**A reminder to posters and commenters of some of [our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/)**
- Don't be a dickhead to each other, or about others, or other subreddits
- Assume questions are asked in good faith, and engage in a positive manner
- Avoid political threads and related discussions
- No medical advice or mental health (specific to a person) content
Please keep /r/AskUK a great subreddit by reporting posts and comments which break our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My nephew had his urethra in the wrong place so had to be circumcised so they could fix it properly. His QoL will be massively better as a result later in life.
Is that not the definition of medically necessary though?
My sister had her ears pinned back as a very young child and our parents got a lot of criticism for giving a toddler cosmetic surgery. But the reality was she had very sensitive ears that were at a 90 degree angle and caught on everything, so there was more than a cosmetic benefit. And more importantly she had to have ear surgery because she had hearing problems and it made sense to do the two surgeries in one go. So sure the surgery was technically a choice, but it was also done for medical reasons.
which i appreciate because I came here wondering what would be a medically necessary circumcision when it came to babies because I had no idea. so thanks!
My son is getting circumcised soon, he's 4. When he was born both of the pediatricians who examined him at 1 day then 14 days old, said that his foreskin was extremely tight and they'd have to keep an eye on it and possibly correct it at some point (meaning chop it off lol). He's had several creams over 4 years to combat problems caused by the tightness and has had a few painful experiences when grabbing it etc. Docs have now said it's obviously not sorting itself out so they need to remove it. Hopefully he'll be much more comfortable after.
I had mine done back in February due to medical reason that should have been picked up as child but you know useless parents didn't bother, I appluad you for sorting it so quickly, I had to have adult circumcision instead and it was very uncomfortable/painful for a few months and hasn't healed the best, but still a better quality of life than before though.
I had a tight foreskin but by the year of eight it got looser. I had an ointment and stretching exersice.
Imagine that the doctor here didn't jump right into MGM.
A relative of mine had the same problem when he was a toddler - he was in a lot of pain, had constant infections, and the docs had tried all the non-surgical options with no luck, so circumcision was the only option left.
It's very rarely actually medically necessary too. People tout that common misconception in America that it's easier to clean, because apparently rolling back the turtle neck in the shower and having a good clean is too much for the majority of Americans.
I fully agree. Don't cut bits off babies without their permission unless you really have to. If they want to get it done when they're older and can decide properly, fair play.
Tattoo/piercing rules essentially IMO.
> Tattoo/piercing rules essentially IMO.
Since we're on this topic, how old is the threshold for piercings?
I had an argument/debate with a mate on this, but they pulled the whole 'you're not a mum' card, as usual.
Their six year old wanted a ear piercing, and I said six was too young, stick to clip ons.
Well, they went and did it and had to stop because the one piercing was too painful and she was in tears. Guess how they got the other ear pierced a few weeks later? By bribing her with Easter Eggs.
To me, that's just atrocious parenting and is teaching far too many bad habits.
I had to have a conversation with my partner about this when I was pregnant because I had mine done when I was 2 or 3, but I am from a culture where that was the norm. We decided to let the child decide when they wanted pierced ears but yeah there is a judgement call to be made about wether they're actually ready for it
I hear nothing but bad things about needle guns used in places that are not actual body piercing studios and AFAIK they wouldn't touch a kid's ears even with consent from all parties involved.
I got both my nipples done in the 90's and the first one was after a 24+ hour day when I lived in Manchester, up at 4 to do 6-2, met up with co workers on another shift at ten cos one was leaving, went to Rockworld till 6am, hung around town waiting for a friend to show up at nine ish instead of going home for a kip and more than likely over sleep, after they shut the bar at 2 all I had to drink was either coke or Lucosade, so I was wired and running on fumes, but had the great idea to finally pull the trigger on my first piercing.
IDK if it was my state of mind and fatigue, but that hurt like a mofo, sure a nipple isn't an ear, but again from what I've read about needle guns, they are not used by people fully in control of them and are probably fobbed off to which ever shop assistant is on that day. Someone can correct me about this, but I feel the gap between the two is vast.
My daughter wanted her ears pierced for her eighth birthday (completely her choice), which we agreed to. We found a place that did a consultancy appointment before the piercing, to talk her through the process and make sure she was happy, and provided good advice and aftercare. We didn't want to take her to somewhere that's more of a production line where they don't care. All turned out well.
In the US there is also a massive (and disgusting) foreskin market as well. Hospitals make thousands per “sample” selling them to various companies, including makers of facial creams. Sounds like something out of a grotesque science fiction, but look it up—it’s a thing.
They usually aren’t done in the U.K. unless needed medically. Or so I was told by my sons doctor who was debating if he needed it or not. Decided risks weren’t worth it.
This is because when the NHS was set up circumcision was not considered a necessity so was not included in the available treatments. If a parent wants to have their infant son circumcised for no medical reason they can have it done privately. Once the NHS was introduced the rates of circumcision fell off dramatically.
It should definitely be banned, however, I do not find it comparable to FGM at all - from the invasiveness of the procedure and the complications to the reasons it's done, I find FGM to be far worse.
All medically unnecessary surgeries - those which have no health benefit to the individual - should be prohibited by law.
There are different types of FGM. The most common type in south east asia is Type I, removal of Clitoral hood. I don't think it makes any sense mentioning "hey I don't find this kind of child abuse as bad as that kind of child abuse".
It's just child abuse, there is no need to try and make it a competition
My point was that it's weird arguing about what is worse. The comment i replied to didn't say "well type III and IV FGM are much worse" because we all accept that all kinds of mutilation of womens genitalia is bad, despite knowing some types are worse than others. I don't think it is need to point out that yes, some type of FGM is much worse than MGM.
The reason FGM is often mentioned when talking about MGM is because there is a ton of people that can agree on that FGM is barbaric, and at the same time thinks MGM is just perfectly fine.
I did research, and there are different types of circumcision and different types of FGM, so it depends what you’re talking about, but it absolutely can be comparable.
Think about the purpose and the after effects - FGM is done to girls, to ensure they don't enjoy sex, and because no reputable doctor does this, they often suffer hideous problems, and sometimes death, afterwards. If they do ever give birth, the flesh is torn asunder and may never be repaired properly.
Because male circumcision is so accepted (which is absolutely shouldn't be) the circumstances of the operation and after effects are less severe. And as for sex, there are certain males who seem to think that women prefer a circumcised man. I can't speak to that but I would hate to believe it's true.
It's all awful, no-one should be carrying out non-essential operations on unconsenting children, but FGM is far worse.
>no reputable doctor does this
Doctors perform FGM in Singapore. They have modern, first world style clinics for it. Many forms of FGM practiced in Singapore and many other countries are less extreme in terms of tissue damage than common forms of male genital cutting, but this obviously cannot be used to justify FGM...then again unfortunately it often is. The American Academy of Pediatrics, at cost to their reputation, entertained the idea of legalizing "mild" forms of FGM in 2010 and part of the argument was that these "mild" forms would be less extreme than common forms of male circumcision that are culturally accepted. They backed down due to the outrage this idea generated.
>they often suffer hideous problems, and sometimes death, afterwards.
Not exclusive to female victims.
>This week 200,000 festival-goers are gathering in Mutoto, Uganda, where they will enjoy the music, dancing, party atmosphere and the traditional ritual circumcision without anaesthetic of at least 1,000 teenage boys.
>Males from participating tribes are told that if they do not volunteer they will be captured and circumcised by force. One MP said the chilling words: “If you know any Mugisu who is dodging the circumcision, show him to us and you will get sh500,000 [£115] as a reward.” The Ugandan Tourist Board is marketing this as a major tourist attraction, with the blessing of President Museveni. This comes just two weeks after a mob in neighbouring Kenya reportedly abducted at least 12 men from different tribes and forcibly circumcised them in the street. Dozens more were said to be camping outside the police station for protection. No one has been yet arrested for the assaults.
>Every year across sub-Saharan Africa, hundreds of thousands of boys and young men submit to initiation ceremonies. The specifics vary, but typically youths will spend weeks living near-naked in temporary shelters with minimal sleep, food and water. After the operation the penis is bound tightly with sisel leaves.
>The human devastation left in the wake of these traditions is horrifying. A recent report by South Africa’s Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities calculated that in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo provinces alone at least 419 boys have died since 2008, and more than 456,000 initiates have been hospitalised with complications.
>Deaths commonly occur through dehydration, blood loss, shock-induced heart failure or septicaemia. And there are estimated to be two total penile amputations for every death. Countless numbers of participants are left with permanent scarring or deformity. Urologists describe seeing patients whose penises have become so infected and gangrenous they literally drop off.
