A third of all UK midwives see FGM cases

I thought it could only be done where medically indicated, my brother was circumcised at 4 yrs old. The reason being that as he got older, his foreskin didn't grow with him so got tighter and tighter, resulting in infection after infection, really painful, he used to cry when he urinated, not to mention his aim was terrible! Urine all over the place when he went for a wee.

To be honest tho I'm not sure the two can be compared.

FGM is all about removing physical sexual pleasure for a woman whereas male circumcision never has that effect. It may change the sensation, but a man can still enjoy sex. For a woman, FGM removes that possibility.

Perhaps the only comparison to be made is that they are both about coming under authority - for a man its to God and to a woman its under man...

not all FGM removes sexual pleasure and sensation, some are as small as only knicking the clitoris, while others are more extreme and remove the clitoris, however sexual pleasure and even orgasm can still happen. It would be the more extreme versions that would completely remove all sensation and pleasure.

I dont agree with the reason that it is done (nor male circumcision) but at the fundamental level they are both removing essential body parts for religious or cultural purposes.

Perhaps my assumption is wrong but I would think that a culture that thinks its ok to mutilate female genitals, no matter how 'small' (and tbh I think even nickingthe clitoris is unacceptable) pays little regard to the womans enjoyment of sex, regardless of the fact it can still happen.

I am very accepting of differing cultures, they add beauty and diversity to the world, but certain things specifically FGM are unacceptable on every level and must be stopped and women and girls educated and protected against it.

Unfortunately, Type IV FGM (the only type that doesn't involve excision of the clitoris) is the least common. In the vast majority of cases FGM does remove all sensation as that is its primary purpose.

I didn't see this at all during my training in the UK, but the region of Tanzania where I have worked has a high level of types 1 and 2 FGM due to the tribal make up of the area. It is interesting to see the differences between FGM i.e. how they have healed, the amount of scar tissue etc. I guess a lot depends on who performs the FGM. I think it is a violation of women' rights in all cases, and am so glad that several tribes in the region are beginning to reject it. Unfortunately it will be the next generation who will benefit, and all those women and children who have had it done still have to live with the consequences

I completely agree, however male circumcision is also cultural and religious and is also a type of mutilation.

The clitoris while an important sexual organ is not the only way a woman feels sensation or attains orgasm during sexual activity. However I dont want anyone to think that I support FGM in any way, I just find it a very interesting topic to talk about in relation to male circumcision.

I think in relation to male circumcision, it is important that the NHS recognises that Jewish people generally want to have their sons circumcised, and I would far rather know that a qualified doctor was performing the circumcision surgically than a rabbi without any medical training in a ritual removal. It is rather like the abortion argument back when it was illegal: people are going to do it one way or the other, and it is far better to provide medical facilities for it to be done safely.

FGM, however, is not the same in my view because a) it's much more extreme and more serious damage, and b) it is not a regularly-practised cultural ritual in the UK. I think the best way to tackle anything like this is to try and alter cultural views on the acceptability of circumcision/FGM but also accept that it happens and try to minimise the risk and damage.

I think the difference is in the intent. Male circumcision is not about reducing male sexual pleasure, whereas FGM is ALL about it. Regardless of whether an orgasm is physically possible or not I think is probably not even a part of it. They don't mutilate up to a point out of respect for the fact that a woman retain some possible sexual enjoyment.

I'm struggling to see a similarity.

I 'kind of' agree to a certain extent. It is important to tolerate religious or cultural values particularly if it avoids 'backstreet' medical procedures. I just can't help but think religion has no place in medicine, its religion that has us removing the flesh of baby boys, religion that had us unconditionally deny terminations - just doesn't seem 21st century to me... particularly when there are other portions of religious text that churches chose to ignore because they are no longer applicable to society.

Generally it is more extreme, but health authorities still almost exclusively hold a unwavering zero tolerance approach. What if those practising FGM proposed an agreement that would allow type 1 mutilation of baby girls in "medical facilities" or perhaps the lone removal of the clitoral hood (which some I imagine, would argue is close to the male equivalent of circumcision)?

What about that that in both cases it is more often then not done without the individuals/victims consent? I feel considerably less uncomfortable when an 18 Y.O man signs a consent form for circumcision, and I suppose similarly for a woman, not that I can imagine that happening.

Just throwing ideas around, an upsetting topic indeed

I suppose consent may be in there, of course babies have to rely on their parents. But it comes back still to the profound differences in the procedures. Male circumcision is certainly painful for the babies but the effects (don't get me wrong, I do know its not going to grow back ) are not life long and life affecting particularly whereas FGM is.