Should male circumcision be illegal in the UK?

First of all, FGM and MGM, both done in a high tech-facility, would still be disproportionatly harmful w/ FGM being more so.

Second of all, in FGM, you remove the clitoris - the part with induces sexual pleasure. By doing so, you're condemning the child to a future without any sex, essentially.

With MGM, all you're doing it surgically removing the foreskin, with has its disadvantages sexually, making the tip less sensitive, but overall, it's far from rendering the male at a compete disadvantage in his sexual exploits.

You cannot compare something which permanently removes sexual pleasure , and something with only decreased sensitively.

I stopped commenting a while since the discussion has ended pretty much, but just had to butt in here to get that point across.

FGM has not been banned solely because of the double standard (although, who knows, that may be a factor), it has been banned because it's more dangerous, even in equal conditions, and is more cruel.

It doesn't matter either way which is worse tbh.You are still cutting a part of somebody elses body off.Thats not ok.It doesn't matter if you think a God commanded you to.Its not alright.You are taking away a child's religious freedom and his right to not be mutilated.And that comes before a parents religion.Parents don't have dominion over their children's bodies.They don't own them.Whether it's FGM or male circumcision doesn't matter.The fundamental rights of a child are being violated.Its like just removing someone's ear lobes instead of the whole ear.Its not ok just because you only removed part of the ear.Its messed up either way.

It should not be a controversial issue that you don't go around cutting parts of other people's body off for no good reason.Its pretty damn obvious tbh.Religion makes good people do evil things.

What is circumcision?

Yes.
People often claim that you're at less risk of getting HIV if you're circumcised, and they also claim that it's easier to keep clean. However these are, in my opinion, just petty justifications for what's a purely cultural or religious procedure that provides no real benefit at all. First of all, both the problems listed above can be fixed with adequate education about STIs and basic hygiene, to justify removing such a sensitive part of the body at an age in which they can't consent, just because 'it's easier to clean' or 'I don't want to talk to my children about STIs' is frankly cruel and unacceptable in a modern society. Second of all, no, your religious rights should not extend that far. End of.

Further FGM and male circumcision have VERY similar rationales behind them. You correctly claim that FGM is (sometimes) done to diminish women's sexual pleasure. Guess what, so's circumcision. They both remove erogenous tissue DELIBERATELY to make sex less pleasurable

The situation is this we're against all forms of genital mutilation except the one form that we've just sort of gotten used to. It's okay to mutilate boys genitals in this one specific way because ... well, we've always done it.

2. Regarding what you said about MGM being engrained in society, that's frankly why I don't support a ban. I strongly support educating younger generations about the damaging effects of MGM and why it is wrong, but a ban could lead to devastating consequences, most prevalently as stated in an earlier comment, about 'underground' or 'black market' for MGM - which will be more dangerous, extreme and lead to harsher consequences for victims.

You do realise we're already in a situation where in many "civilised" countries you can get your child circumcised by a ****ing Rabbi! (who then sometimes seem to have this odd practise of sucking on it, I ain't even going to start asking what's up with that) I swear I remember reading once you need more health checks in the USA to cut hair than you do to cut a babies foreskin off, it's ridiculous.

Yet another occasion of a woman claiming to know more about male anatomy than men do. It's a useless flap of skin. In the hands of a capable surgeon, circumcision is a clean job which leaves no damage. And when done at a young age, the nervous/neural pathways that handle pain aren't as well-developed or sensitive: better have it done before two years old than any time later. Mine was done as a medical emergency at seven, and Christ on a bike I wished even then that it had been done at birth.

It is easier to clean a penis without a foreskin.
The foreskin is not any more sensitive than any other part of the penis.
The penis does work just as well without a foreskin as with one.
Women generally cannot tell the difference, but those who can do prefer cut.

My penis has never been mutilated.
I am very acutely sexually sensitive.
I am prepared to present evidence of both of these facts.

/debate

1. We can agree on the fact that both FGM and MGM reduce sexual pleasure in some way, shape or form, but in general, things have degrees. FGM is vastly worse in this field. I don't know how you can attempt to dispute this.

2. Regarding what you said about MGM being engrained in society, that's frankly why I don't support a ban. I strongly support educating younger generations about the damaging effects of MGM and why it is wrong, but a ban could lead to devastating consequences, most prevalently as stated in an earlier comment, about 'underground' or 'black market' for MGM - which will be more dangerous, extreme and lead to harsher consequences for victims.