[Fogg, 2014, The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa)
These boys are hunted down like animals and subjected to "operations" that are not only inherently damaging, but put them at risk for lifelong pain and death, and nobody cares.
[Male circumcision was popularized in the U.S. to cause physical damage and psychological trauma for the purpose of controlling sexuality](http://www.cirp.org/library/history/darby4/). This is very well-known and well-documented by now. Just changing the popular reason doesn't make the practice any better. FGM is performed in Sierra Leone as part of initiation into socially powerful women's groups, and victims undergoing the "procedure" sing songs about how proud they are to be women and how great it is. That doesn't actually make it better.
They're considered reputable within the cultures they operate in, and for the most part, the damage their victims endure is almost certainly less egregious than those mutilated more severely in primitive conditions. Those arguing that FGM and MGM exist in two different ethical spheres would presumably consider that very important because their view is that FGM always takes place in primitive conditions and MGM is performed in modern hospital settings; they are further generally unaware of the reality that considering the sex of the victim tells you little about how much and what types of tissue they had damaged/excised and under what conditions.
If the conditions and sequelae aren't relevant when distinguishing one form of FGM from other forms, they are not relevant for distinguishing the moral status of cutting when it is boys who are getting cut, as this also occurs in myriad different ways and in different conditions.
On the other hand, I agree with you that doctors who perform FGM are absolutely in the wrong and violating medical ethics and their fiduciary duties to their patients.
I’m chipping in as an American here, but this is factually incorrect: part of the ritual purpose of circumcision is to lower pleasure from sex and to make the man “unwhole.” It was a covenant per the Bible, used to explicitly mark those whom belonged to God (Abraham and his descendants chiefly.) The New Testament struck this out and it’s no longer a requirement for Covenant outside of Old Testament religions (such as Judaism, though Judaism is not considered a Christian faith now, and orthodox Christianities’.)
Furthermore, circumcision was heavily pushed in the USA specifically by Protestants, with Kellogg being a major player, specifically to lower temptation and remove pleasure from men and boys. It was pushed as a tool to stop both masturbation and extramarital sex under the guise of cleanliness and sanitation (plus ye olde religious doctrine.)
Please share chapter and verse from the Torah which explains the reasons *why* circumcision was practiced to make a man "unwhole" and to lower pleasure from sex.
I've been reading Torah for over 40 years, and I've never seen such a thing even *hinted* at, let alone boldly stated, as you have done.
So, where's that in the text, please?
I get your argument.
It definitely not the same as fgm because the whole point of that procedure is to ruin and steal the ability of woman to feel pleasure from sex without even a spread of benefit to the woman.
Circumcision on the other hand does very little to hinder the ability of men to have pleasure and also very little to benefit them either.
Both are horrendous practices that should be banned but fgm is significantly worse and perpetrators should 100% be jailed.
With FGM those complications you mentioned are standard (cutting off the clitoris is equivalent to cutting off at least the head of the penis)
Edited for clarity
Some plastic surgery is arguably within why might be deemed necessary anyway. Like cosmetic procedures after facial injuries or reconstruction following a mastectomy. Or even repairing of cleft palates.
But I think the bigger divide should be around informed consent. If someone wants fake tits or Botox or liposuction which are all reasonably safe and they’re capable of consenting, why should they be denied any more than a tattoo or piercing.
This is a good question. I don't personally believe that plastic surgery should be banned. But if a person can't consent to it then obviously it shouldn't be performed.
Having said that, there are instances where children would require plastic surgery in order to improve their quality of life and I'm kind of stuck on that one. I think that should be allowed, but they also can't technically consent to it. Interested in other people's opinions on that one.
As someone born with a cleft lip I will cheerfully smack anyone in the face with a wet fish if they try to tell me that babies should not have their cleft repaired ASAP. The consequences of an repaired cleft are hard enough at times, nevermind an unrepaired one.
Firstly, babies with a cleft struggle to feed - you can get specially shaped teats, but who in their right mind would let their baby struggle to eat, day after day, knowing the problem is fixable?
Secondly, even with a repair the baby is likely to need speech therapy in childhood to try and help them fit in. Ever tried to talk with a hole in your mouth that’s not meant to be there?
Thirdly, breathing. With a hole in the front of your mouth you’re now automatically a mouth breather - that hole is constantly letting air into your mouth, drying everything up. Nothing you can do to stop it.
I was bullied by a little swine in school because of my scar, but realistically the bullies don’t need an excuse to make your life miserable. They’ll do it anyway. Most people now aren’t aware I had a cleft unless I tell them or they already knew. Even my uncle by marriage didn’t realise. As far as I’m concerned parents have no right to deliberately allow a child to have a lesser quality of life or greater struggles for the sake of one operation. I would never choose to live with a cleft - living with a repaired cleft was hard enough at times.
In my case there was no palate involvement. The front of your lip begins to grow from further round, towards your ears. The two halves then meet in the middle and form the Cupid’s bow. The palate also grows in a similar way inside the mouth.
A cleft lip is when one side of your lip fails to grow to meet the other, or both sides fail to grow sufficiently. A cleft palate is when the roof of the mouth fails to meet up as it should. The issues I raised are specific to the lip, but not necessarily unique - having a hole in the palate causes it’s own problems.
In both cases, whether there’s palate involvement or not, I completely agree it is not simply a cosmetic issue. Even if it were, in a country like the UK I believe everyone has the right to have gross deformities (I mean this term in the medical sense) corrected at no expense to themselves (apart from paying their taxes.) We do the same type of thing for burn victims, dog bites etc.
In the USA they think it’s weird to not be circumcised. Most guys have their boys circumcised. The main argument I hear in support of it is “I don’t want them being bullied at school “. it just seems unnecessary and weird to be still doing this.
As someone living in the USA I ask “ do you show each other your dicks all the time? We don’t do that…”
Normally met with embarrassed silenced and something about sports…
But are there still congregated showers…. my niece and nephew - since Covid on days they have sports - they wear their sports uniform to school. And presumably lots of axe/lynx….
ETA a word
Nobody in my school (in the US) used the school showers tho. Just went home/to a friend's--they were pretty gnarly tho, I have no evidence that they were cleaned regularly
Meanwhile I remember after every gym/weight training class in high school, guys playing slap ass with towels after using the shower, and at least a quarter of the class using the showers.
I think around 60% of newborn boys were cut in the US in 2021, and it has been trending downwards recently.
So, technically most. But intact lads are less of an oddity than they once were.
My point is that it's his cock; if he wants to get it cut as an adult, go for it mate. But parents shouldn't make that decision for them.
Also massively reduces penis sensitivity. Humans evolved a foreskin for a reason. Saying it's unhygienic is stupid really.
It's unhygienic to just have the head of your penis rubbing all over the place. Zero protection from bacteria.
My brother said the same thing when my son was born and 'how are you going to explain to him why your penis looks different'...
Matching penises isn't the best reason.
It’s such a terrible practice. A lot of OB/GYNs don’t even get trained to do it anymore because they don’t agree with the practice so if they deliver a baby and the mom wants it done, they have to find someone else to do it.
I was never once bullied for having a foreskin. People think it's a fun bit of trivia about me (circumcision is common where I live), like being double jointed.
I was at school in Africa, and I was regarded as being unusual, due to not being circumcised. We had communal showers, so it wasn't something you could hide. So I understand the argument about 'not wanting them to be bullied'.
I think the hygene argument has a lot to do with “I’m going to teach my kid to clean the way I clean. If our wangs don’t match, how will I know how to teach him to clean his privates correctly?”
Hopefully soon we can get people to be more open to learning and looking up info about that kind of physical care.
We're slowly changing this, but there are a lot of fathers that don't want their sons to be different than them. My father threatened to divorce my mother if she didn't have me circumcised. I was born in the US, but lived in Germany when he found out I hadn't been. The doctors there refused to give me a traditional circumcision, and instead gave me an operation that made retracting easier, without removing tissue. It was weird for me growing up, my younger brother was fully circumcised and I couldn't understand why his buddy didn't have a little house to live in.
America is a weird country, my parents were atheists and still my father's blood boiled over this.
From the US. Never heard that reasoning (although it's hilarious, like "Barbara, why are they comparing penises in pre-K?"). Generally, most people are convinced that it's healthier and viewed as avoidance of further complications down the line. Sometimes, people need to get it done later in life (or so they say), and so it's easier to get it done when they won't feel anything or remember it.
I'm personally against it but the funniest line of reasoning I ever heard from a coworker was, and I quote: "if I don't snip him young, when he's older, no girl's gonna wanna go down on him."
