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).

It's recommended by WHO for HIV prevention.

So what's the cut off age?

This my take. DH is from a Catholic family in the Midwest.

It is 100% a given where he comes from and he likes it - who am I as a British, atheist woman to tell him he’s wrong?

Someone here is very upset that I’m not upset about it but I’m not going to lie, as a partner I do much prefer it to the alternative. So what?

As it is absolutely nothing like FGM on any level I can’t see that it matters at all what my preferences are. I certainly never said that it was a reason to do it!

Literally nobody is comparing the two. Other than the arseholes who are twisting what she wrote. All those quibbling over her calling it male genital mutilation MGM. ( it absolutely is) that somehow that acronym minimises what females go through. Nonsense. Not one person on this thread has suggested it.

You could view it (as I do) that refusing to recognise that MGM is the proper term is minimising the awful effect it has on males.

You should be ashamed

This. You cannot compare this to FGM!!

Men can still feel and function normally after circumcision.. Women are maimed after FGM.

How many men standing up against MGM is enough for you to take it seriously? Many organisations exist.

How do you feel about the cold hard fact that there has never been a man in history who can compare what it would be like to have and have not been circumcised as a baby?

Can you think of any other circumstances where babies have body parts cut off despite precisely zero medical necessity and you think it's OK?

It is perfectly reasonable to compare -

1/ Cutting bits of male genitalia off despite no medical necessity
and
2/ Cutting bits of female genitalia off despite no medical necessity
and
3/ Cutting other bits of male / female bodies off despite no medical necessity

The fact that 3 doesn't happen as far as I am aware is a damn good reason to not do 1.

The fact that 2 is much much worse than 1 is utterly irrelevant other than to suggest that campaigning to end 2 is more important than campaigning to end 1.

My husband does not see it as having harm inflicted on him, I’m not going to disagree with him, someone who has lived with the procedure his whole life.

I think he’s in a far better position to decide what’s right for him than a random woman on the internet.

If I expressed anger, distaste or sorrow at a procedure he’s never given a moment’s thought to beyond enjoying the cultural benefits and physical results that would be weird.

I’m a woman, I don’t feel I know enough about what its like to have a male body to have an opinion on it, and if I had a son I would have him circumcised if my husband wanted it for him. Not having had a son its not something we’ve ever discussed.

Well a lot more. And given that men have most of the power in the world - esp in countries where circumcision is common - I figure when there are enough of them, this is something they can sort out for themselves.

Exactly. Why does FGM need to be co-opted for this?

I’d be interested in the views of the “it’s cleaner and healthier”people on the fact that circumcision is practically never done in Scandinavia except by the small Jewish and Muslim community.

This thread is about MGM. Why are you co-opting a thread about MGM to talk about FGM?

Exactly. If it was mutilation it wouldn’t still be the norm in many societies thoughout the world, men would just have put an end to it centuries ago.

Men have things the way they want them, and they don’t campaign against it because it isn’t a problem. If they wanted it stopped it would stop, just like that, no campaigning necessary, because they’re men.

Surely you can understand that cutting body parts off babies despite no medical necessity is 100% evil and always wrong?

This thread is shocking

Why Scandi specifically?

Exactly. Like the fact there is no MCP.

Incidentally, my concern about the comparison to FGM is that, while I agree they are both unacceptable, the comparison can minimise the impact of FGM. It is possible to take the view that if many men are circumcised with minimal pain and no long term consequences, what are women going on about?

AI overview "The effect of circumcision on penile sensitivity is complex and debated, with studies showing mixed results, but the overall scientific consensus from high-quality evidence is that medical circumcision has no or minimal adverse effect on sexual function or sensation. Some studies show a decrease in fine-touch sensitivity in the glans, but this does not necessarily translate to reduced sexual pleasure or function, with many men reporting satisfaction and no significant changes"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: The sensitivity of the foreskin and its importance in erogenous sensitivity is widely debated and controversial. This is part of the actual public debate on circumcision for non-medical reason. Today some studies on the effect of circumcision on sexual function are available. However they vary widely in outcome. The present study shows in a large cohort of men, based on self-assessment, that the foreskin has erogenous sensitivity. It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, which means that after circumcision genital sensitivity is lost. In the debate on clitoral surgery the proven loss of sensitivity has been the strongest argument to change medical practice. In the present study there is strong evidence on the erogenous sensitivity of the foreskin. This knowledge hopefully can help doctors and patients in their decision on circumcision for non-medical reason.

Now all the pro-MGMers on this thread have a bit of an indication that the best case is relatively neutral and the worst is negative, can we all agree that no decent and well informed parent would choose to cut parts of their baby's body off without medical necessity?

Eh?

Why are you conflicted?

Mutilate a newborn baby, or teach them about condom use when they're old enough to have sex?

Awkward conversation. Better to cut part of their penis off.

That's such a dim question it's hard to know where to begin. Are you taking about today? Historically? Are you seriously trying to compare the health issues of modern day Swedes with those of (fe) Nigerians? Or do you want to know why sexually transmitted diseases are more prolific the closer you get to the equator?

Because they are developed countries with a very high standard of health care- and practically no circumcision for non cultural reasons. I don’t know if there are any others- but I actually looked Scandinavia up a couple of weeks ago!

Why is it a dim question? I’m talking about today. And I wasn’t aware that people talking about the health benefits on this thread are talking about benefits to men in sub Saharan Africa who refuse to use condoms!

When we’re talking about foreskin, no I don’t think its ‘always wrong’ or ‘mutilation’, but its ultimately for men to decide whether to continue the tradition.

My DH says his feeling of cultural correctness and cleanliness outweighs any reservations about ‘cutting off babies body parts’, when he feels he is missing nothing.

Women who know nothing about it can get as upset about it as they like, if they want to waste time and energy that could be better channelled.

I agree that this thread is shocking, but I don’t agree with the reason you think it it is.

Exactly

an oft quoted statement on here is that “the only level of acceptable abuse is zero” and women are frequently told that just because one form of abuse isn’t as bad as another does not make it acceptable.

circumcision is not as bad as FGM. It is, however, still a form of mutilation carried out on a child who is unable to consent.