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.

... three randomized controlled trials were commissioned as a means to reduce the effect of any confounding factors.[4] Trials took place in South Africa,[6] Kenya[7] and Uganda.[8] All three trials were stopped early by their monitoring boards on ethical grounds, because those in the circumcised group had a lower rate of HIV contraction than the control group.[7] The results showed that circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of HIV by 60%, 53%, and 51%, respectively.

As a result of these findings, the WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) stated that male circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention but should be carried out by well trained medical professionals and under conditions of informed consent (parents consent for their infant boys).[10][11][12]

Here.

I hope you will now swallow your pride and accept that I am right. Otherwise, we can continue your education after I feed DC.

Deciduousblonde i can agree that just sleeping with virgins helps in reducing HIV / AIDS but i can never find them.

MrSpoc...

Well, it would have worked for those guys if they hadn't already been HIV+

my OH has been circumscised and he says there is no way he would allow a child of his to have it done. it does reduce sexual pleasure and it is an invasion of an intimate place in which the child has no say.

his cut was particularly bad with excess skin removed so that he has hair follicles from what shoudl be his scrotum almost to the head when he is arouse as there is not enough skin left. however, even if this doesn't happen there is evidence to suggest circumscision is bad and not only impedes male sexual function but also is less enjoyable for the women. there was a great bbc doc a few years ago called "circumscise me" that featured the issues.

the skin was put there for a reason by evolution. why remove it?

CoteDAzur how did they conduct these so called tests?

Did they have 3 circumsised men and 3 not then made them sleep with 10 HIV / Aids women and then found out who had contacted it?

I do not see how it was done to be honest.

Also the countries you mentioned are mainly Muslim hence the hiddden agenda

CoteDAzur - even if circumcision reduces HIV transmission it does not eliminate it. abstinance or use of safer sex (condoms) is the way to reduce risk of HIV. i can't see any sensible doctors suggesting this as a way to reduce HIV.

also the article you just stated is well out of date (1989) even wiki says at the top of the article that is out of date.

Hmmm...this is all very interesting, and slightly baffling to me. I live in Canada. I have two DS's, six and four. Both were circumcised a few days after birth by our GP, in his office, using the plasti-bell method. The procedure was quick and (from what I could tell) relatively painless. We were given very detailed instructions about how to keep everything clean and required to return several times to follow up on healing. We had no complications whatsoever and as the primary diaper-changer I did not ever notice any residual pain/soreness or even discomfort from the procedure. When our first son was born, circumcision was still pretty much a routine matter- most people we knew were circumcising their sons. When DS2 was born I think a shift in thinking was starting to happen and people were starting to question the practice. According to our doctor the current statistic of newborn circumcision is now about 60% (pro). We are not at all religious so this did not factor into our decision. DH is circumcised as are most North American men of his age. I've never heard of anyone having a complication from the procedure (interesting as it's far more common here) nor have I ever heard of anyone here (of any culture or religion) having "surgery" rather than the plasti-bell method. I just don't understand all the fuss as it seemed so quick and simple and clean...my boys seemed more distressed getting their vaccinations than during/after the circumcision. I'm not sure if I would do it today; particularly after reading all the scaremongering comments and information here but I certainly don't regret doing it--my little guys are happy and healthy, they look like their dad/most of their friends and we never have to worry about the hygiene issue ( my uncircumcised nephew had to be hospitalized with a hygiene-related infection of the penis).

In the UK circumcision is regarded as completely unnecessary. It is usually carried out for religious or health reasons and is most definitely not the norm.

I haven't read the whole thread as I am sure I will end up in tears if I do - the whole subject is a bit raw still for me.

Ds had to be circumcised for medical reasons. I was DREADING it and after lots of research decided on a small private clinic so he could have it done in the summer holidays so he wouldn't have to tell his mates/have time off school.

It was done by the plastibell method that popbiscuit mentioned. I'm not going to go into details but it was AWFUL - not the actual op but recovery took nearly a month and he got a terrible infection which resulted in 3 courses of antibiotics and late night dashes to A and E. My poor boy was in a dreadful state, and could not leave the house as he was unable to pee anywhere else except the bath, and even then it was so excruciating he screamed so hard he went pale and shaky. The nights were the worst

I cannot understand anyone doing this unless absolutely necessary.

Bunbaker

"I imagine that this statistic is offset by the fact that this is done for religious purposes, and perhaps men of those religious persuasions don't display the same sexual behaviour patterns as uncircumcised men."

