Circumcision but no Circumcision Party

[thefruitwhisperer]

DP is turkish but he and his family were all born in the UK and dont practise Muslim traditions apart from Eid. My DP is the only one who does Ramadan and thats only every couple of years when he can be bothered. They celebrate xmas and easter etc.

Ive agreed to have our month old baby circumcised as thats what DP wants and I agree that there are plus points, but Im an atheist so I would like all religious connotations taken out of the situation. I think thats a fair compromise (esp as its going to be quite hard for me, Im really scared) and I would like it to be a quiet decision between DP and I. His family will know the baby has been cut, why do we need to celebrate it in a party that is more for the sake of getting presents than it is anything else. I dont want the gifts.

DP has admitted that the only reason his family circumcise their babies is for social reasons, everyone has it done, everyone has a party, everyone gets money as gifts. Ive compromised on the actual circumcism, and I really really dont want to have a party. I will feel as though Ive sold my babies foreskin. Add to that, if theres no religious reason for it, why are we even doing it - and the only answer I can see is cultural/social/peer pressure reasons. I just dont see any reason to celebrate this pointless operation (obviously only pointless in this instance, I can understand where it is necessary medically or in religious circumstances) other than to show off that we have conformed and then get some money. Children who have their appendixes out dont have parties. I mean, I could equally argue that we have the baby christened catholic, my family all are and dont go to church.

AIBU to have the operation but draw the line at a party? I think DPs family are all going to be disappointed with me. And his grandparents apparently disowned his uncle for the same thing.

female circumsion is not the same as male circumsion

CIRCUMCISION

It is the same in that you are removing highly sensitive genital material from a child. A baby usually, that gives no consent.

It is barbaric. It reasons for being done are outdated (and no, it is not done for cleanliness & anyone who tells you it is, is a liar.) It was originally introduced to prevent masturbation.

FGM - female genital mutilation IS NOT done to make sure the woman remains a virgin, her clitoris is taken off to make sure she doesn't enjoy sexual intercourse Often times, it is done along with 'infibulation' the procedure involves extensive tissue removal of the external genitalia, including all of the labia minora and the inside of the labia majora. The labia majora are then held together using thorns or stitching . The woman fears opening this seal, therefore cannot enjoy sexual intercourse. It is often opened for delivery of a baby, should she become pregnant, but then she is stitched up again.

So, FGM - to remove sexual enjoyment.

Circumcision - originally done to prevent masturbation - to remove sexual enjoyment!

So yeah actually, I'd say, in some respects that are the same!

there are very few instances where female circumsion is done without infibulation.

as said before female circ is not part of islam, so is not relevant.
Benefits of male circ

There are several:

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

Norwegian moon - why have you just repeated verbatim the arguments put forward by the op on the other thread (in pregnancy)?

If you want, you can just look at that thread and see the countless counter-arguments. Including - safe sex and soap being as effective as circumcision and a darn sight less traumatic.

Plus point 2 is wrong. Is 1:100000 not 1:1000. As well as it being interesting o note that penile cancer just as common (I.e. Incredibly rare) in the us as in europe. Odd given that there is a much higher incidence of RIC in states.

Ear piercing - makes no difference to life of the child and is non-permanent in that the holes will heal if left without a ring in them. Very low risk of complications and what complications there are tend to only be cosmetic. Not that I like seeing a baby with pierced ears. I'd much rather the child is old enough to make an informed decision. Mildly painful, heals quickly.

Male circumcision - can make a difference to the man's sex life, complications while rare can be severe, and is permanent. Very painful and can take a while to heal.

Tattoos - very low risk of complications, what complications there are tend to only be cosmetic, and is permanent. Fairly painful but heals quickly.

Looks to me like out of the three, circumcision has the greatest risk of significant non-cosmetic complications, the longest recovery time and the greatest pain.

But, hey, if you want to get parts of your child's genitalia sliced off just because that's what's expected of you, where do logic and facts come into it?

Although I do find it more than a bit suspicious that ritual surgery on a child is so fixated on the child's genitals rather than any other part of their body. Coincidence?

In fact - are you the op in the other thread?

Have you bothered to read what other posters have said about the points you raised?

Norwegian Moon - have a look at this info from Net Doctor, it seems to contradict a lot of what you have just posted:

Circumcision to prevent future disease

Prevention of disease is the second most commonly given reason for circumcision after religious reasons, although the evidence that it has any beneficial effect on future health is very poor. The practice is, more likely, rooted in cultural traditions, although western societies may find this an uncomfortable conclusion.

