very much doubt you would be able to change the views of Jewish people any more than Muslims. They dont sometimes do it, they ALWAYS do it. Its just different cultures. I have only seen a few but I think foreskins are pretty gross and I wouldnt want to live with one personally. But then what do I know, I live with a Muslim and laser my own body within an inch of its life so am pretty much illegal on mumsnets terms.

The comparison with FGM is utterly puerile. The history, impact and purpose are completely opposed, and it’s frankly offensive to align them.

FGM is about controlling women’s sexuality, intentionally destroying their ability to experience sexual pleasure and ensuring that they won’t seek sexual experiences away from their husbands. It involves extreme and deliberate damage to female bodies and is the ultimate expression of misogyny.

Circumcision evolved as a religious practice because, in a hot climate, it makes sense as a health and hygiene measure and, like prohibitions against pork and shellfish, it was easier to get people to follow health and hygiene advice if you made it religious law. If it had a significant impact on sexual pleasure or performance you can bet that patriarchal societies wouldn’t have continued practising it for centuries. It does, however, have a proven impact on infection rates and is still advised by HIV prevention organisations across Africa. It’s hugely culturally ingrained in the States, and until a generation ago was the absolute norm in the British upper classes. None of that aligns with the idea that it’s mutilation - sadly it’s all too easy to see how mutilation of women is cemented as cultural practice in a patriarchal society, but men less so.

I absolutely get the revulsion at the idea of lopping body parts off a perfect little baby - I didn’t and wouldn’t have my son circumcised. But the exaggerated outcry over it really winds me up.

Mumsnet doesn't like me who do that. 🤣