Struggling with response to friend re circumcision

[cultureclash]

A close friend of mine gave birth a week ago and she messaged me yesterday to tell me that her son has just been circumcised with crying faces and that she is an emotional wreck. I was shocked at this as it’s not something we have ever spoke about before so I enquired as to is her son ok and did he have some medical issues and she said no, cultural reasons. I kept the responses short and factual but Aibu that I struggled to show any compassion or empathy for her that she has just paid over £200 to have bits chopped off her precious newborn baby and she is more upset for herself than the pain that she has just put her newborn infant through. I am suprised at how strongly I have reacted to this, I just cannot imagine doing this to my baby. Aibu to feel like this? I obviously would never voice my opinions to her and cause upset but I am struggling with my own emotions around this.

It surely does if the question has people bristling like this

The effects of male circumcision are not the same as FGM, I agree it's very bad though.

You could argue type 4 FGM is less bad as that involves a nick, but this tends to escalate to the other types. FGM is more severe as it involves removing part or all of the clitoris, it's more akin to castration.

An important point with the more minor forms of FGM is that they often escalate to worse. Especially type 4, which is the one some people on this thread are referring to when they say 'sometimes it's just a nick'.

It is abusive imo, but it's not necessary or helpful to equate it to FGM. Circumcision does not usually cause sexual, reproductive problems as FGM does. It is not done to prevent sexual pleasure either

If you mean type 4, nicking, the point with that is that it generally escalates to type 1, 2 or 3. Type 1 is removal of clitoral hood, but I don't think clitoris should be compared to foreskin as it's the main organ of sexual pleasure in the way the foreskin is not.

I fully agree circumcision of baby boys I'd completely wrong

No, Jewish boys are circumcised as babies in the Brit Milah ceremony.

Exactly, Jewish people and Muslim people aren't monoliths. Especially as many Jews esp are less religious.

The reason circumcision has been encouraged by WHO in Africa has been to guard against AIDS, but yes, the fact many already were circumcised makes one question the effect of this.

That was an unlicensed one without probably little medical training. A big problem is it's very unregulated.

It’s abuse and mutilation unless it’s for medical reasons. Disgusting practice. I’ll bet your friend has been coerced by her husband and his family into doing this. I wouldn’t be able to keep my cool. I find it disgusting and barbaric.

"That was an unlicensed one without probably little medical training. A big problem is it's very unregulated."

Which is also true of every fgm ever performed since it illegal worldwide. No one would suggest it would be ok if it was done in a hospital instead.

The fact that it is legal to perform this surgery on baby boys in someone's house shows how little legal protection boys have compared to girls.

And I think everyone can agree that this case illustrates harms of cicumcision.

No context here. How old is the kid and eho auyhorised it?

I don't agree with circumcision.
I don't think this difference is due to boys being less valued though.
One factor is that two major world religions practise it, FGM is not mentioned in any major scripture so it was easier to get religions on board with bans. A male circumcision ban would cause huge protests from Muslims and Jews.
Another reason is that circumcision was perceived to have rare complications, and men who'd been circumcised were generally (arguably often wrongly) believed to be OK with it. Whereas women who'd undergone FGM were more likely to speak out because the effects were more likely to be severe. Even with FGM, the government took ages to act.

Eh, no? Why would I be ok with one doing it and not another

Thats quite the assumption!

As someone wholly against the bodily modification/mutilation of babies, i would never have got my children's ears pierced, and in fact told them they couldn't until they were at least 12 (they've since lost interest in having it done).

In regards to pp mentioning vaccines, I vaccinated my children, but that was because the alternative was them catching measles, mumps, whooping cough, and chicken pox, all of which are still too common where I live, or dying of meningitis. It was medically beneficial.

In 99% of cases, circumcision introduces serious risk with no benefit, and causes damage to a child's sexual organ. So yes, I'm going to judge.

If we're going to make unfounded assumptions about other posters, I wonder how many posters who are unbothered by circumcision are strongly against smacking their child as discipline?

I understand that in practise, it's usually much worse.

But my point is, even if it was just removing the clitoral hood (an equivalent amputation) in surgical conditions I think westerners would be horrified and consider it barbaric. Even though it's the same sort of thing, and, I imagine, would cause similar degrees of desensitisation.

The only reason they're not horrified by circumcision is because it's been normalised.

@Carla786 If you mean type 4, nicking, the point with that is that it generally escalates to type 1, 2 or 3.

No. Different cultures perform different types of cut. It's not as if there's one universal type of cutting which everyone in the world follows. The different cuts performed by different cultures are classified as 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Same with circumcision. The type of cut varies between different cultures, which vary in severity and outcomes. Some cultures go even further than circumcision and do penis subincision (don't Google that one while you're eating) among other different types of cutting.

Yet, no outcry about either circumcision or subincision, despite being more severe than many forms of FGM. Why?

Type 1 is removal of clitoral hood, but I don't think clitoris should be compared to foreskin as it's the main organ of sexual pleasure in the way the foreskin is not.

Clitoral hood = foreskin.
Clitoris = head of penis.

So I think it is fair to draw a direct comparison between the foreskin and clitoral hood.

Male circumcision isn’t done to control boys either. It’s done because men think their sons ‘should’ be done. They don’t feel they have been badly impacted by it. They can’t imagine it being different from how it is.

But not to control their Dc or their ability to enjoy sex.

Yes, it's very sad so many fathers push for this...

It's genital mutilation and usually done without anesthetic. You're allowed to lack empathy. Although it's pretty standard in the US, it's rarely done in the UK unless for religious reasons.

I suspect it will be considered as horrifying as female genital mutilation in the future.

Oh for goodness sake , lets have a world where parents don't have a right to snip bits off their kids or poke holes in their ears. If those 'kids' want to modify their bodies later on in life , say after the age of 18, then that is up to them. Don't take that choice off off them before they are sble to decide for themselves what they want to do with their own bodies.

And I wonder how many men decide to get circumcised (excluding medical reasons, and occasional religious conversion reasons) as adults. I have to guess that number would be pretty well zero.

I'm pretty sure not a single adult man has needed to remove his foreskin because he's so bad at rolling it back and washing beneath it, and I'm also pretty sure that none have decided to be circumcised and raw-dog every sexual partner they have because of the somewhat lower STI rates.

So a parent choosing non-medical circumcision for their baby is inflicting unnecessary damage on their genitals that the child wouldn't even choose as an adult, if given that choice. It's barbaric.

Multiple, Judea based cultures. I mean, the Jewish religion quite famously.

This is a difficult one for me, because although I wouldn't have been able to agree to my son being circumcised, I do think that from a female perspective, circumcision is preferable when it comes to sexual partners. There are fewer issues around hygiene and, at the risk of sounding like Charlotte in Sex and the City, it is also more aesthetically pleasing too. So in your position OP, I think I'd try to suspend my revulsion and be supportive to your friend and try to understand her reasons for allowing it.

I'm absolutely against any hacking bits off children unless there is a good medical reason. Little boys have died from the complications of circumsision. There is no benefit from the practice.