Page 15 | Struggling with response to friend re circumcision

cultureclash · 2026-02-28T09:28:30+00:00

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.

Walkden · 28/10/2026 17:10

"If you think cutting off a bit of the pepuce of a boy's penis is the same as excising clitoris and minor and major labia on a girl then you are wrong"

This is a straw man argument as the poster you quoted did not in any way say that the circumcision is the same as FGM; just that they considered cutting parts from an infant barbaric in both cases.

NavyTurtle · 28/10/2026 19:02

Grammarnut · 28/10/2026 13:49

If you think cutting off a bit of the pepuce of a boy's penis is the same as excising clitoris and minor and major labia on a girl then you are wrong. The circumcision of a boy (necessary or not) does not usually result in death or mutilation or loss of sexual function. FGM (it is wrong to call this barbarity female circumcision) leaves the victim unable to enjoy sex, unable to menstruate or urinate properly or easily, impinges on ability to give birth safely and - since it is often done with filthy razors or scapels - can result in death. Not in the least like circumcising a boy and considerably more barbaric. And the raison d'etre is different as well. A boy is circumcised religiously to mark him as Jewish or Muslim and it has no effect on his fertility or ability to father children and little effect on sexual pleasure (some say it enhances pleasure but I wouldn't know). A girl has her external genitalia removed to stop her having sexual pleasure so that she does not seek it out and it has repercussions on her health for all of her life, often making urination difficult, making sex painful and unpleasant, making childbirth more dangerous. Male circumcision and FGM are not in the same league as far as barbarity and discomfort/dysfunction.
Edited to remove useless qualifier.

Edited

Show quote history

This. 👏

TheCheekyCyanHelper · 28/10/2026 22:30

nomas · 27/10/2026 22:50

Of course they are. one is legal, one is not.

Show quote history

Does the same damage. The majority of fgm merely removes the clitoral hood. Male circumcision removes the foreskin, permanently exposing the glass of penis, causing it to dry out and dulls any sensations.

TheCheekyCyanHelper · 28/10/2026 22:31

Grammarnut · 27/10/2026 23:18

Really, there is a huge difference. Male circumcision involves cutting the pepuce. Female Genital Mutilation means cutting off all or some of the clitoris (the sole purpose of which is to give pleasure, so the idea is to prevent women enjoying sex), removing or sewing up the inner and outer labia, leaving a small hole for urine and menstruation. To have sex the new husband has to cut the scar tissue to get access the vagina. Not in the least comparable to cutting off a bit of skin.

Show quote history

Not true, there are multiple severity of female circumcision, the most common form merely cuts away the hood of the clitorus.

TheignT · Yesterday 06:41

Grammarnut · 28/10/2026 13:49

If you think cutting off a bit of the pepuce of a boy's penis is the same as excising clitoris and minor and major labia on a girl then you are wrong. The circumcision of a boy (necessary or not) does not usually result in death or mutilation or loss of sexual function. FGM (it is wrong to call this barbarity female circumcision) leaves the victim unable to enjoy sex, unable to menstruate or urinate properly or easily, impinges on ability to give birth safely and - since it is often done with filthy razors or scapels - can result in death. Not in the least like circumcising a boy and considerably more barbaric. And the raison d'etre is different as well. A boy is circumcised religiously to mark him as Jewish or Muslim and it has no effect on his fertility or ability to father children and little effect on sexual pleasure (some say it enhances pleasure but I wouldn't know). A girl has her external genitalia removed to stop her having sexual pleasure so that she does not seek it out and it has repercussions on her health for all of her life, often making urination difficult, making sex painful and unpleasant, making childbirth more dangerous. Male circumcision and FGM are not in the same league as far as barbarity and discomfort/dysfunction.
Edited to remove useless qualifier.

Edited

Show quote history

Oh well if it doesn't usually result in death mutilation or loss of sexual function that's ok isn't it. Just out of interest how many baby boys would need to die or be mutilated to make it appropriate to protect boys from this medically unnecessary procedure. Personally I don't think it is ok to take the risk if that figure is anything above zero.