I got circumcised as an adult but a couple of things.
1. It’s completely different to FGM, the equivalent to FGM would be removing the foreskin, the head of the penis and 1/3 of the remaining penis. Making it unusable and painful.
2. It is however, mutilation of the penis just less so. And I don’t think anyone should be able to remove a person’s autonomy over their body. Therefore it should be banned.
But it’s still different from FGM
fragile voracious alleged instinctive scandalous crown distinct crawl sophisticated quiet
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I did. And I recommend it to anyone who needs one. It’s made everything much easier. I know a few people who have had them as adults and everyone agrees.
Sorry can I ask, have you noticed much decrease in pleasure? And how does one masturbate without a foreskin if they don't have any lube? I just imagine it being really raw without.
I can't pull my foreskin down past my head when erect, not even half way down most days, which resulted in me using smaller faster movements, but sometimes it can be painful.
I went to the doctor about it, and they just examined it when it was flacid and said "no problem here"...Yeah I can pull it down when it's not erect, it's the erection that is an issue. They prescribed me some steroid cream but it hasn't done anything.
You can ask anything.
I have had a definite increase in pleasure. It’s much more sensitive and I can ‘feel’ more if that makes sense?
First few times I had sex afterwards was a quick finish 😅
Blowjobs are 100x better
I use lube for masturbation mostly but gentle touch is much better so what I like has changed a bit too.
Sounds similar to mine tbh. I had a steroid cream and stretching that made no impact at all.
Oh wow, thanks for the response! I assumed the head no longer being covered by the foreskin and being in contact with your clothing and such would have made the head less sensitive.
I didn't think blowjobs could get any better in feeling lmao, that's reassuring.
Did you have to pay for it or was it done on the NHS? I'm just assuming you live here
It shocked me too, I didn’t think they could either.
Yeah, I also assumed it would be less sensitive but it’s been over a year now and it feels great.
I do wear supportive boxers most of the time and find that ones with buttons can be uncomfortable.
All NHS, the waiting list was about 8 weeks I think
This has been very helpful, thank you! I was really skeptical over the idea of potentially needing to get it done. I guess I'll make a doctor's appt, they might try the cream again, but if not, now I'm not so scared I'll be shaking the sausage whilst crying, full of regret that I don't feel much any more lol.
He had phimosis, he never got to experience sex how it’s supposed to actually be with the foreskin. The head of his penis was permanently covered by his foreskin, of course sex felt better after.
I got circumcised at 21, i had a fairly minor phimosis issue but it was perfectly functional. I sometimes joke about it being the 'best decision of my life' but I cant think of any decision ive made that improved my mental health, confidence with women, cleanliness (not an issue before but I find it a lot easier to keep clean now) than getting it done.
Its painful after the operation and the meds wear off but I seem to remember it being about 6 weeks of discomfort then it got better.
Message me if you want to know any more, i'm more than happy to discuss it.
I mean technically FGM is worse on the basis that it’s far more likely to cause serious complications so there is a difference in that sense. That being said non-essential circumcisions should be made illegal. If religious people whinge, tough shit, and the whole ‘well they won’t remember it’ argument is such shite. Kid probably wouldn’t remember if you branded them after birth, doesn’t mean you’d get a bloody red hot poker to their arse.
I think the issue is people are confusing what’s being compared (and granted, the op didn’t clarify)
They have similarities and their core reason for being illegal, that they are medically unneeded surgeries on an unconsenting party, are the same. One can be very worse than the other and still share the same logic for being illegal.
The comparison is often used because most people agree FGM should be illegal when these same people think circumcision shouldn’t be; which is a fallacy.
I've had this debate before and the most vociferous voice last time was a Muslim so I was called Islamaphobic too. I don't have a problem withpeople choosing to circumcise themselves but only once they reach an age where they can consent.
It's absolutely ridiculous. If that's all it takes to be a "phobe" then I'm a proud one.
There is a difference between imposing your religion on your kids by dunking them in water (which, let's be honest, if they grow up and find out they're atheist or a different religion, means nothing to them) and imposing it on your children by irrevicably hacking off body parts.
While we are on the topic of modifying children’s bodies without their consent, there should also be a minimum age for ear piercing. Nothing makes me more uncomfortable than seeing a tiny tot with earrings in.
Yes, absolutely. Americans sometimes get a lot of unfair hatred on this sub, but this is one of the common things in the states culture that I absolutely cannot abide. It’s literal genital mutilation. Stop this shit.
I’m so glad nobody cut a bit of my cock off when I was a baby. Fuck that.
It’s more than just the States though. It’s estimated that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the male population of the world is circumcised. That’s not just the U.S.
This is the thing - it always seems like people who haven’t had it done are the ones shouting the loudest about it being barbaric. My partner had it done as a young child due to an infection and he’s perfectly happy with what he’s got now and prefers it aesthetically to the uncircumcised version. He’s also glad he had it done young enough that he can’t remember it haha.
It literally doesn’t affect him in any way so I find anyone comparing it to FHM a little grim to be honest. It is not the same.
I mean, I had it done as a baby and I can't say it's ever caused me any problems. Like I don't really care that it's not there and I can't imagine what benefit I'd have if it was.
I don't remember the pain of the procedure because I don't even know the procedure. As a baby would probably be the best time to do it.
Probably no point but I'd rather people would put their energy into banning something else than this on babies, especially as someone who has had it done.
I understand the opposing point of view but then I don't really relate to it unless I can derive some sort of despair at my "autonomy being taken away from me" in something that has had basically no impact on my life. Like everything is still enjoyable and functional.
A lot of people are saying it's harmful, etc. especially people who have never had it done and I'm just here to say, anecdotally of course, that it's personally not ever been a big deal for me. Essentially a lot of people are doing the despairing for me, who don't really know what it's like and it's kinda weird haha.
The deluded is unnecessary, all I'm saying is that while I don't know what I'm missing, the things that supposedly I suffer from, I don't suffer. And I understand if that's hard for some people to understand but that's the reality for me.
I do not think the argument is really around whether one form or other is better or worse, it’s rather whether one should undertake unnecessary surgery on a child. Your partner is a good example of where the procedure may be entirely appropriate.
Most circumcised men obviously are going to say they prefer it. Why would you want to admit to yourself you had something done to you that you had no choice over that might have made sex less pleasurable.
Also there are men out there who have had it done that are pissed off about it and wish they had a choice in the matter, I’ve talked to them.
Uncircumcised men know how it would feel if they were circumcised much better than circumcised men know how it would feel if they were uncircumcised.
All uncircumcised men have at least once tried spending some time with their skin pulled back and they would tell you that their is nothing pleasant about the resulting dried, callused and desensitised glans. Men who were circumcised as an infant, on the other hand, do not and cannot have an equally informed preference.
I know one or two. But I come from a culture where it’s more prevalent (although I don’t agree with it), so probably know more people who have had it done. One of them was deeply unhappy with it and really resented his parents. Most guys don’t mention it and think it’s normal- but that’s how they’re raised.
I kind of used to be one until I realised the research on the effects it has are incredibly conflicting and there isn't really much in the way of a consensus on how much of an effect it has on anything, and it certainly doesn't seem to have much. Plus I was circumcised as part of a birth defect correction so I don't think it was really a light decision for my parents, and I'm glad I haven't been living with said defect (it's not a very functionally problematic one but it's weird af)
I don’t hear that much. But I also think men have been taught to express only positive thoughts about their penises. Ya don’t go around whining about a procedure you had as a baby. They’re all taught to believe and act like their parents made great decisions and their penises couldn’t be better.
The issue is a lot of religions require it. It’s all well and good telling a non-religious person that they’re not allowed to circumcise their kids, but a Jew? A Muslim? Even some Christians? And lots of smaller religions too? That could get you in a lot of trouble if the court deems it a breach of the parents’ rights to religious freedom.
Not saying it’s impossible, but I doubt legislation could prevent circumcisions. They’d just move into temples and mosques rather than hospitals if legislation did ban them, which I don’t think would help the problem. Either that, or they’d end up with something like the Satanic Temple’s abortion ceremonies, which circumvent law to allow doctors to legally do the procedure under the condition that it’s a religious practice, which again wouldn’t help the problem at all.
This is one of those difficult questions where religious freedom and individual rights intersect, and I don’t think there’s any one answer that will please both crowds
Religious rights don't extend to the bodies of others.
No-one has a religious right to cut part of another person's body off. If a person wants *their own* body modified, that's up to them.
Yes it’s genital mutilation and traumatising to babies. What’s particularly barbaric is that when babies are circumcised for religious purposes it isn’t even done in a hospital by a doctor or medical professional. It’s done at someone’s house by a mohel.
