Can we please talk about Male Circumcision?

[KaseyM]

It seems to be an undeniable truth that whenever there is a thread about, well anything to do with the inustices that women face in the world, it will usually turn back into a conversation about the injustices that men face in the world, one of them being male circumcision.

I get the impression that those coming on here saying "well what about male circumcision" in that lovely WATM way actually believe that feminists either a) invented male circumcision or b) approve of it.

So, just for the record and so that in future we can direct any further derailings to this can we state categorically once and for all each of our individual positions on Male Circumcision.

So I'll start: I disagree with it 100%.

Anyone else?

[SamG76]

Urbandad - it's also because circumcision is currently legal, and those who are happy with the status quo tend to be less vocal. I'm Jewish and had a bris for my DSs (as did all my friends who still consider themselves Jewish) but I don't go around telling everyone else to do it. It's not a big deal, in contrast to FGM.

[MistressDeeCee]

I dont disagree with male circumcision. As a preference, I wont sleep with an uncircumsided man. Just my opinion, I understand if others feel differently but as far as Im aware, men arent protesting about undergoing circumcision at a young age. There are some benefits..apparently..(which I wont go into here!)

I am anti female-circumcision as the primary objective to completely take away a woman's enjoyment of sex. Not so for men.

[BasilCranberrySauceEater]

UrbanDad, it's because feminists tend not to hold much truck with the arguments of patriarchal excesses that it's existed for thousands of years and therefore it's OK. If we did, then we'd have to accept that seeing as how sexism has existed for thousands of years, it's OK as well. And slavery of course.

[UrbanDad]

It's all one way on this thread which comes as something of a relief.

Where's the shouty, indignant religious nut talking about how "circumcision is a 3,000 year old part of their tradition and incidentally has a real health benefit" when you need one? Maybe they know deep down they're wrong or maybe they post self-righteous threads on religious websites where they all agree that [insert Deity here] said child genital mutilation is A-OK with him.

[FloraFox]

I'm not going to click on the AVFM link but you have to laugh at the link title: why-do-some-of-londons-most-powerful-feminists-refuse-to-save-boys-from-genital-mutilation

It is so utterly typical of MRAs not to want to do any actual political lobbying but would rather complain about how feminists are not doing their work for them.

[MistAllChuckingFrighty]

Who noo ?

Them male rights activists are lazy bastards that want women to do their shit work for them.

[scallopsrmissingAnyFucker]

"type 3 FGM is worse than male circumcision. I agree with that 100%" You really have no idea what you are talking about. And you are being offensive.

Feminists are not responsible for male circumcision. Feminists are not responsible for female genital mutilation. Men on the other hand are responsible for both. Men also have the power to do something about it. So while you are lobbying for the removal of male circumcision can you lobby for the removal of FGM too. Then we'll all be happy.

[TheCrackFox]

Maybe the powerful London feminists should demand that two huge, global religions, exclusively run by men, should put a stop to male circumcision? Or maybe, just maybe men could organise their own lobbying?

[grimbletart]

When feminists campaign for anything we sign petitions, we write letters, we march, we hold protests etc. Most of us here will have done things like that.

Where are the men signing petitions, writing letters, marching, holding protests against male circumcision? Don't men care enough or are they expecting us to do that as well - just another form of wifework maybe?

For the record, like all the feminists on here I am opposed to male circumcision.

improve: what are you personally actually doing about getting male circumcision banned apart from arguing on FWR?

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

"London's most powerful feminists"

Mmmm...are they in here??

[TheDoctrineOfWho]

Should I point out that, even within that quote, if removal of the foreskin is compared to a partial clitoridectomy, that is within the definition of Type I, not of Type II?

See WHO

Or shall I just shake my fist some more?

[TheDoctrineOfWho]

The only feminist mentioned in the article is Sarah Sands of the Evening Standard, who apparently has blood on her hands for, err...campaigning against FGM.

Damn you, matriarchy!

[BasilDalekEater]

LOL

"London's most powerful feminists"?

Whodat?

I just LOVE the way it's feminists in London (powerful ones, apparently) who are responsible for stopping this.

Not men.

No, no, never men.

Not the men who run the health service, parliament and the religions which advocate this.

It's women's job to run their campaigns for them. In between giving them blowjobs, cleaning their houses and wiping their arses of course.

[CaptChaos]

So silly of me, entering into a discussion with the terminally obtuse. A link from AVfM?

[TheDoctrineOfWho]

Oh goddess, I'm going to be sick.

[improveprofilee]

type 3 FGM is worse than male circumcision. I agree with that 100%.

[BasilDalekEater]

So have you lobbied the male-led groups who promote male circumcision, Improve?

