Is male circumcision a double standard? A question for pro-circ women.

[pixeldust]

Starting my own thread on this one

Is male circumcision a double standard when compared to female circumcision? Not in terms of what we have come to equate with female genital mutilation (removal of the clitoris and labia as well as the clitoral hood and sometimes stitching closed of the vagina), but simply in regards to any modification of the genitals of a healthy baby girl vs a healthy baby boy (that is, modification done for purposes above and beyond medical reasons).

Medically, removal of the clitoral hood of a female newborn is roughly equivalent to the removal of the male foreskin of a male newborn, if not less invasive due to the purpose and the area of cells and nerve endings.

My question for those who are pro-circ and have or will circ their newborn sons: IF you were advised that removing your female newborns clitoral hood may give the following benefits, would you do it?

- Make the genitals look nicer to the some of the opposite sex
- Potentially reduce the risk of HIV and HPV transmission (by a marginal amount)
- Possibly assist the females genital area to be easier to clean and more hygienic (especially when they are elderly and in care)

Thanks for reading and responding

 

[Nibblenic]

I would not have any of my children circumcised. It might be more interesting to get an view from a woman living n a country where it is more common place, outside of religion, I believe it is more common in America.

However in the UK is isnt common outside of medical reasons or religion. It isnt offered within our health care system, the NHS. Except as a last resort for medical reasons

 

[beccad]

I'm also interested to read thoughts from women in countries where it's common. I think very few people do it in the UK, and I've never heard of female circumsicion (outside of FGM I mean).

The reasons you list for doing it wouldn't be reason enough for me to do it, boy or girl. But then for me it's not a religious or cultural norm so I've never considered it as an option.

 

[Dk1234]

Iui, hope I don't get stoned here. I will be circumsizing my son I think. My husband isn't and he said his desire is for our son to be. He said the argument about it being cleaner is true. He has to push back his foreskin while cleaning it and while peeing. Plus, when my son is in the bathroom at school age and looks over at a urinal, he will Probably see a circumsized penis. I don't want him to feel different. Plus I don't want to be checking and making sure my 10 year old is cleaning it properly. Cause let's face it, boys will be boys.

 

[Dk1234]

And as for female circumcision, it doesn't provide any benefit and it reduces or eliminates sexual pleasure. Not at all the same thing, so I'll leave it alone.

 

[pixeldust]

And as for female circumcision, it doesn't provide any benefit and it reduces or eliminates sexual pleasure. Not at all the same thing, so I'll leave it alone.

You've not really answered my question. Maybe if I simplify it:

If the same surgery could be performed on your newborn daughter, with the same "benefits", impacts and outcomes as male circumcision, would you do it?

 

[Unbridled]

I wouldn't circumcise my child--be it male or female--regardless of any "benefits" the procedure might hold. If there were an actual medical reason for it (i.e. if my son suffered from too tight a foreskin, etc) then obviously, yes, I would do it. Otherwise, no. And I live in an area where it is extremely common for boys to be circumcised.

The way I feel about it is that it's a personal choice, but that it isn't my choice to make. It's my child's. So if Maddox comes to me later on, at an age where I'm comfortable he can make an informed decision, and requests a circumcision, I will be more than willing to take him to have it done. But subjecting anyone, male or female, to an unnecessary operation without their consent, does not seem to me to be right. I don't judge other parents for choosing circumcision for their children. But I, personally, don't feel comfortable doing it.

 

[kerrie24]

I wouldnt circumcise any of my children,regardless of gender,unless it was medically needed.

 

[tina3747]

Ignorantly, I do not know the reasons for circs in regards to religious reasons, ie what are the meanings behind it.. Would be great for a nice Muslim or Jewish member to enlighten me!!
In regards to removal of the clitoris hood, I can't see any benefit of cleanliness in the same argument for a man. Our 'dirt' comes from inside, not getting stuck under a piece of skin.
I'm against circs for hygiene reasons, I'm sure there's a reason why men were given them in the firt place and I guess I just see it as basic male hygiene to pull it back to clean it in the first place.
I think with exception for religious purposes it's not that common in the uk to have the procedure done. My friends son had it for medical, had 2 pee holes and they removed it at the same time as closing one up.

 

[Dk1234]

And as for female circumcision, it doesn't provide any benefit and it reduces or eliminates sexual pleasure. Not at all the same thing, so I'll leave it alone.

You've not really answered my question. Maybe if I simplify it:

If the same surgery could be performed on your newborn daughter, with the same "benefits", impacts and outcomes as male circumcision, would you do it?

Well, I'm confused. There are a lot of variables I guess I'd have to know. But it isn't the same so I can't really answer. If women were exactly like men and had penis's then, yes. It has nothing to do with her being female. But reality is, it isn't at all the same. I would never deliberately remove all hopes of sexual satisfaction for either gender child. But, most men in the US are circumsized and trust me they enjoy sex! Ha ha! I left this decision up to my husband because as a women I don't think you can really understand it fully.

 

[MoonMelody]

Female 'circumcision' (FGM, female genital mutilation) is actually mutilation because it's crippling and can be fatal. Male circumcision, while only necessary in certain cases, is by and large harmless. I have worked with victims of FGM. It's tragic.

 

[JASMAK]

I don't disagree that female 'circ' is worse than males...but, there was a baby boy who died here (well, close to where I live) who was circ'd. Both the parents worked in the medical field...and the newborn bled to death in his diaper. So, both can be tragic...but, maybe the other one moreso. But, I would say both can have devestating results...not to mention, there is no solid reason to do it (not speaking religious of course). The infections and STD's and HIV is a very weak excuse in my books...and for vanity reasons, to me, is like giving a baby a facelift. Crazy.

 

[pixeldust]

Female 'circumcision' (FGM, female genital mutilation) is actually mutilation because it's crippling and can be fatal. Male circumcision, while only necessary in certain cases, is by and large harmless. I have worked with victims of FGM. It's tragic.

If you read my post, that's not what I asked. This is not about FGM. This is about IF an operation could be performed on the genitals of newborn baby girls that would provide the same "benefits" as male circumcision, would people allow it to be performed. And if not, why not?

 

[maryp0ppins]

And as for female circumcision, it doesn't provide any benefit and it reduces or eliminates sexual pleasure. Not at all the same thing, so I'll leave it alone.

Male circumcision also reduces sexual pleasure.

As for the question,no I would never have it done on any child. I'm originally from Canada,before I immigrated to the UK I had never seen a normal penis,only circumcised ones. My boyfriend is not circumcised and he is very clean, also much more sensitive sexually.

 

[crossroads]

To compare FGM to male circ is nonsensical and offensive.

 

[PocoHR]

Female 'circumcision' (FGM, female genital mutilation) is actually mutilation because it's crippling and can be fatal. Male circumcision, while only necessary in certain cases, is by and large harmless. I have worked with victims of FGM. It's tragic.

If you read my post, that's not what I asked. This is not about FGM. This is about IF an operation could be performed on the genitals of newborn baby girls that would provide the same "benefits" as male circumcision, would people allow it to be performed. And if not, why not?

I think your question is confusing because your hypothetical is unclear.

If I am right, you are saying all benefits and risks being equal, would you circumcise your daughter?

Which is an ok question, apart from the fact that the real risks involved with fgm (or female circumcisition) are so horrifying, that I think its hard for people to talk about as a benign thing.