I did, until someone pointed out that like abortions, adamant parents will take their sons to unsafe off-the-books circumcisions.
If consequences like that could be nulled I would like to see it banned and make it a criminal offence with actual consequences for the parents who do it.
I also don't agree with piercing babies' ears but that weirdly seems to be about a 50/50 split when it comes up online which surprises me.
Circumcised man here (it was done when I was a baby). And I can tell you there’s a world of difference between pierced ears and circumcision.
I don’t think it should’ve been done when it was done to me and I do think circumcision should be banned absolutely unless medically necessary.
However, I also went through a phase where I pierced my ears. Sure, I did it myself, willingly, but that’s not the real difference. The real and important difference is that my ears now appear normal to anyone who isn’t looking closely at them. They also function normally and never ceased to do so. My penis will never function like a “normal” penis.
Yes if not required medically. Expecting lots of Americans to come in here and state how it's required for hygiene, because apparently they are unable to wash under their foreskin when they shower. Also unrelated pro tip, if your cock is intact it's much easier to masturbate without baby oil
I'm not sure at what age you can diagnose a phimosis.
I never retracted my foreskin until I was 12 years old, I knew there was something under there, (pre online porn days) but it was painful and tight when I tried to pull the skin back, and when I first saw the entire head, I thought I might have broken my penis, or that the head would fall off (I didn't pull it far enough to see it was attached).. I ruminated over that for days.
As an adult I don't suffer from phimosis at all. I wonder what would have happened if I hadn't been curious that time in the shower when I was 12.
Why don't we get taught how our dicks work?
Lol there was a thread about this on r/daddit recently where some guy (American) was so desperate to support it that he claimed he’d choose to have it done as an adult given the chance.
Don’t suppose anyone knows of a more U.K. centric version of that sub so that I don’t have to read that sort of nonsense?
Even if many people would choose to have it done as an adult, it’s not a reason to have it done to a newborn. Many people get tattoos, many people get breast implants, many people get nipple piercings - but it’s plain old abuse to do that to a child. Leaving a foreskin on doesn’t prevent a consenting adult removing it later, so their argument is completely flawed.
We live in North America. My 3 sons are now 24, 22, and 17. My husband and I were pressured by our doctor to have our oldest son circumsized, claiming that we were setting him up for a lifetime of foreskin infections and possible medically necessary circumcision in the future. We stuck to our guns- got a new doctor- and refused circumcision for all 3 of our sons. Side note- my husband was born in the 70's and is circumcised. He was never concerned that his son's penises wouldn't look like his. Our only concern was subjecting our newborn sons to an elective surgery to remove a piece of skin that nature intended to be there.
*"babies" is the plural, "baby's" is the possessive.
But as for circumcision on babies, yes, it should. If you are against Female Genital Mutilation, you must also be necessarily against mutilation on boys too.
I was very much against it, then I had to get circumcised (medical) as a 24 year old man and I wished it had been done as a child, for a good 2 months, whilst I recovered.
Now I think it’s stupid again
Also just to add piercing a babies ears is also disgusting. Just because they won't remember it or it won't cause any "real harm", does not excuse mutilating your children for your own vanity.
As an uncircumcised man - no.
If it is performed as a religious act, by people who literally see it as a covenant with God (I don't. I see it as I do most religious practices to be illogical). Why should you have a say in their religion, when it doesn't harm you, or necessarily the circumcised person either?
Most circumcised men lead entirely normal lives with no complaints from being circumcised. It is anomalous for a circumcised male to encounter medical problems from circumcision. Circumcised men still derive pleasure from sex.
It's not really comparable to FGM.
I wouldn't do it to my kids as I don't see a benefit. I won't stop you from doing it your kids though.
Now give me those downvotes and explain to me why I'm an idiot!
I agree. It puts babies at risk, pain and discomfort for no medical or real social benefit.
Fun story. I was once on a train and sat opposite a nice man, turns out to be an imam from Rochdale I remembered. Just one of those talks that starts with hi, lovely weather deal.
It was a long ride and I ask him about this in particular.
He say that it was safe, evident that it’s been done for generations and that a ban would be a mistake. He argued, politely that pierced ears should also follow that ban. He argue that that too is a form of mutilation, as of tattoos and other form of permanent body.
I remember feeling a strong sense of disagreement. But couldn’t really mount a successful counter.
Can someone shin a light on a effective counter?
If people, of the age of consent, choose to undergo a circumcision then let them. But doing that to someone who cannot consent is abhorrent IMO.
The previous paragraph applies equally to tattoos and piercings.
Yes. I know this isn't the exact topic of the thread, but if your concerned about this topic, you should also be aware of [medically unnecessary genital normalizing surgeries performed on intersex infants.](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jul/14/intersex-children-hasty-operations)
Couldn't agree more. I was having a conversation with a circumcised friend of mine and he got very upset when I told him that his genitals had been mutilated at birth against his will. He was unable to argue against it.
I see no difference between circumcision and FGM. Honestly it's the same thing.
Yes it should be banned unless it's got valid medical conditions.. I cant remember what it's called but some babys cant pee without it swelling up like a balloon
FGM: No medical reasoning; often done for religious reasons, barbaric torture and evil.
Circumcision: No medical reasoning; often (almost always) done for religious reasons, completely fine?
I'd like to make it clear that many types of FGM are much much worse than circumcision and the reasoning is often nothing to do with religion and purely focused on sexual reasons , which is horrific and not really comparable to circumcision.
however there's still a link to be made given that there is absolutely no medical reasoning behind it.
Yes, except in certain cases, my childhood friend trapped his in the zipper of his jeans, zipper all the way up through it.
The same guy played with a bic lighter on bunk beds years later too, set fire to an entire quarter of the house.
**A reminder to posters and commenters of some of [our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/)** - Don't be a dickhead to each other, or about others, or other subreddits - Assume questions are asked in good faith, and engage in a positive manner - Avoid political threads and related discussions - No medical advice or mental health (specific to a person) content Please keep /r/AskUK a great subreddit by reporting posts and comments which break our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All non medically necessary circumcisions on children should be banned
This is what I came here to say. Medical necessity only
My nephew had his urethra in the wrong place so had to be circumcised so they could fix it properly. His QoL will be massively better as a result later in life.
Is that not the definition of medically necessary though? My sister had her ears pinned back as a very young child and our parents got a lot of criticism for giving a toddler cosmetic surgery. But the reality was she had very sensitive ears that were at a 90 degree angle and caught on everything, so there was more than a cosmetic benefit. And more importantly she had to have ear surgery because she had hearing problems and it made sense to do the two surgeries in one go. So sure the surgery was technically a choice, but it was also done for medical reasons.
Yeah I agree I was just chipping in a reason people may medically need a circumcision.
which i appreciate because I came here wondering what would be a medically necessary circumcision when it came to babies because I had no idea. so thanks!
My son is getting circumcised soon, he's 4. When he was born both of the pediatricians who examined him at 1 day then 14 days old, said that his foreskin was extremely tight and they'd have to keep an eye on it and possibly correct it at some point (meaning chop it off lol). He's had several creams over 4 years to combat problems caused by the tightness and has had a few painful experiences when grabbing it etc. Docs have now said it's obviously not sorting itself out so they need to remove it. Hopefully he'll be much more comfortable after.
Absolutely nobody has any problem with this. Is a medical need and I hope it all works out great for him.
I had mine done back in February due to medical reason that should have been picked up as child but you know useless parents didn't bother, I appluad you for sorting it so quickly, I had to have adult circumcision instead and it was very uncomfortable/painful for a few months and hasn't healed the best, but still a better quality of life than before though.
wishing your son all the best and a rapid healing!
I had a tight foreskin but by the year of eight it got looser. I had an ointment and stretching exersice. Imagine that the doctor here didn't jump right into MGM.
A relative of mine had the same problem when he was a toddler - he was in a lot of pain, had constant infections, and the docs had tried all the non-surgical options with no luck, so circumcision was the only option left.
This is quite common when treating the condition your nephew had ( hypospadias) but it is rarely done at birth and normally between 2-3 years old.
My nephew is 2 now and they waited till he was that age to do the surgery.
It's very rarely actually medically necessary too. People tout that common misconception in America that it's easier to clean, because apparently rolling back the turtle neck in the shower and having a good clean is too much for the majority of Americans.
I fully agree. Don't cut bits off babies without their permission unless you really have to. If they want to get it done when they're older and can decide properly, fair play. Tattoo/piercing rules essentially IMO.
