The Student Room Group

This house believes that male circumcision is equally deplorable as FGM

Discuss.

Scroll to see replies

I don't think it is really as deplorable, as male circumcision doesn't seem to do lasting damage in a major sense. But I don't think parents should have the right to cut off part of their children's genitals in any case.
my opinion is that in principle it is just as bad as female circumcision - inflicting genital mutilation upon a harmless child for a cruel and arbitrary purpose
but realistically I'd obviously be inclined to say that FGM is worse if it is cutting off the clitoris
but either way, they should both be banned and only 18+ year olds should be able to do it
In a base sense yes, albeit FGM is more damaging. That said as someone uncircumcised I'll be blunt and say I cannot imagine how exactly it would feel without the presence of a foreskin, it is probably the most sensitive/erogenous zone, so to me sexual pleasure would be somewhat reduced if it were removed. I suppose since most are circumcised at birth they know no different.

But if there is no medical need for it (relating to male circumcision) I don't think parents should be able to decide on their childs behalf.
I certainly see it as child abuse yes.
Ask mutilated women their opinion of FGM and the response is going to be unanimous condemnation.

Ask circumcised men their opinion of circumcision and the response is mixed, sometimes even positive.

So they're not really comparable.
I agree that all mutilation of genitals for a non-urgent medical reason is wrong on every level and should result in the prosecution of the perpetrator and the parents/adults who were supposed to be in charge of the childs well being.
Reply 7
The statement is about how deplorable the act is, not how damaging. Therefore, I would say yes, it is equal.
Not as bad, but still abusive

If circumcision is going to happen for religious reasons, it should be when the person is 18 years old and can give their consent.
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.

EDIT: It seems I'm getting quoted by people with very sarcastic statements. My apologies for not being very clear - I sometimes forget that not everyone is in a health-related field. Let me elaborate a bit more.

Circumcision has been proven to be a preventative measure against certain infections and diseases, with the most well known being neonatal UTIs and HIV in homosexual men at later ages. Admittedly, the reduction is fairly small, and I highly recommend reading the Cochrane review on neonatal circumcision, or the JAMA article on medical benefits of circumcision. If you do not/have never heard of either of these journals, please do not quote me with some "clincally..." kinda argument, nor about infections and say that circumcision does not have medical benefits.

What I had meant earlier in terms of "low sanitary hygiene", is different from what some members have taken to as meaning "bad general hygiene". The keyword is sanitary. In countries where water systems are not as good as the UK's - many developing nations, such as Indonesia, Malaysia etc. - it makes sense to be cicumcised. Poor sanitation does not mean poor hygiene in a clinical setting, and hence getting circumcised will not lead to an infection of the penis (before anyone asks, you do not wash the penis before the wound has completely healed. Usually for 1~2 weeks, you do not wash it). It will, however, benefit in preventing infections in such locales.

Now, as with any surgical procedure, there is a risk, but it is rare to have any serious complications arising from such procedures. The argument closer to a comparison of flu jabs for children. In many years, effectiveness of influenza vaccines may be lower than 40%. It is simply an ethical issue with no right or wrong answers.

I do not have any particular opinion, besides that there is no right and wrong whatsoever in this. I am merely pointing out that it is a bit crude to compare male circumcision to FGM, whereby one has proven health benefits whilst the other has zero known thus far.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 10
It's wrong and deplorable, but that we recognise it to be so does not put it on par with FGM. FGM would cause a person more harm than male circumcision, since a victim of male circumcision can still have a normal and enjoyable sex life while a FGM victim often cannot. In my view they should both be illegal, but FGM is the greater crime.
Original post by Mankytoes
I don't think it is really as deplorable, as male circumcision doesn't seem to do lasting damage in a major sense. But I don't think parents should have the right to cut off part of their children's genitals in any case.

both can cause lasting damage in either case- it depends on the complications or skill of the surgeon. neither are necessary, both are stupid
Original post by A Mysterious Lord
Cutting bits off a baby/child is deplorable, no matter which gender.


Not sure where society got this attitude FGM and MGM are somehow different.

In both cases a non-consenting infant/child is having a sensitive part of their genitals mutilated. Period.

So agree with the premise it is wrong and should be banned like FGM.
Reply 13
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.


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.
And what will be done, I wonder, about this heinous crime that is so clearly equal to FGM?

Will these opponents protest against it? Try to get put knew legislation put in place? Fight to give young male children the right to make such a decision in their own time?

No. They'll continue to complain how it doesn't get enough attention and then get angry at women.
bear™ has first hand experience of this procedure. although he was not really old enough to give informed consent he has not suffered any longterm problems. indeed there are certain advantages.
it cuts both ways.
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.


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 joey11223
In a base sense yes, albeit FGM is more damaging. That said as someone uncircumcised I'll be blunt and say I cannot imagine how exactly it would feel without the presence of a foreskin, it is probably the most sensitive/erogenous zone, so to me sexual pleasure would be somewhat reduced if it were removed. I suppose since most are circumcised at birth they know no different.

But if there is no medical need for it (relating to male circumcision) I don't think parents should be able to decide on their childs behalf.


There are some medical benefits as far as I'm aware, but also some problems.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx
Original post by hellodave5
There are some medical benefits as far as I'm aware, but also some problems.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx


Personally I wouldn't act before the problem, so I know research that has said the incidence of things like balanitis can be double in uncircumcised men, but the most common cause of this is men not washing thoroughly enough. As for any condition, I'd just go down the usual treatment routes and if it is then judged the foreskin itself is causing them problems, such as severe phimosis which stretching/creams alone isn't treating, then of course partially or totally remove it.
Reply 19
It is mainly Muslim and Jewish people who do this. Mainstream Muslims have abandoned the female one. I don't know if Jewish people still do it. But it's proven male circumcision comes with health benefits. Reduced risks of STDs and generally cleaner. So now more groups are even doing it and this is good as it provides skin for testing or for implants. So it is a good thing, win win situation and doesn't come with negative effects. However I don't think the female one should be continued.

Quick Reply

Latest