Mumsnet Talk

Right, I need a man's perspective on this.

I've just had my second son. My DH (who is American), is circumcised, as is my DS1 (who was born in the US), and DH assumes that we'll get DS2 circumcised. I can't say that I gave a lot of thought to getting DS1 circumcised because everyone in the US seems to get it done and so I didn't really question it at the time. But since then I've changed my mind quite a bit. It's his body, after all, and I'm worried now that I consented to something I didn't really have the right to do IYKWIM?

So, to DS2. We had the six-week post-birth check this morning and I was supposed to be asking the doctor for a referral for the circumcision, except I forgot. Honestly! But I'm definitely feeling conflicted about it and so I want to know - if you're a man how would you/do you feel about circumcision? Do you think anyone else has the right to make that decision, and if your father and older brother are/were circumcised would you want to look the same or would that not even feature in your opinion on the issue? Please help - I want to make the right choice for my son.

I'm not a man (sorry for butting in). But I strongly believe that unless there are religious or medical reasons for doing so, you should not expose your son to a needless medical procedure which carries risks (however minimal).

IMO it's an archaic and cruel thing. I don't understand why people begin to think it's aceptable to cut off pieces of their children's body.

by the way it's not true that 'everyone' does it in the US - about a third, and falling very fast as Americans come to their senses

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/u-s-circumcision-rates-on-the-decline/

Oh dear OP, get your hard hat on for the anti-circumcision brigade of MN!

I hope you get some honest responses from men though, because this is something I've often wondered too.

really not a good plan. (you've not had any men's opinions yet, sorry)
I would advise not to do it at all unless there's a medical reason.

seriosuly, what's his dad's reason?
"because mine's been done" ?
that's not a reason - it's barbaric
it's a bit like saying "well, i've had my bits chopped off, so he should have too"

Cultural reasons are deeply engrained, just like religious ones.

I'm sure some men who've been chopped would hate to think they were somehow worse off, and so they deal with the cognitive dissonance by looking for reasons why it is preferable. Others may just genuinely believe them.

By having a son that isn't circumcised it forces a guy to confront that perhaps the decision to circumcise him wasn't right (can be tough to accept), and perhaps more subconsciously it might also seem to be a rejection by someone they love (ie their partner) of the way they look (which is a bit of an ego blow and can hurt).

I would tread carefully, use a lot of empathy and make it clear that this is a joint decision and not a rejection of his body or a criticism of his parent's choices.

ah, yes, Nesbo has said what I meant, but better

hello
well, i think there is an idea that the son should look like the father, but thats hardly a good reason
circumsion is the only form of body-mutilation that has managed to creep it's way into modern western culture , with the false idea that it's healthier or cleaner. in the 1930's an american doctor published a paper linking not being curcumcised with cirvical cancer in women, the papers disprooving it later diddnt make it to the news and soon the american medical establishment were grossing millions per year from the simple proceedure , the austrailians are fairly snip-happy too as it go's , not sure what there reason is.
here in europe only jews and muslims ( generaly speaking) are circumcised , docturs in sweeden refuse to curcumcise attall, even for faith reasons , they simply refuse to remove healthy tissue.

I'm a man nickelbabe

You shouldn't make the choice for your son. HE should make the choice whether or not he wants part of his body permanently removed, and he can't do that until he's 18 (or whatever).
The mutilation of others like that should be made illegal as soon as possible.

are you really stubborn ? You don't seem that way in your posts

I'm joking i'm sorry, i completely missed your posts when I posted that comment

you may slap my hand.

(well, i saw your posts, but i didn't scan the name)

If it's not legal to tattoo Iggle Piggle on a baby's face, then circumcision shouldn't be allowed either.

there isnt much difference really, in being a man who is cut or uncut , apart from the uncut guy doesnt have to spit in his hand ("coughs ....try not to go into detail here , last timke i got banned !)
the pain of a baby boy can be easily ignored , babys cry all the time anyway, but i'm fairly sure they feel the pain exactly in the same way as an adult would .
i am not circumcised btw, if thats relevent.
i would advise not to, make sure he learns to wash under his foreskin and that he rolls it back from time to time , if he doesnt it could become tight and give him problems when he first starts doing what come naturaly.
it isnt much fun being circumcised in later life, it happend to a freind of mine and the desensitisation that his penis had to go through over the following days was very unpleasent for him. but i dont think 'snip at birth to avoid snipping later' is a good argument.
if your husband is really adamant about it , maybe you should go along with it, it wont affect your boys life really, it's just fairly pointless.
hope that helped.