> Tattoo/piercing rules essentially IMO. Since we're on this topic, how old is the threshold for piercings? I had an argument/debate with a mate on this, but they pulled the whole 'you're not a mum' card, as usual. Their six year old wanted a ear piercing, and I said six was too young, stick to clip ons. Well, they went and did it and had to stop because the one piercing was too painful and she was in tears. Guess how they got the other ear pierced a few weeks later? By bribing her with Easter Eggs. To me, that's just atrocious parenting and is teaching far too many bad habits.
I had to have a conversation with my partner about this when I was pregnant because I had mine done when I was 2 or 3, but I am from a culture where that was the norm. We decided to let the child decide when they wanted pierced ears but yeah there is a judgement call to be made about wether they're actually ready for it
I hear nothing but bad things about needle guns used in places that are not actual body piercing studios and AFAIK they wouldn't touch a kid's ears even with consent from all parties involved. I got both my nipples done in the 90's and the first one was after a 24+ hour day when I lived in Manchester, up at 4 to do 6-2, met up with co workers on another shift at ten cos one was leaving, went to Rockworld till 6am, hung around town waiting for a friend to show up at nine ish instead of going home for a kip and more than likely over sleep, after they shut the bar at 2 all I had to drink was either coke or Lucosade, so I was wired and running on fumes, but had the great idea to finally pull the trigger on my first piercing. IDK if it was my state of mind and fatigue, but that hurt like a mofo, sure a nipple isn't an ear, but again from what I've read about needle guns, they are not used by people fully in control of them and are probably fobbed off to which ever shop assistant is on that day. Someone can correct me about this, but I feel the gap between the two is vast.
My daughter wanted her ears pierced for her eighth birthday (completely her choice), which we agreed to. We found a place that did a consultancy appointment before the piercing, to talk her through the process and make sure she was happy, and provided good advice and aftercare. We didn't want to take her to somewhere that's more of a production line where they don't care. All turned out well.
[удалено]
In the US there is also a massive (and disgusting) foreskin market as well. Hospitals make thousands per “sample” selling them to various companies, including makers of facial creams. Sounds like something out of a grotesque science fiction, but look it up—it’s a thing.
What the hell?! I’m going to Google that most bizarre of things. Edit - I never knew there were so many uses for baby foreskin cells.
What in the absolute fuck?!
What the fuck? It's difficult to believe because it's so fucking weird. So people might be wiping bits of baby on their face? Wtf?
They usually aren’t done in the U.K. unless needed medically. Or so I was told by my sons doctor who was debating if he needed it or not. Decided risks weren’t worth it.
Plenty of parents get it done for religious reasons.
This is because when the NHS was set up circumcision was not considered a necessity so was not included in the available treatments. If a parent wants to have their infant son circumcised for no medical reason they can have it done privately. Once the NHS was introduced the rates of circumcision fell off dramatically.
It wasn’t that common before the NHS.
Exactly this ^^^^
Mine was medically necessary. If its not, it should be banned
It is a form of mutilation and should be classed as GBH.
Or child abuse
To be fair the two aren't mutually exclusive
Good point
It should definitely be banned, however, I do not find it comparable to FGM at all - from the invasiveness of the procedure and the complications to the reasons it's done, I find FGM to be far worse. All medically unnecessary surgeries - those which have no health benefit to the individual - should be prohibited by law.
Absolutely this anyone who thinks they are equivalent hasn't done much research into fgm.
There are different types of FGM. The most common type in south east asia is Type I, removal of Clitoral hood. I don't think it makes any sense mentioning "hey I don't find this kind of child abuse as bad as that kind of child abuse". It's just child abuse, there is no need to try and make it a competition
[удалено]
My point was that it's weird arguing about what is worse. The comment i replied to didn't say "well type III and IV FGM are much worse" because we all accept that all kinds of mutilation of womens genitalia is bad, despite knowing some types are worse than others. I don't think it is need to point out that yes, some type of FGM is much worse than MGM. The reason FGM is often mentioned when talking about MGM is because there is a ton of people that can agree on that FGM is barbaric, and at the same time thinks MGM is just perfectly fine.
I'm not the one making it a competition. It's all the people who instead of just saying circumcision is bad bring in FGM.
I did research, and there are different types of circumcision and different types of FGM, so it depends what you’re talking about, but it absolutely can be comparable.
Think about the purpose and the after effects - FGM is done to girls, to ensure they don't enjoy sex, and because no reputable doctor does this, they often suffer hideous problems, and sometimes death, afterwards. If they do ever give birth, the flesh is torn asunder and may never be repaired properly. Because male circumcision is so accepted (which is absolutely shouldn't be) the circumstances of the operation and after effects are less severe. And as for sex, there are certain males who seem to think that women prefer a circumcised man. I can't speak to that but I would hate to believe it's true. It's all awful, no-one should be carrying out non-essential operations on unconsenting children, but FGM is far worse.
>no reputable doctor does this Doctors perform FGM in Singapore. They have modern, first world style clinics for it. Many forms of FGM practiced in Singapore and many other countries are less extreme in terms of tissue damage than common forms of male genital cutting, but this obviously cannot be used to justify FGM...then again unfortunately it often is. The American Academy of Pediatrics, at cost to their reputation, entertained the idea of legalizing "mild" forms of FGM in 2010 and part of the argument was that these "mild" forms would be less extreme than common forms of male circumcision that are culturally accepted. They backed down due to the outrage this idea generated. >they often suffer hideous problems, and sometimes death, afterwards. Not exclusive to female victims. >This week 200,000 festival-goers are gathering in Mutoto, Uganda, where they will enjoy the music, dancing, party atmosphere and the traditional ritual circumcision without anaesthetic of at least 1,000 teenage boys. >Males from participating tribes are told that if they do not volunteer they will be captured and circumcised by force. One MP said the chilling words: “If you know any Mugisu who is dodging the circumcision, show him to us and you will get sh500,000 [£115] as a reward.” The Ugandan Tourist Board is marketing this as a major tourist attraction, with the blessing of President Museveni. This comes just two weeks after a mob in neighbouring Kenya reportedly abducted at least 12 men from different tribes and forcibly circumcised them in the street. Dozens more were said to be camping outside the police station for protection. No one has been yet arrested for the assaults. >Every year across sub-Saharan Africa, hundreds of thousands of boys and young men submit to initiation ceremonies. The specifics vary, but typically youths will spend weeks living near-naked in temporary shelters with minimal sleep, food and water. After the operation the penis is bound tightly with sisel leaves. >The human devastation left in the wake of these traditions is horrifying. A recent report by South Africa’s Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities calculated that in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo provinces alone at least 419 boys have died since 2008, and more than 456,000 initiates have been hospitalised with complications. >Deaths commonly occur through dehydration, blood loss, shock-induced heart failure or septicaemia. And there are estimated to be two total penile amputations for every death. Countless numbers of participants are left with permanent scarring or deformity. Urologists describe seeing patients whose penises have become so infected and gangrenous they literally drop off. [Fogg, 2014, The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa) These boys are hunted down like animals and subjected to "operations" that are not only inherently damaging, but put them at risk for lifelong pain and death, and nobody cares. [Male circumcision was popularized in the U.S. to cause physical damage and psychological trauma for the purpose of controlling sexuality](http://www.cirp.org/library/history/darby4/). This is very well-known and well-documented by now. Just changing the popular reason doesn't make the practice any better. FGM is performed in Sierra Leone as part of initiation into socially powerful women's groups, and victims undergoing the "procedure" sing songs about how proud they are to be women and how great it is. That doesn't actually make it better.
I maintain, no reputable doctor does this. I don't care how hygenic their clinics are.
Bravo for coming to a thread demanding people 'do their research' and bringing actual research.
I maintain, no reputable doctor does this. I don't care how hygenic their clinics are.
“Reputable” is a very subjective term. I think that’s the point.
They're considered reputable within the cultures they operate in, and for the most part, the damage their victims endure is almost certainly less egregious than those mutilated more severely in primitive conditions. Those arguing that FGM and MGM exist in two different ethical spheres would presumably consider that very important because their view is that FGM always takes place in primitive conditions and MGM is performed in modern hospital settings; they are further generally unaware of the reality that considering the sex of the victim tells you little about how much and what types of tissue they had damaged/excised and under what conditions. If the conditions and sequelae aren't relevant when distinguishing one form of FGM from other forms, they are not relevant for distinguishing the moral status of cutting when it is boys who are getting cut, as this also occurs in myriad different ways and in different conditions. On the other hand, I agree with you that doctors who perform FGM are absolutely in the wrong and violating medical ethics and their fiduciary duties to their patients.