If you look at what happens when you ban something instilled within a society such as alcohol, or drugs, the consequences of a benevolent ban, and always catastrophic. Maybe banning MGM will be less extreme, sure, but I believe that a gradual eradication of MGM from society through education is a better way to go about trying to get rid of MGM than a ban.

Other than that, on the topic of which is worse, FGM vs MGM, we're rather at a standstill, I believe. I don't buy into the double standards fallacy here as there is little evidence to directly support it, and I believe that the fact that FGM is blanket banned in most western countries is a testimony that there is some sort of moral or sensible reason behind it, which I've attempted to explain.

For point 2 can the same argument not be made for FGM? Legalise it so it can be done safely in hospitals.

Secondly, there is evidence for a double standard. I’ve presented it. You have yet to explain how circumcision is materially different to FGM beyond the fact that one is culturally accepted and the other isn’t which ... isn’t that a double standard? When a culture or society is abhorred by genital mutilation except when it’s the genital mutilation IT likes to practice how on earth is that NOT a double standard?

FGM isnt engrained in society unlike MGM - so banning the former has little impact.

And like I said before, Type 1, 2, and 3 are all worse than MGM - you didn't explicitly disagree with this, did you?.

Type 4 may not be, but to legalise that may lead to a downward spiral of decline, and encourage other forms of FGM.

Essentially my argument is that the reason why there is a blanket ban on FGM as opposed to MGM is for 3 main reasons:

1. FGM has never been cemented in western society or culture unlike MGM, so a ban wouldn't have many consequences e.g. no black market.

2. Out of the 4 types of FGM, the first 3 (on average) are worse than MGM leading to more permanent disadvantages for the victim and not providing any benefits.

3. It's simply easier and more effective to dissallow all types, rather than allow 1. It creates confusion and isn't good politically or socially.

Now, I'm willing to a concede that a small, small double standard may also be a factor, but I refuse to consider it a main one, unless you've convincing debunked my main 3 points.

I don't mind Increased regulation for circumcision, I just don't support an outright ban on it.

Yet another occasion of a woman claiming to know more about male anatomy than men do. It's a useless flap of skin. In the hands of a capable surgeon, circumcision is a clean job which leaves no damage. And when done at a young age, the nervous/neural pathways that handle pain aren't as well-developed or sensitive: better have it done before two years old than any time later. Mine was done as a medical emergency at seven, and Christ on a bike I wished even then that it had been done at birth.

It is easier to clean a penis without a foreskin.
The foreskin is not any more sensitive than any other part of the penis.
The penis does work just as well without a foreskin as with one.
Women generally cannot tell the difference, but those who can do prefer cut.

My penis has never been mutilated.
I am very acutely sexually sensitive.
I am prepared to present evidence of both of these facts.

/debate

1) Not in THIS society. It IS in the societies and subsets of this society that practice it. I mean that’s surely self-evident, the only societies in which FGM is a problem are those in which it’s a problem. A ban here already DOES have consequences, i.e. the children who are either taken abroad or have it done in dodgy environments in THIS country.

2) Again, not necessarily. Type I can be analogous to circumcision and as far as I’m aware the removal of the prepuce is the most common form of type I. Further, there is no conclusive evidence that circumcision IS particularly helpful and in the situations where it IS thought to be helpful (i.e. in preventing the transmission of HIV) it’s not actually a problem children need to worry about and so is something they should be able to decide when they’re older.

You haven’t debunked the double standard you’ve just explained where it comes from, i.e. from cultural norms. Cultural norms prevented women from having the vote, cultural norms are the source of pretty much ALL double standards. So you cannot make the argument that this double standard being the result of cultural norms prevents it from being a double standard, quite the opposite.

Seriously, tell me, how are you going to stop people from preform 'back alley' circumcisions or going abroad to have it done it worse medical conditions? We're talking about religious people here. People who literally believe it's a 'sin' to not preform a circumcision on their child.

The same way you stop almost anything, by punishing those who do it.

That is rather hilarious, especially because a lot of the empiracle evidence simply disagrees with you.

You're going to spend huge sums of money, especially given the uncertainly Brexit provides, on courtrooms, judges, lawyers, prisons, prison guards, prison equipment, immigration control, regulations etc. The list is very very long.

This stuff would cost tens of millions of pounds.

My method of erradication through education is far superior, unless you wish to dispute that aswell.

And I don't wish to keep repeating myself but it's hard not to when people just ignore you and choose to skirt around the difficult questions, so here we go for the 3rd time. Did banning alcohol in the 1920s reduce alcohol consumption? Did banning drugs reduce drug consumption?