I'm a guy and not circumcised. I would say that unless there's a medical reason it should not be done. The foreskin is there for a reason (to protect and lubricate the head of the penis) so it's better to leave it. Yes, it can get smelly if it's not cleaned properly but the same could be said of numerous parts of the body. Just teach your son to clean it properly.

The stuff about a boy looking the same as his father is rubbish. It should be no big deal to explain to him why his penis looks a bit different.

Thanks for your responses. I think I need to have a chat with my DH when he gets back from his business trip. I have no idea how he'll react. I know he expects us to get DS2 circumcised, but I'm not sure how hard he'll fight for it.

let us know what happend juneau

Such a dilemma, this one - so glad I had a girl!

I'm a circumcised male and I wouldn't have it any other way. I think I'm right in saying that ALL my ex's have either been relieved, pleased or thrilled at the fact that i'm cut. Have never known a woman (gf or friend) to prefer hooded cock (but i'm hooking up with a bunch of friends today and will do a survey and report back). Anyway - point made.

HOWEVER, it seems such a barbaric thing to do to a baby boy doesn't it?! I don't know what I would do if I had a boy. I would find it hard to justify such a seemingly cruel encounter.

Then again, I am aware of no psychological or physical detriment regarding my own snip.

I seem to be regarding the whole thing as cosmetic surgery! Hmmm, not sure I've been much help.

some girls do have a preference for an uncut penis , i heard one girls say the first time she saw a (her words) 'peek-a-boo cock' she shudderd
i happend to ask a couple of girls i know if they had a preference recently, they said they diddnt, but they also said they wouldnt know what to do with a penis without a foreskin, i'm sure a foreskin makes one certain hand activity easier.

yes, it does dadof2ofthem
DH has got a short foreskin, so not mucked about with, but it was pretty weird at the start. (even looking at it, because it just looks wrong like there's something missing)
I've never been with a man who's circumcized, though.

from a woman's perspective I would say that It is not something I would put my son through without good cause.

But i have been with both cut and uncut men. In general intercourse there is very little difference. Hand jobs are slightly more difficult if they are without foreskin as it requires a slightly different technique.

IME the guys without foreskin have tended to last longer but then that doesn't prove sod all.

Of the men who i have known that have been cut they have had it for medical reasons. So I guess their perspective is different. they have all been of the opinion that it is better to have a penis that works than one that looks the norm.

I can't say I have a preference one way or another. And i have never spat in my hand either

"IME the guys without foreskin have tended to last longer but then that doesn't prove sod all. "
DH's exposed skin is less sensitive, but then it's also red and tough - more like foto than a penis. It looks nicer when it's sensitive - like it's not supposed to be exposed, so therefore is more excited that it has been.
And DH's non-sensitive head doesn't mean he lasts longer - that's just down to experience - when we first started doing it, he came very wuickly (but it was nigh-on impossible to do anything with just hands)

I'd be really surprised if you could just ask for a referral from your GP in any case, as in the UK it is not a normal practice unless there is a medical need. There was a move a while back to totally stop doing it (not make it illegal but a discussion within the medical community about ethics) but I think the view was that it might make some families fall back on traditional methods (ie not done by doctors) and there have been some cases of really nasty outcomes. I'm not sure what the current position is, but I would expect that you would have to pay for it privately as the NHS has moved against paying for clinically unnecessary operations.

I am uncut, but I always try to have a balanced view.

I tend to believe it is mutilation, and unnecessary, and our son wasn't circumcised. I waver on how strongly I feel about calling it mutilation - obviously it isn't nearly as bad as Female circumcision - but it is certainly unnecessary.

However, I think I do believe the few studies which suggest circumcision can lower the chances of catching AIDS, and other STDs, but all the studies appear to have been conducted in Third World Countries where AIDS is more prevalent and presumably general hygiene is more difficult.

But for a man who cleans himself thoroughly every day, with access to western conveniences like constant running water, and who doesn't engage in unprotected sex with many partners, I can see no reason to be circumcised.

You are removing the element of choice and freedom in the child's later life. If he wants to be circumcised, he can. If he wants to have risky sex, he should be able to. If he wants to be dirty and unwashed, that too should be his free choice.

I also firmly believe that circumcision reduces sensitivity for sex, having had some extremely frank conversations with my circumcised friends. I think having to use spit, or oil, or lube, to have a wank, is a shame.