To be stunned....babies feel no pain statement.

[salsmum]

I work as a carer and a lovely lady who I work with told me that her grandson was circumcised a week ago (part of their religion) at 4 weeks old, by a priest and although hes still a bit sore its better to have it done when they are little because babies don't feel pain .
Having 2 kids who are now adults I'm afraid I'm inclined to disagree with her.
I'd like to clearly state that I'm not against circumcision for what ever reason I just find it strange that she should think that babies dont feel pain .

I think the lady did not explain it properly. What the doctors explained to us is that if you are circumcising a new born or a baby upto 6 months old, you can do it under local anesthetic, because it is a simple operation, but after 6 months it's become more complicated and you should do it at the hospital under proper care. Also the aftercare of the circumcision is easier because it dries up inside the nappy. There must be a reason why it's ok to use just sometype of gel to numb the pain with a baby (as happened with DS), whereas if he was 6 months or older would have needed general anesthetic. And by the way, it is part of our religion to circumcise a boy, but personally I will never let a priest do it, it has to be a proper qualified surgeon which is what we used.

angels the OP was about circumcision.

lennon80

Babies do feel pain anyone who thinks they don't is a moron.

Both of mine had numerous medical procedures as they were premature and I can guarantee they felt every needle/tube/eyeclamp etc etc etc.

Animals certainly do feel pain, just try accidentally standing on my cat's tail.

Milli I have read lots of Peter Singer on the subject, and his work agrees with my point, which it appears you misunderstood. I said "int the same way", not that they don't feel pain.

Perhaps have another read yourself.

my dd2 had to have two heel prick tests s a baby one done in the home and one don in the local hospital. The one in the hospital she was given a sugar solution which they have discovered helps babies feel less pain. It was amazing. I was there ready to feed her or give her ha dummy. Nothing she hardly cried at all just what you would expect from a baby that age getting undressed and handed to someone with cold hand.

So yes babies do feel pain

Which actually proves that their experience of pain is different. Does sugar and water make an effective pain antidote in adults? Nope.

I'm not sure that looking at sugar waters adult analgesic effects is evidence for either point of view.

A glucose solution reduces what we perceive as infant pain.

But it likely doesn't eliminate it.

And, an equally likely hypothesis exists.
Which is that infants aren't able to communicate their sensations as well as adult.

Having said that, our best data from more objective measures of pain (cortisol, NIRS etc) indicate that young infants (0-6mths) probably feel more pain than older humans.
They have an under-developed nervous system which lacks inhibition functions.
This appears to reach normal by 18mths.

But this is really difficult area to get accurate and useful data.

The neonatologist at the hospital where my ds was born tried to tell me newborns don't feel pain as my 2 day old baby was screaming while having a cannula inserted in his hand, and later having multiple blood samples taken from his heel

My dad used to work in a children's hospitla and i can remember him saying that one of the reasons why specialist children's hospitals were needed (rather than just children's wards) was not just becasue many of the problems/illnesses/treatment were specific to children but also becasue of outdated approaches by some medics about things like the need for children and babies to have pain relief (ie that some of the dinosaurs didn't think it was nencessary). He always took great care to make sure the children in his care were not distressed.

maktaitai

I am sure men do question circumcision but I am pretty sure my son will thank me for it when he is older. Besides if it reduces his risk of contracting AIDS then it is worth it soley on that basis never mind all the other positives. The better sex thing yes its subjective but if that area of skin is always exposed its far more likely to be less easily aroused than if it is covered and then exposed, hence a circumcised man lasts n=longer in bed, certainly been my experience.

Women who apparently 'prefer' an uncircumcised penis are saying that because that is what they have ended up with. Even the most hygienic men cannot be as clean as the foreskin provides a horrible moist bacteria breeding ground on a mans penis...well if you like that sort of thing I suppose ....

There are many health benefits and given how simple a procedure it is then for me the benefits out weigh the risks but I suppose if your husbands have a foreskin it wouldnt really be something you thought too much about. Thats fair enough I dont care if people choose not to do it in the same way it is not for you to take a sanctimonious attitude about me choosing what I feel is best for my sons long term health.

"Women who apparently 'prefer' an uncircumcised penis are saying that because that is what they have ended up with"

what utter tripe

they are saying it becasue it is there preference!! surely you don't believe that all women who have experienced sex with a circumcised penis prefer it? you cannot be that deluded.

They are saying it because they have never had both. What is the percentage of UK men who are circumcised? Certainly a minority. So chances are those who say it have not actually had the benefit of both because if they did (and took out the actual man and the feelings for them etc) they would in fact say that uncircumcised was preferable yes (especially were oral sex is concerned).

I've had both and much prefer a man with a foreskin.

Can I ask why? I am curious?

how teh hell would you know whether a woman has had sex with both a circumcised and uncircumcised man??? what a strange thing to say.

surely if they are saying they prefer one or teh other that means tehy have experienced both and have made a judgement.

i would never say i prefer rosé to white wine because i have never tasted rosé. i could only give a preference if i had tasted both.

you sound quite naive.

thank you miasma

lennon there's your proof.

Booooooyhoooo from your comments I know you havent had both because if you did you would not be arguing this point. If you have had both and you are objective then its a no brainer I am afraid. People are saying 'ooh I prefer a foreskin' because they feel defensive towards their DH.

erm, i never said i had both.

but oh look miasma did and she is saying she orefers a man with a foreskin. are you calling her a liar?

No I am asking her why and waiting for a response.

and will you believe her response when she gives it or will you think she is just being defensive of her partner?

Because honestly I think they look nicer and more manly.

I could go in to more detail but I wont because this is a post about babies pain thresholds and it would be innapropiate.

All of your resonating is making me Lennon.

It reads very much as if your getting your son circumcised because you prefer sex with a man with an circumcised penis.

You've said that men with a foreskin is less sensitive and therefore doesn't last as long so all males should get their foreskins lopped off shortly after birth so woman can have better sex ? What selfish garbage.

re: the pain thing (as I don't know about the circumcised penis and sex thing...), I thought the 'feel no pain' myth persisted because the reaction of a small baby to extreme pain is to go very still and actually sleep. So all the baby boys who were apparently happy and had a little nap during / after their circumcision were actually demonstrating a reaction to a large amount of pain. Not no pain. Lots of pain. Poor little things.

Why are you arguing with me boooooyhooo because if you have not had both then your not really in a position to dispute what I am saying are you? Which actually compounds what I was saying earlier, you are only 'offended' because you are defending your OH. But its quite unnecessary really. I dont care what other people have or do ..I was simply backing up the assertion I made. If I can have the choice a penis with a moist bacteria breeding foreskin which is much less hygienic to one without that which is dry and clean and can last longer then its a no brainier which one I will choose. Why is me saying that problematic for you?

I have had both and I much prefer a foreskin. There is more to play with and I like the fact that the area is more sensitive. In fact, I would be a bit if DH decided that my clitoritis would be better if it was keratinised and suggested that I remove the hood, why wouldn't a man feel the same about his glans?

And the worry about bacteria? What do you think about the vagina? Or the vulva? The folds of my labia are warm and moist and an ideal breeding ground for bacteria. So what?