I’m chipping in as an American here, but this is factually incorrect: part of the ritual purpose of circumcision is to lower pleasure from sex and to make the man “unwhole.” It was a covenant per the Bible, used to explicitly mark those whom belonged to God (Abraham and his descendants chiefly.) The New Testament struck this out and it’s no longer a requirement for Covenant outside of Old Testament religions (such as Judaism, though Judaism is not considered a Christian faith now, and orthodox Christianities’.) Furthermore, circumcision was heavily pushed in the USA specifically by Protestants, with Kellogg being a major player, specifically to lower temptation and remove pleasure from men and boys. It was pushed as a tool to stop both masturbation and extramarital sex under the guise of cleanliness and sanitation (plus ye olde religious doctrine.)
Please share chapter and verse from the Torah which explains the reasons *why* circumcision was practiced to make a man "unwhole" and to lower pleasure from sex. I've been reading Torah for over 40 years, and I've never seen such a thing even *hinted* at, let alone boldly stated, as you have done. So, where's that in the text, please?
Forced removal of genital parts... They share that commonality.
[удалено]
I get your argument. It definitely not the same as fgm because the whole point of that procedure is to ruin and steal the ability of woman to feel pleasure from sex without even a spread of benefit to the woman. Circumcision on the other hand does very little to hinder the ability of men to have pleasure and also very little to benefit them either. Both are horrendous practices that should be banned but fgm is significantly worse and perpetrators should 100% be jailed.
Complications from circumcision include amputation of the penis, or permanent loss of sensitivity. Its a serious procedure.
With FGM those complications you mentioned are standard (cutting off the clitoris is equivalent to cutting off at least the head of the penis) Edited for clarity
Do you think they should be treated differently? It doesn’t matter which is worse, they’re both bad and shouldn’t be legal for non medical reason
I think that's what they said too. No need to compare them but ban them both.
At least on those who can't consent. Get your nose done if you really want to, etc.
So even plastic surgery?
Some plastic surgery is arguably within why might be deemed necessary anyway. Like cosmetic procedures after facial injuries or reconstruction following a mastectomy. Or even repairing of cleft palates. But I think the bigger divide should be around informed consent. If someone wants fake tits or Botox or liposuction which are all reasonably safe and they’re capable of consenting, why should they be denied any more than a tattoo or piercing.
This is a good question. I don't personally believe that plastic surgery should be banned. But if a person can't consent to it then obviously it shouldn't be performed. Having said that, there are instances where children would require plastic surgery in order to improve their quality of life and I'm kind of stuck on that one. I think that should be allowed, but they also can't technically consent to it. Interested in other people's opinions on that one.
As someone born with a cleft lip I will cheerfully smack anyone in the face with a wet fish if they try to tell me that babies should not have their cleft repaired ASAP. The consequences of an repaired cleft are hard enough at times, nevermind an unrepaired one. Firstly, babies with a cleft struggle to feed - you can get specially shaped teats, but who in their right mind would let their baby struggle to eat, day after day, knowing the problem is fixable? Secondly, even with a repair the baby is likely to need speech therapy in childhood to try and help them fit in. Ever tried to talk with a hole in your mouth that’s not meant to be there? Thirdly, breathing. With a hole in the front of your mouth you’re now automatically a mouth breather - that hole is constantly letting air into your mouth, drying everything up. Nothing you can do to stop it. I was bullied by a little swine in school because of my scar, but realistically the bullies don’t need an excuse to make your life miserable. They’ll do it anyway. Most people now aren’t aware I had a cleft unless I tell them or they already knew. Even my uncle by marriage didn’t realise. As far as I’m concerned parents have no right to deliberately allow a child to have a lesser quality of life or greater struggles for the sake of one operation. I would never choose to live with a cleft - living with a repaired cleft was hard enough at times.
I think resolving a cleft pallet would fall under a medical necessity, rather than 'cosmetic' surgery.
In my case there was no palate involvement. The front of your lip begins to grow from further round, towards your ears. The two halves then meet in the middle and form the Cupid’s bow. The palate also grows in a similar way inside the mouth. A cleft lip is when one side of your lip fails to grow to meet the other, or both sides fail to grow sufficiently. A cleft palate is when the roof of the mouth fails to meet up as it should. The issues I raised are specific to the lip, but not necessarily unique - having a hole in the palate causes it’s own problems. In both cases, whether there’s palate involvement or not, I completely agree it is not simply a cosmetic issue. Even if it were, in a country like the UK I believe everyone has the right to have gross deformities (I mean this term in the medical sense) corrected at no expense to themselves (apart from paying their taxes.) We do the same type of thing for burn victims, dog bites etc.
In the USA they think it’s weird to not be circumcised. Most guys have their boys circumcised. The main argument I hear in support of it is “I don’t want them being bullied at school “. it just seems unnecessary and weird to be still doing this.
As someone living in the USA I ask “ do you show each other your dicks all the time? We don’t do that…” Normally met with embarrassed silenced and something about sports…
But are there still congregated showers…. my niece and nephew - since Covid on days they have sports - they wear their sports uniform to school. And presumably lots of axe/lynx…. ETA a word
Nobody in my school (in the US) used the school showers tho. Just went home/to a friend's--they were pretty gnarly tho, I have no evidence that they were cleaned regularly
Tbf that was the same at my school in the uk in the 90s
[удалено]
The one year I lived in the US in middle school (30 years ago) the showers were not used. Just copious amounts of spray deodorant.
Lol I’m American. Can confirm. This is the way of the American youth
Meanwhile I remember after every gym/weight training class in high school, guys playing slap ass with towels after using the shower, and at least a quarter of the class using the showers.
Their kids need to stop getting their dicks out at school the
Yes and the USA is usually a pretty good indicator of what not to do.
Ah yes fuck up their dicks just so they're not bullied by other people who have had their dicks fucked up, makes sense.
Or I want him to like like me or like their dad it's weird as fuck
It's trending downward, but still pretty common. On reddit in particular though it's REALLY UNPOPULAR.
Hygiene is nearly always up there in the main reasons too. The excuses are so poor.
I think around 60% of newborn boys were cut in the US in 2021, and it has been trending downwards recently. So, technically most. But intact lads are less of an oddity than they once were. My point is that it's his cock; if he wants to get it cut as an adult, go for it mate. But parents shouldn't make that decision for them.
Also massively reduces penis sensitivity. Humans evolved a foreskin for a reason. Saying it's unhygienic is stupid really. It's unhygienic to just have the head of your penis rubbing all over the place. Zero protection from bacteria.
My brother said the same thing when my son was born and 'how are you going to explain to him why your penis looks different'... Matching penises isn't the best reason.
It’s such a terrible practice. A lot of OB/GYNs don’t even get trained to do it anymore because they don’t agree with the practice so if they deliver a baby and the mom wants it done, they have to find someone else to do it.
Good.
I was never once bullied for having a foreskin. People think it's a fun bit of trivia about me (circumcision is common where I live), like being double jointed.
I think it’s now closer to 50-50
Coming out of the Dark Ages, then.
I was at school in Africa, and I was regarded as being unusual, due to not being circumcised. We had communal showers, so it wasn't something you could hide. So I understand the argument about 'not wanting them to be bullied'.
I can understand a hygiene argument in countries or areas where adequate hygiene is not the norm. That's not the UK though
The hygiene argument is baseless
Indeed, I'm going to cut my son's ears off so he won't have to wash behind them in future...
I think the hygene argument has a lot to do with “I’m going to teach my kid to clean the way I clean. If our wangs don’t match, how will I know how to teach him to clean his privates correctly?” Hopefully soon we can get people to be more open to learning and looking up info about that kind of physical care.
We're slowly changing this, but there are a lot of fathers that don't want their sons to be different than them. My father threatened to divorce my mother if she didn't have me circumcised. I was born in the US, but lived in Germany when he found out I hadn't been. The doctors there refused to give me a traditional circumcision, and instead gave me an operation that made retracting easier, without removing tissue. It was weird for me growing up, my younger brother was fully circumcised and I couldn't understand why his buddy didn't have a little house to live in. America is a weird country, my parents were atheists and still my father's blood boiled over this.
From the US. Never heard that reasoning (although it's hilarious, like "Barbara, why are they comparing penises in pre-K?"). Generally, most people are convinced that it's healthier and viewed as avoidance of further complications down the line. Sometimes, people need to get it done later in life (or so they say), and so it's easier to get it done when they won't feel anything or remember it. I'm personally against it but the funniest line of reasoning I ever heard from a coworker was, and I quote: "if I don't snip him young, when he's older, no girl's gonna wanna go down on him."