Penile cancer

Cancer of the penis is an extremely rare disease and, in the early part of the last century, was almost unheard of in circumcised men. However, there is some evidence that circumcision may only offer protection from penile cancer if done in childhood, and adult surgery may not offer any protection.
Poor personal hygiene, smoking and exposure to wart virus (human papilloma virus) increase the risk of developing penile cancer at least as much as being uncircumcised.
Circumcised men are more at risk from penile warts than uncircumcised men, and the risk of developing penile cancer is now almost equal in the two groups. Therefore, routine circumcision cannot be recommended to prevent penile cancer.

Sexually transmitted diseases

Sexually transmitted infections that cause ulcers on the genitals (syphilis, chancroid, herpes simplex) are more common in uncircumcised men. However, urethritis or inflammation of the tube that carries urine through the penis (caused by gonorrhoea and non-gonococcal urethritis) is more common in circumcised men, as are penile warts.
Yeast infection (caused by candida or thrush) is equally common in circumcised and uncircumcised men, although circumcised men are less likely to have symptoms with this infection so they are more likely to unknowingly pass on thrush to their sexual partners.

Far more effective and reliable methods than circumcision exist to reduce the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, such as the use of condoms and adoption of safer sexual practices. Thus circumcision cannot be recommended to prevent these infections.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection
Views conflict on whether circumcision can prevent HIV infection. A recent review in the British Journal of Urology concluded that there is no link between having an intact foreskin and HIV infection, whereas another paper in the British Medical Journal takes exactly the opposite view.

Circumcision may be appropriate as a routine preventive measure only in regions that have a high rate of HIV infection, such as sub-Saharan Africa. The existing evidence is inadequate to recommend circumcision as an HIV-preventive measure in the UK.
Cervical cancer

A study in 1947 reported that Jewish women rarely developed cervical cancer and the author attributed this finding to the fact that their sexual partners were circumcised.
Further studies over the past 50 years have had contradictory conclusions, with experts enthusiastically championing the case for and against circumcision. The evidence is inadequate to recommend it as a preventive measure against cervical cancer.

Urinary tract infection (UTI)

Since 1987, several studies have suggested that uncircumcised male infants are up to 10 times more likely to contract a urinary tract infection (UTI). One in 100 uncircumcised infants will develop a UTI, compared with 1 in 1000 circumcised infants.

A UTI is not usually a great risk to health, so it does not seem reasonable to perform a surgical procedure on 100 infants to reduce the risk of one developing UTI.

Link here:
Net Doctor

It doesn't matter if it is done with infibulation or not, the fact is that they take away part of the clitoris, thus removing the (primary) source of a woman's sexual pleasure - orgasm.

Norwegian, most of your 'facts' are identical to here & have already been taken apart & proved incorrect!

Why are pasting the same incorrect facts? Or are you (seemingly) running 2 threads about this?

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on

Anyway, the African study was halted early because too many of the men contracted HIV. It was also a highly flawed study. For example the men who were circumcised were given sex education and condoms, the men who weren't were not given anything

" Plus point 2 is wrong. Is 1:100000 not 1:1000. "

(re penile cancer) - phew, thank $deity|$none for that !

(Non religious but do wonder how/why the heck we are here, whether we are being observed like we might study and ant nest or behaviour of bees, bears, etc.)

i dont read in pregnancy as i am not pregnant, i did not know it was there.
I am not the op.

There seems to be lots of conflicting advice and this boils down to one issue, you agree with the side that you most favour. I have found some online evidence that i agree with and you have found similar evidence but concentrated on another aspect to it.

I would be more inclined to look at evidence found it 2000 and somehting rather than 1987.

Your reasons for being against circ are not better or valid than those for it, it all comes down to choice and the background to that particular family.

You're full of shit, OP!

You're full of shit, OP!

Oh crap.....sorry, no you're not OP! I apologise.

Should be You're full of shit, NorwegianMoon

You found the exact same list as the other op? How odd.

Well do look at that thread. You may find it interesting. Particularly since the person who posted the same points then seemed to backtrack and accept that the points were full of shit.

Norwegian....so you're basically saying in some circumstances there is a good reason to mutilate a child....does that extend to the Indian paupers who burn their children so they are better at begging? It is to feed the family.

Ive listed reasons people do it. that is all.

im not surprised the same articule has been found. its page one of a google search.

im not back tracking.

im not full of shit, like it or not the reasons i have given are widely held by large groups of people. It was on the news not long ago that scientists and doctors have evidence supporting circumsion and health benefits. you dont have to agree, but they do exist.

