This house believes that male circumcision is equally deplorable as FGM

Scroll to see replies

My son was born with a condition called hypospadias where his urethral opening was in the wrong place (on the shaft) he had a hooded foreskin (the skin all on top) and chordee (bent penis due to lack of skin underneath).

Although he had absolutely normal function and everything but the chordee would not prohibit sexual function we decided to have him circumcised. (They use the foreskin to rebuild the urethra and reduce chordee). Although it was purely for cosmetic reasons we felt it was the best option and after extensive research discovered it was better psychologically to have the operation done before he became self-aware (18mnths-ish).

Does this count as child abuse because it was cosmetic or is it reasonable because he had an 'abnormal' penis?

This was a medical procedure that you decided upon as his parents to give him a normal appearance and probably better sexual experience. This is absolutely acceptable in my view, as parents there are many difficult decisions to make and I applaud you for considering the timing so kindly. What I am wholeheartedly against is the cutting of childrens genitals for no reason, and culture/tradition/religion counts as 'no reason' in my view.

Reply 141

Georgie_M

Original post by LolaLowe

Yes I guess it just made me question my own beliefs, I think circumcision is utterly wrong and was going to write something along those lines and then realised I had my own son circumcised for cosmetic reasons! I put his age because I know some people are uncomfortable with the consent issue however weighing up the options it seemed best.

I think in general it is mutilation and even the evidence that it reduces UIs is disputed heavily. I hope the practice ends on a cultural/religious basis.

Reply 142

LolaLowe

Original post by Georgie_M

it sounds like you made a good call x

Reply 143

minimarshmallow

Original post by cole-slaw

Very painful my arse. We have this thing known as anaesthetic in the UK, you should google it.

Unnecessary is only your opinion, you have no right to force that subjective opinion down other people's throats. No matter how much you may dream of the day, you are not the ruler of the world.

I'm in the UK, I know what anaesthetic is, I've been under the influence of it as a child (general) and an adult (local). Putting someone under general for a non medically necessary procedure is risky, and local isn't pleasant to administer. But they're not permanent, they wear off, and recovery is painful. It can also lead to painful complications and the possibility of infection.

No, unnecessary as in medically unnecessary, as in there is nothing to gain from it that can't be gained by other, non-invasive methods (so this obviously discounts tight foreskins etc. that are medically necessary). And I'm getting pretty sick of typing that, so please don't say 'only in your opinion' again, because I have told you at least three times now that it's not.

Reply 144

minimarshmallow

Original post by MedicineMann

I haven't read past this so it could well be mentioned, but circumcision reduces the chance of HIV by 60% because a lack of bacteria allow the Langerhans cells to more effectively fight the virus.

But it's not 100%, so you'd have to wear a condom anyway, so you wouldn't be doing anything different. Also, an argument about STDs is only an argument for men of age to elect for it if they desire, as children shouldn't be having sex.

Reply 145

minimarshmallow

Original post by daisychain_

Male circumcision is beneficial because it prevents some STDs and UTIs. Please don't reply because I don't really have the time to argue about this.

If you don't want to argue, don't join a debate. You're perfectly fine not to reply to me, but I'll reply if I want, it's a public forum.

It doesn't prevent them, it reduces the risk of contracting them in some circumstances. A man would still have to wear a condom to be safe (of course, still not 100%, but as safe as he can be). So, seeing as how he isn't going to be doing anything different, I don't see how this is a justification.

Reply 146

minimarshmallow

Original post by cole-slaw

Don't waste your time. Some people just have such entrenched opinions that they refuse to recognise the truth if you slapped them in the face with it.

You being a prime example.

Reply 147

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by daisychain_

Male circumcision is beneficial because it prevents some STDs and UTIs. Please don't reply because I don't really have the time to argue about this.

I think you need to recheck the science. It doesn't prevent any STD's or UTI's. It may reduce risk for such things as it is easier to clean without foreskin. But that is not the same a preventing such things. The same can be done through teaching proper cleanliness.

Reply 148

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by daisychain_

Please don't reply because I don't really have the time to argue about this.

You do understand how ridiculous this is right? You posted on an internet forum. Of course someone will respond. Not only that but you posted on a DEBATE forum. What a notion to think that in a debate we should just accept what you say and not question it. :lol:

Some advice - If you don't want to be quoted and called out or responded to don't post.

Reply 149

Snagprophet

Original post by Jamerson

Discuss.

Less severe than FGM although boys have died as a result of this needless mutilation of children's genitals. I mean, are we meant to be thankful they didn't cut the bellend off?