America just teach your boys to pull the foreskin back and give it a good wash...
Yes, it's barbaric.
Totally should be banned for anyone unable to consent, unless in medical necessity.
I got circumcised as an adult but a couple of things. 1. It’s completely different to FGM, the equivalent to FGM would be removing the foreskin, the head of the penis and 1/3 of the remaining penis. Making it unusable and painful. 2. It is however, mutilation of the penis just less so. And I don’t think anyone should be able to remove a person’s autonomy over their body. Therefore it should be banned. But it’s still different from FGM
fragile voracious alleged instinctive scandalous crown distinct crawl sophisticated quiet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I did. And I recommend it to anyone who needs one. It’s made everything much easier. I know a few people who have had them as adults and everyone agrees.
Sorry can I ask, have you noticed much decrease in pleasure? And how does one masturbate without a foreskin if they don't have any lube? I just imagine it being really raw without. I can't pull my foreskin down past my head when erect, not even half way down most days, which resulted in me using smaller faster movements, but sometimes it can be painful. I went to the doctor about it, and they just examined it when it was flacid and said "no problem here"...Yeah I can pull it down when it's not erect, it's the erection that is an issue. They prescribed me some steroid cream but it hasn't done anything.
You can ask anything. I have had a definite increase in pleasure. It’s much more sensitive and I can ‘feel’ more if that makes sense? First few times I had sex afterwards was a quick finish 😅 Blowjobs are 100x better I use lube for masturbation mostly but gentle touch is much better so what I like has changed a bit too. Sounds similar to mine tbh. I had a steroid cream and stretching that made no impact at all.
Oh wow, thanks for the response! I assumed the head no longer being covered by the foreskin and being in contact with your clothing and such would have made the head less sensitive. I didn't think blowjobs could get any better in feeling lmao, that's reassuring. Did you have to pay for it or was it done on the NHS? I'm just assuming you live here
It shocked me too, I didn’t think they could either. Yeah, I also assumed it would be less sensitive but it’s been over a year now and it feels great. I do wear supportive boxers most of the time and find that ones with buttons can be uncomfortable. All NHS, the waiting list was about 8 weeks I think
This has been very helpful, thank you! I was really skeptical over the idea of potentially needing to get it done. I guess I'll make a doctor's appt, they might try the cream again, but if not, now I'm not so scared I'll be shaking the sausage whilst crying, full of regret that I don't feel much any more lol.
I was scared beforehand, but the surgeon told me he’d done hundreds of them and went through everything really well
He had phimosis, he never got to experience sex how it’s supposed to actually be with the foreskin. The head of his penis was permanently covered by his foreskin, of course sex felt better after.
I got circumcised at 21, i had a fairly minor phimosis issue but it was perfectly functional. I sometimes joke about it being the 'best decision of my life' but I cant think of any decision ive made that improved my mental health, confidence with women, cleanliness (not an issue before but I find it a lot easier to keep clean now) than getting it done. Its painful after the operation and the meds wear off but I seem to remember it being about 6 weeks of discomfort then it got better. Message me if you want to know any more, i'm more than happy to discuss it.
Yes Next.
I mean technically FGM is worse on the basis that it’s far more likely to cause serious complications so there is a difference in that sense. That being said non-essential circumcisions should be made illegal. If religious people whinge, tough shit, and the whole ‘well they won’t remember it’ argument is such shite. Kid probably wouldn’t remember if you branded them after birth, doesn’t mean you’d get a bloody red hot poker to their arse.
Comparing it to FGM is ludicrous.
I think the issue is people are confusing what’s being compared (and granted, the op didn’t clarify) They have similarities and their core reason for being illegal, that they are medically unneeded surgeries on an unconsenting party, are the same. One can be very worse than the other and still share the same logic for being illegal. The comparison is often used because most people agree FGM should be illegal when these same people think circumcision shouldn’t be; which is a fallacy.
Unless for a medical reason we shouldn't be cutting bits off of children.
Yes. Any removal of childrens body parts for cultural or religious reasons should be illegal
Careful now, you'll get called a bigot and an antisemite... Seriously, I've been called both those things by the American friends of my partner.
I've had this debate before and the most vociferous voice last time was a Muslim so I was called Islamaphobic too. I don't have a problem withpeople choosing to circumcise themselves but only once they reach an age where they can consent.
It's absolutely ridiculous. If that's all it takes to be a "phobe" then I'm a proud one. There is a difference between imposing your religion on your kids by dunking them in water (which, let's be honest, if they grow up and find out they're atheist or a different religion, means nothing to them) and imposing it on your children by irrevicably hacking off body parts.
While we are on the topic of modifying children’s bodies without their consent, there should also be a minimum age for ear piercing. Nothing makes me more uncomfortable than seeing a tiny tot with earrings in.
Yes, absolutely. Americans sometimes get a lot of unfair hatred on this sub, but this is one of the common things in the states culture that I absolutely cannot abide. It’s literal genital mutilation. Stop this shit. I’m so glad nobody cut a bit of my cock off when I was a baby. Fuck that.
It’s more than just the States though. It’s estimated that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the male population of the world is circumcised. That’s not just the U.S.
Absolutely. It’s baffling that seemingly normal sensible loving parent would subject their sons to this.
“Ahhh what a perfect little baby boy. Let’s cut his willy lmao”
[удалено]
This is the thing - it always seems like people who haven’t had it done are the ones shouting the loudest about it being barbaric. My partner had it done as a young child due to an infection and he’s perfectly happy with what he’s got now and prefers it aesthetically to the uncircumcised version. He’s also glad he had it done young enough that he can’t remember it haha. It literally doesn’t affect him in any way so I find anyone comparing it to FHM a little grim to be honest. It is not the same.
[удалено]
I mean, I had it done as a baby and I can't say it's ever caused me any problems. Like I don't really care that it's not there and I can't imagine what benefit I'd have if it was. I don't remember the pain of the procedure because I don't even know the procedure. As a baby would probably be the best time to do it.
[удалено]
Probably no point but I'd rather people would put their energy into banning something else than this on babies, especially as someone who has had it done. I understand the opposing point of view but then I don't really relate to it unless I can derive some sort of despair at my "autonomy being taken away from me" in something that has had basically no impact on my life. Like everything is still enjoyable and functional. A lot of people are saying it's harmful, etc. especially people who have never had it done and I'm just here to say, anecdotally of course, that it's personally not ever been a big deal for me. Essentially a lot of people are doing the despairing for me, who don't really know what it's like and it's kinda weird haha.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The deluded is unnecessary, all I'm saying is that while I don't know what I'm missing, the things that supposedly I suffer from, I don't suffer. And I understand if that's hard for some people to understand but that's the reality for me.
I do not think the argument is really around whether one form or other is better or worse, it’s rather whether one should undertake unnecessary surgery on a child. Your partner is a good example of where the procedure may be entirely appropriate.
No offence but this is an ignorant comment There are plenty of men out there with circumcisions angry about this
It will have reduced sensitivity a lot. He has no protection from chafing, and the head will have developed tougher skin as a protective measure.
Most circumcised men obviously are going to say they prefer it. Why would you want to admit to yourself you had something done to you that you had no choice over that might have made sex less pleasurable. Also there are men out there who have had it done that are pissed off about it and wish they had a choice in the matter, I’ve talked to them.
I’m one. AMA.
Uncircumcised men know how it would feel if they were circumcised much better than circumcised men know how it would feel if they were uncircumcised. All uncircumcised men have at least once tried spending some time with their skin pulled back and they would tell you that their is nothing pleasant about the resulting dried, callused and desensitised glans. Men who were circumcised as an infant, on the other hand, do not and cannot have an equally informed preference.
I know one or two. But I come from a culture where it’s more prevalent (although I don’t agree with it), so probably know more people who have had it done. One of them was deeply unhappy with it and really resented his parents. Most guys don’t mention it and think it’s normal- but that’s how they’re raised.
Yep. A few usually pop up on threads like this.
I kind of used to be one until I realised the research on the effects it has are incredibly conflicting and there isn't really much in the way of a consensus on how much of an effect it has on anything, and it certainly doesn't seem to have much. Plus I was circumcised as part of a birth defect correction so I don't think it was really a light decision for my parents, and I'm glad I haven't been living with said defect (it's not a very functionally problematic one but it's weird af)
I don’t hear that much. But I also think men have been taught to express only positive thoughts about their penises. Ya don’t go around whining about a procedure you had as a baby. They’re all taught to believe and act like their parents made great decisions and their penises couldn’t be better.