It is nothing but torture. I cannot watch the links - it is too distressing so ANYONE that can do this to their baby (other than for medical purposes) is being cruel and selfish. Healthy baby boys do not need to be cut - pure and simple.

millions and millions of babies have been circumcised, whilst we dont like it here in the UK it is done every day to little effect. alot of women end up having to do it for the sake of family tradition

my own boy might have to be done I think as his little foreskin is not extending and he is in pain, I dont like it but better that than pain

OP I feel sorry for you, cos you are going to get BASHED on here for even allowing it

I do not agree with it per se, but the cries of barbaric etc are so not helpful in any way

Norweiganwood Can you provide evidence of doctors and scientists supporting circumcision. Was this published in a medical journal? because tbh, I don't believe you. Did you LOOK at the link from differentnamefortghis? Do you not see that this is unnecessary?

Do you have a son? Has he been circumcised? Or if not, would you in theory, or is your argument a 'don't judge - eyes closed - pretend it isn't bad because we shouldn't challenge cultural norms' stance?

It hasn't always been the case that the aspiring middle classes didn't like it though. Early part of the 20th century and it was quite the norm within middle and upper class famillies.

But then young women falling over drunk was quite rare. As was shopping on a sunday and putting selfish needs before duty.

As was the post feminist stance on all matters including faith and the tyrany of men within all faiths.

my partner is circumsised, all the men in my family are circumsised. My son is not because 1, we left it too late 2, I want my son to choose his faith when he is older.

British Medical Journal:

Benefits of newborn circumcision: is Europe ignoring medical evidence?
Edgar J Schoen

• Author Affiliations

Department of Pediatrics and the Department of Genetics, Regional Perinatal Screening Program, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Oakland, California, USA
and reprint requests to: Dr Edgar J Schoen, Department of Genetics, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, 280 W MacArthur Blvd, Oakland, CA 94611-5693, USA.
A major difference between the paediatric care provided in Europe and that provided in the US stems from the attitudes of care providers toward newborn circumcision as a preventive health measure. In the US, the great majority of newborn boys (about 1.4 million annually) are circumcised, whereas in Europe, neonatal circumcision is rarely done. European countries consider newborn circumcision an unnecessary surgical procedure which increases the costs of operating nationalised health systems, whereas in the US, circumcision is generally considered a simple, rapid operation with medical benefits which accrue throughout life.
Local foreskin problems and hygiene
Phimosis, balanoposthitis, and difficulty of ensuring adequate genital hygiene in uncircumcised boys have been best described in the European literature. 1-4 US anticircumcision groups claim that genital hygiene can easily be maintained as the foreskin naturally separates, but, in reality, genital hygiene in uncircumcised boys has been shown to be poor, even in British and Scandinavian middle class schoolboys. 1 2

The prevalence of true phimosis (anatomic constriction of the preputial opening, which must be distinguished from adherent foreskin) in published studies varies from 0.3% to 0.9%, 5 but true phimosis requires circumcision later in life, when the procedure is more difficult, risky, and expensive. 6 7 Balanoposthitis has been estimated to occur in 4% of uncircumcised boys, and incidence peaks at age 2 to 5 years. 3 Although treatment can be conservative, late circumcision is often necessary for recurrent cases, and medical management requires additional physician visits and treatment.
Cancer of the penis
The evidence that circumcision protects against penile cancer is overwhelming. In the US, incidence of penile cancer in circumcised men is essentially zero (about one reported case every five years), but it is 2.2 per 100 000 in uncircumcised men (about 1000 cases are reported annually). On the basis of life table analysis, Kochen and McCurdy estimated that an uncircumcised ?

WTF would you post links to circumcisions for people to see to prove it hurts?! Who in their right mind is posting these on YouTube?!? Let's post links to some car crashes whilst were at it, just in case people aren't aware that these cause pain.

And FFs think about it before posting comments about future sex life, infections etc as many you point out this is done for medical reasons in many boys. Do you really think a mother who has had a son who has had to go through with really wants to read this as well?

My dad was done for medical reasons and has no issues and my hb has been done for cultural reasons and he is more than happy with his dangly bits, as am I. Please don't scaremonger to prove your point.

Jojos - my ds was circumcised 4 years ago when he was 6 (medical reasons). Before I saw the pain he went through, I had no opinion about it. Probably would have ignored a thread like this.
I think showing the links are useful to people who haven't had any experience of it, to bring to light how barbaric it is to do this with no medical reason.
Also, like someone said on the other thread (in pregnancy), breast cancer kills more people than cancer of the penis, or any unpleasant infections that might spuriously be prevented by circumcision, yet no-one would consider performing routine mastectomies on little girls.