Anyway, less severe on average, same principle should apply.

Obviously if there was a medical need, which is if the foreskin is too tight then it's justified. I'd also agree with female circumcision if the patient had clitoris cancer or whatever.

Reply 150

MedicineMann

Original post by minimarshmallow

Yes in the UK, but in countries where HIV is pandemic and condom use is minimal then circumcision is an effective tool to combat the spread of HIV in a way that FGM clearly isn't.

Reply 151

minimarshmallow

Original post by MedicineMann

Yes in the UK, but in countries where HIV is pandemic and condom use is minimal then circumcision is an effective tool to combat the spread of HIV in a way that FGM clearly isn't.

Still not relevant to babies - only to those who are of age and are having sex.
Is it also not easier to promote condom use than to perform irreversible and medically unnecessary surgery on infants?

You could also argue (I'm not saying this to promote FGM in any way, I think it's disgusting, but I'm just mirroring your argument) that FGM would also be useful in combatting the spread of HIV, as the women wouldn't be having as much sex because it's not enjoyable for them.

Reply 152

MedicineMann

Original post by minimarshmallow

Surely it is better to carry out the procedure on a newborn? They won't remember it happening.
In the UK it is easy to promote condoms but in Africa it is much more difficult and as the disease causes the death of millions of Africans I think anything that can help slow its spread is useful.

Reply 153

limetang

Original post by hslakaal

Uhh... just to throw it out there...

Male circumcision does seriously have health benefits, while FGM has no known health benefits whatsoever. Recurrent balanitis, infections and others do require and are indicated for male circumcision, and may be a valid preventative method in locales with low sanitary hygiene.

I was always of the opinion that an open wound was also a pretty good way of getting infections. A newly circumcised penis doesn't heal immediately and there is always going to be an increased risk of infection which could be incredibly dangerous in infants. In fact it HAS been to the point where babies have died from circumcision related complications.

Reply 154

hslakaal

Original post by MrKappa

If somewhere has low sanitary conditions, then they shouldnt really be chopping off bits of flesh should they? No doubt that'd just cause more infections than leaving it on.

Im no doctor, but just seems like common sense to me.

Original post by Meenglishnogood

the argument for 'infection protection' has only ever been that removing the skin prevents foregin bodies accumulating underneath (and there is loose 'evidence' for this)- but the same theory could and then should be applied to fingernails - ie they get dirt under them. but they and foreskin can be cleaned and have a purpose of protection in themselves. In fact circumcision causes more infection, particularly at the site of incsision, which is prone to bleeding and infection in future.

Original post by Xyloid

Completely besides the point. No one should have the right to choose to remove something from another persons body.

I was circumcised at birth and it's something i've always resented my parents for. It's my wang, if i wanted it to supposedly "be cleaner" or any of the other ignorant nonsense people like my parents would use to back it up, then i'd decide for myself when I was old enough.

Original post by limetang

I have edited my original post. My apologies if my original post had not been very clear. As a side note, I do not like engaging in debates if I have no particular stance for or against a topic. If you believe any of the statements I have made in the original post is wrong, please state so, with appropriate references to articles. Otherwise, please do not be surprised if I completely ignore your replies.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 155

BeanofJelly

Whilst I totally agree that cutting/modification of the male genitals without consent and without medical indication is wrong, I would not compare this to the practice of FGM. I will explain.

WHO classifies FGM as follows:

Spoiler

As you can see, only the very, very mildest forms of FGM equate to male circumcision anatomically. Imo, WHO has included these so as not to create a "grey area" for FGM, but in practice FGM almost universally involves at least partial removal of the clitoris (more equivalent to lopping off part of the penis head than a circumcision), and can frequently be as extreme as rending sexual intercourse/normal physiology impossible (more equivalent to removing the penis entirely).

Summary of important differences:
- Women usually endure FGM without anaesthetic or pain relief, at an age where they can recall the experience.
- FGM usually renders women incapable of feeling clitoral pleasure, sometimes incapable of having penetrative sex, sometimes incapable of menstruating and urinating properly, sometimes incapable of giving birth normally, and has many morbid associations (eg: recurrent infections) which aren't directly associated to the surgical act itself (ie: they result from the altered anatomy). By contrast, circumcised men can enjoy a normal and fulfilling sex life, and morbidity is associated only with the surgery itself. Many more girls/women die (both at the time of cutting, and from morbidity afterward) as a result of FGM than do boys of circumcision.
- There are some medical indications for circumcision. There are no medical indications for FGM, it serves no other purpose than to prevent normal sexual experience.