Or do you just post endlessly about it on a site where most people agree with you but refuse to prioritise it because what is happening to women is worse?

[improveprofilee]

www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-health/circumcision-is-a-universal-horror-so-why-do-some-of-londons-most-powerful-feminists-refuse-to-save-boys-from-genital-mutilation/

Leading US website Not Just Skin note that: ‘Female circumcision is typically viewed as more horrific than male circumcision because it is usually done under unhygienic conditions rather than in a hospital, and because one form of female circumcision, infibulation, is particularly severe. However, both male and female circumcisions are classed as genital mutilation by the International Coalition for Genital Integrity.

‘Both forms of circumcision remove functional, normal tissue, cause extreme pain, permanently disfigure the genitals, and permanently damage the sexual response. And in most cultures where female circumcision is performed, male circumcision is also performed with equally unhygienic instruments. Regardless of the child’s gender, when done to infants or children, unnecessary genital surgeries violate human rights because they are amputations performed without medical need and without the individual’s consent.

‘The World Health Organization recognizes three types of female circumcision. Type I removes the clitoral hood and/or the clitoral tip. Type II removes the clitoral hood, clitoris, and part or all of the labia. Type III, also known as infibulation or pharaonic circumcision, involves removal of all external female genitalia and suturing of the vaginal opening. Male circumcision can be compared to type I or II female circumcision. Although the glans is not harmed at the time of circumcision, the loss of protective structures causes it to dry out and lose sensitivity over time. It is also important to note that most of the nerves and pleasure receptors present in the clitoris are, in the male, present in the foreskin and its associated structure, the frenulum. Removal of these nerves constitutes a loss that can be most adequately compared to a partial clitoridectomy.’

[BasilDalekEater]

So have you lobbied the Muslim Council of Great Britain and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Improvefilee?

I think you'll find they have more influence in whether or not this goes on, than feminists do.

You could have a look at their breadown as well and find out what the male: female ratio is.

[improveprofilee]

And I think it's a safe bet to say if a man is going to have sex with a stranger it's far safer to have a foreskin and use a condom than to have no foreskin and no condom.

[improveprofilee]

Well now we do have condoms and penicillin.

In most cases of circumcision it isn't for medical reasons, and in some cases where "medical reasons" are claimed there are now alternatives. If the foreskin is too tight or something it can be now be helped by the use of creams and gentle stretching instead of just having it removed.

Not long ago the city of Cologne, Germany banned the practice on baby boys on the grounds it was barbaric. However they will allow it if it is for medical reasons and adult men who want it done for themselves can still do so.

[CaptChaos]

Well even if that was true, so do the use of condoms.

It is true, sorry about that.

You know babies with no appendix tend not to suffer from appendicitis, so should all children undergo this surgery too? I think you will find that UNICEF only offer circumcisions in countries that are suffering from AIDS epidemics (African countries) but are open about the fact that it is not a cure and only part of AIDS prevention campaign in targeted countries. These are countries where condoms are not easily used or affordable.

You know that before the advent of penicillin, they used to routinely remove a young child's appendix, adenoids and tonsils, don't you? Prevention being felt to be better than cure. I am very aware of where UNICEF are working, and their reasoning for their work there. The foreskins of African men are being removed, not for a medical reason, but in order to help prevent the spread of a disease which is killing thousands. Is this form of 'not for a medical need' circumcision ok?

Just once more, for reference, because people seem to want to ignore this. I don't think boys should be circumcised routinely without good cause. However, I don't think it should be outright banned in the same way as FGM should be, because FGM is NEVER carried out for medical reasons, it is ONLY carried out for cultural reasons in order to make girls 'marriageable'. Hope that clears it up.

[CaptChaos]

So maybe we need to be talking to religious men and women.

Or maybe it would be a better idea to talk to the people with the power within those religions as only they have the power to change this. You know, men.

Are you (collective you) still conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the posters on this thread (including myself) are not in favour of circumcision, but that it's just not seen as a feminist issue in the same way as FGM is?

It continues to astound me that MRA types belittle and denigrate every issue that feminists fight for, and yet they want women to fight the battles they feel are important for them.

[TheDoctrineOfWho]

Welcome to FWR, ip and in.

Initial, there's quite a few threads on here about women who don't want their DSes circumcised but are coming under a lot of family pressure to do so. Of course, this site is predominately female posters so it may well happen the other way round too.

[initialname]

'As Sabrina has said, boys tend to be circumcised for religious reasons, none of which are perpetuated by women, so maybe you need to look to men and specifically religious men if you want the practice stopped. Not huge amounts women can do to help to be honest.'

I doubt that religious women have no say in whether their sons are circumcised, in fact, I know that's not the case.

So maybe we need to be talking to religious men and women.