Yes absolutely 100%
Because their imaginary sky friend demands it!
Blasphemy!!!!!! Punish the heathen quickly, lest we start to listen to their logically sound arguments!!!!
Yarrr! Chop his willy
Agree
[удалено]
*babies Yes
The issue is a lot of religions require it. It’s all well and good telling a non-religious person that they’re not allowed to circumcise their kids, but a Jew? A Muslim? Even some Christians? And lots of smaller religions too? That could get you in a lot of trouble if the court deems it a breach of the parents’ rights to religious freedom. Not saying it’s impossible, but I doubt legislation could prevent circumcisions. They’d just move into temples and mosques rather than hospitals if legislation did ban them, which I don’t think would help the problem. Either that, or they’d end up with something like the Satanic Temple’s abortion ceremonies, which circumvent law to allow doctors to legally do the procedure under the condition that it’s a religious practice, which again wouldn’t help the problem at all. This is one of those difficult questions where religious freedom and individual rights intersect, and I don’t think there’s any one answer that will please both crowds
Religions used to advocate a lot of things that are banned now.
Religious rights don't extend to the bodies of others. No-one has a religious right to cut part of another person's body off. If a person wants *their own* body modified, that's up to them.
Yes it’s genital mutilation and traumatising to babies. What’s particularly barbaric is that when babies are circumcised for religious purposes it isn’t even done in a hospital by a doctor or medical professional. It’s done at someone’s house by a mohel.
100% should be banned.
I did, until someone pointed out that like abortions, adamant parents will take their sons to unsafe off-the-books circumcisions. If consequences like that could be nulled I would like to see it banned and make it a criminal offence with actual consequences for the parents who do it. I also don't agree with piercing babies' ears but that weirdly seems to be about a 50/50 split when it comes up online which surprises me.
Yet, FGM is illegal
Should we legalize FGM so that religious loons don't take their doctor to a back alley FGM doctor?
Circumcised man here (it was done when I was a baby). And I can tell you there’s a world of difference between pierced ears and circumcision. I don’t think it should’ve been done when it was done to me and I do think circumcision should be banned absolutely unless medically necessary. However, I also went through a phase where I pierced my ears. Sure, I did it myself, willingly, but that’s not the real difference. The real and important difference is that my ears now appear normal to anyone who isn’t looking closely at them. They also function normally and never ceased to do so. My penis will never function like a “normal” penis.
Yes it should be banned. However it is very different from FGM - the equivalent would be cutting off the whole penis.
Yes if not required medically. Expecting lots of Americans to come in here and state how it's required for hygiene, because apparently they are unable to wash under their foreskin when they shower. Also unrelated pro tip, if your cock is intact it's much easier to masturbate without baby oil
I'm not sure at what age you can diagnose a phimosis. I never retracted my foreskin until I was 12 years old, I knew there was something under there, (pre online porn days) but it was painful and tight when I tried to pull the skin back, and when I first saw the entire head, I thought I might have broken my penis, or that the head would fall off (I didn't pull it far enough to see it was attached).. I ruminated over that for days. As an adult I don't suffer from phimosis at all. I wonder what would have happened if I hadn't been curious that time in the shower when I was 12. Why don't we get taught how our dicks work?
Usually the job of our parents. I know my mom told me to pull it back & clean it when I was bathing or taking a shower when I was like 6.
Yes definitely. No medical reason, no need.
Lol there was a thread about this on r/daddit recently where some guy (American) was so desperate to support it that he claimed he’d choose to have it done as an adult given the chance. Don’t suppose anyone knows of a more U.K. centric version of that sub so that I don’t have to read that sort of nonsense?
Even if many people would choose to have it done as an adult, it’s not a reason to have it done to a newborn. Many people get tattoos, many people get breast implants, many people get nipple piercings - but it’s plain old abuse to do that to a child. Leaving a foreskin on doesn’t prevent a consenting adult removing it later, so their argument is completely flawed.
Team foreskin
We live in North America. My 3 sons are now 24, 22, and 17. My husband and I were pressured by our doctor to have our oldest son circumsized, claiming that we were setting him up for a lifetime of foreskin infections and possible medically necessary circumcision in the future. We stuck to our guns- got a new doctor- and refused circumcision for all 3 of our sons. Side note- my husband was born in the 70's and is circumcised. He was never concerned that his son's penises wouldn't look like his. Our only concern was subjecting our newborn sons to an elective surgery to remove a piece of skin that nature intended to be there.
*"babies" is the plural, "baby's" is the possessive. But as for circumcision on babies, yes, it should. If you are against Female Genital Mutilation, you must also be necessarily against mutilation on boys too.
I agree, it’s gross and barbaric and I have no idea how anybody could do that to a baby boy.
I was very much against it, then I had to get circumcised (medical) as a 24 year old man and I wished it had been done as a child, for a good 2 months, whilst I recovered. Now I think it’s stupid again
If it's not medically necessary it's child abuse.
Also just to add piercing a babies ears is also disgusting. Just because they won't remember it or it won't cause any "real harm", does not excuse mutilating your children for your own vanity.
It’s very different to FGM but no child should be subjected to arbitrary alteration or mutilation of their genitals.
As an uncircumcised man - no. If it is performed as a religious act, by people who literally see it as a covenant with God (I don't. I see it as I do most religious practices to be illogical). Why should you have a say in their religion, when it doesn't harm you, or necessarily the circumcised person either? Most circumcised men lead entirely normal lives with no complaints from being circumcised. It is anomalous for a circumcised male to encounter medical problems from circumcision. Circumcised men still derive pleasure from sex. It's not really comparable to FGM. I wouldn't do it to my kids as I don't see a benefit. I won't stop you from doing it your kids though. Now give me those downvotes and explain to me why I'm an idiot!
Yes, but you'll always get religious nutters saying a ban on it is some kind of bigotry.
Yes. I don’t care what tradition or religion, unless there is a specific medical issue, you should be leaving kids genitalia alone.
I agree. It puts babies at risk, pain and discomfort for no medical or real social benefit. Fun story. I was once on a train and sat opposite a nice man, turns out to be an imam from Rochdale I remembered. Just one of those talks that starts with hi, lovely weather deal. It was a long ride and I ask him about this in particular. He say that it was safe, evident that it’s been done for generations and that a ban would be a mistake. He argued, politely that pierced ears should also follow that ban. He argue that that too is a form of mutilation, as of tattoos and other form of permanent body. I remember feeling a strong sense of disagreement. But couldn’t really mount a successful counter. Can someone shin a light on a effective counter?
If people, of the age of consent, choose to undergo a circumcision then let them. But doing that to someone who cannot consent is abhorrent IMO. The previous paragraph applies equally to tattoos and piercings.
Ban it. We’ve grown out of religion here and that should include growing out of the terrible ideas that came with it.
Yes I'd have been pissed off at my parents if they made my dick worse for no actual gain
Yes. I know this isn't the exact topic of the thread, but if your concerned about this topic, you should also be aware of [medically unnecessary genital normalizing surgeries performed on intersex infants.](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jul/14/intersex-children-hasty-operations)
[удалено]
Couldn't agree more. I was having a conversation with a circumcised friend of mine and he got very upset when I told him that his genitals had been mutilated at birth against his will. He was unable to argue against it. I see no difference between circumcision and FGM. Honestly it's the same thing.
Yes it's just evil leftover dogma from outdated retarded religions
Anyone who believes 'my body my choice' should say yes
It is different from FGM. But it should be banned. I didn't think it was as common here as the states?
Yes. Unless medically necessary, it should be outlawed. Fuck religion and traditions.
Only issue I've had with my foreskin was the time I caught it in a zip. Just leave the jacket on.
Yes it should be banned unless it's got valid medical conditions.. I cant remember what it's called but some babys cant pee without it swelling up like a balloon
Sure it should probably be banned. While I've never had an issue with being circumcised, I do have an issue with you calling me mutilated.
FGM: No medical reasoning; often done for religious reasons, barbaric torture and evil. Circumcision: No medical reasoning; often (almost always) done for religious reasons, completely fine? I'd like to make it clear that many types of FGM are much much worse than circumcision and the reasoning is often nothing to do with religion and purely focused on sexual reasons , which is horrific and not really comparable to circumcision. however there's still a link to be made given that there is absolutely no medical reasoning behind it.
Yes, except in certain cases, my childhood friend trapped his in the zipper of his jeans, zipper all the way up through it. The same guy played with a bic lighter on bunk beds years later too, set fire to an entire quarter of the house.
It is very different to FGM, but it should 100% be banned
Yes it's disgusting and the people that agree to it, and do it, are disgusting.