Since this keeps coming up, it makes me absolutely furious and I don’t want to ruin other peoples threads I’ll post this here and then leave the topic alone.
Re: Uncircumcised vs Circumcised.
My argument is that in 2026 in a secular country, circumcision should be a medical procedure performed by a qualified, experienced professional only with the consent of the organs owner who is made fully aware of what they are about to lose. If an 18+ adult wishes it done for their own reasons then that should be permitted in law.
However a procedure performed on a child without its consent, for any reason other than something that negatively impacts their immediate health, should be considered, treated and prosecuted as child abuse or grievous bodily harm under Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Section 20 ( Malicious Wounding ).
Medieval myths, superstition and organised dogma should be no defence.
Neither fashion, fads, tradition or peer pressure.
Female opinions are as irrelevent as male opinions about womens bodies when it comes to a clinical decision.
Likewise a mothers opinion on some concept of the aesthetic.
The inner skin of the foreskin contains approx the same number of never endings as the clitoris, many of which are wholly unique. Its is the most sensitive part of the male genitalia and as such to remove it could be said to be akin to removing the clitoral glans - it doesn’t entirely prevent sex or orgasm, but the sensation and experience is greatly lessened. That many people who have been cut at birth can never realise this is absolutely not the point. They have been recklessly denied the opportunity.
As it is, circumcision of minors is rarely done by an experienced, specialist surgeon. Usually left to less experienced, less concientious and in some obscene circumstances, unqualified religious ‘leaders’. Its bad enough to be removing the foreskin but its also apparently very common for non specialists to take pride in removing everything .. ie. the frenulum as well. I can’t express how disgusting this is.
If women were in danger of having their most sensitive parts of their Vulva ritually removed at birth for no reason other than someone elses pleasure or beliefs I think there would be a law against it. Oh, yes there is .. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 . Yes I understand thats meant to cover much more extreme and barbaric acts but it also includes female circumcision ( specifically removal of the clitoral hood which is a close enough equivalence for demonstration ).
I’m aware my neurodivergency means I tend toward black and white thinking and have an intense need for justice, and my circumcision in my 40’s means I know exactly what is lost, but I’m curious as to whether I’m in a minority. You can select multiple options.
- Unnecessory circumcision should only be allowed after the age of 18 with consent.
- Parents should be prosecuted for unneccesary circumcisions before 18
- Maintain the status quo.
- The foreskin is irrelevant. Its a fuss about nothing. Take it off. Take it off. Take it off.
- I was cut at birth and I’m perfectly ok.
- Childhood male circumcision should be allowed on religious grounds
- Childhood clitoridectomy or labiaplasty should also be allowed on religious grounds
- God made a mistake and the foreskin was meant for sausage skins.
- I have no opinion