Firstly, all studies control for religion. We all know that Muslims have different cultural norms regarding sexual behaviour. There are many non-Muslim ethnic groups in sub-Saharan Africa who do circumcise. For example, in Kenya one of the only groups (among both Muslims and non Muslims) not to circumcise (the Luo) have extremely high rate of HIV prevalence. One of the main contributory factors is that they don't circumcise their men.

I know this isn't anything to do with the OP. I don't have strong views either way and certainly no agenda (I also don't think that HIV transmission is an important factor in countries with low HIV prevalence so not something the OP really needs to consider). However, circumcision has been shown in many different countries to be causally related to lower HIV transmission - definitely for men, not sure about women (ie if an infected circumcised man is less likely to infect a woman)

All the more reason to encourage the use of condoms perhaps (if your statistics can be proven), rather than mutilating the penises of baby boys...?

right. my neice's dh is a lax muslim. they had their ds1 cut mostly because her dh is scared he wont go to heaven or whatever if he isn't done. yes really. what makes it worse is that all her dh family are in his home country. they could fib and not have done it.

their ds2 is now approaching 3 months. dn has put her foot down and said he either gets cut before 3 months or she wont allow it.

dn's dh just picks the bits of islam he likes - he drinks and gambles and all sorts. not to excess, just as much as a non muslim. i think to be pushy about circumcision is really out of order unless you follow the religion to the letter. otherwise its cruel and hypocritical. well its cruel anyway.

sigh well, thanks masie for that insight. Because condoms have done such a great job until now?

It's not one or the other - it's both. Condoms protect women from infection from infected men - circumcision doesn't (I don't think). Anything that can reduce transmission and reduce HIV is a good thing IMO. You can disagree but there are many interventions underway to increase circumcision in SSA and these are based on solid and robust evidence (in contrast to many other interventions that we do in this field)

these aren't MY statistics. This is research from many different studies. It's been shown time and time again to work. And if you circumcise pre-puberty, it's much more effective (obviously).

omg valiumredhead that is so awful. poor, poor ds :-(

i think if i was slighty on the fence about it then i'm firmly in the no effing way camp now!!

Condoms have done a great job of stopping the spread of HIV and other STIs? Um, yes sigh, they have. Unless there is another way of protecting against those infections that I'm not aware of.

back at you

As I said BOTH circumcision and condoms can be used. It's not either/or.

Point is we've known that condoms CAN protect against HIV for years and years. But they're NOT being used in many countries where HIV prevalence is very high (with a very few exceptions). Condoms have especially low rates of use in marriage in many SSA countries. Circumcision has been shown to be effective.

It is mutilation. Under the guise of religious dictat.

Absolutely - both can be used. However, in the context of whether or not the barbaric practice of male genital mutilation should continue, I would suggest that far more should be done to challenge attitudes and practices throughout the world, with more education, availability of condoms, treatment for STIs and so on. The risk of male-to-male transmission of HIV has not, afaik, been assessed through RCTs, and the transmission risk through heterosexual sex is reduced by around 60% - so still vital that condoms are used.

Anyway, given that the OP is based in the UK, I'm not really sure that this is relevant to this thread.

maisie not relevant at all to OP, wouldn't form part of my decision making if I had a boy (and it's part of my culture so pretty glad never had to cross that bridge)

male to male transmission isn't really an issue in SSA. And I also agree that circumcision alone isn't some kind of magic panacea. But it helps at least. just annoys me that people seem to deny the evidence because it doesn't fit in with a certain agenda.

I'm not sure what agenda you mean, but I certainly don't want the practice justified because it reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 60%, when condoms are almost 100% effective and don't involve mutilating children.

Male to male transmission is an issue everywhere, surely, it's just not permitted in law in some countries - but that's a whole different debate.

You're willing to have your baby's bits mutilated just so you can all have a party?!
If it was for religious reasons you'd have more reason to (still think it's barbaric and wouldn't do it, but it's more of a reason!)
If you're all that desperate for a piss up/sausage rolls and dancing fest just have a party anyway and forget about the baby torturing!

The vast majority of HIV transmission in SSA is heterosexual sex followed by mother to child transmission.

Male to male sex transmission and injectable drug use transmission are not significant players in the AIDS epidemic in SSA.

Even the word 'mutilation' is emotionally charged. It's not mutilation - it's circumcision, it's removing the foreskin, not the whole penis. A parent in SSA who circumcises their son to reduce the chances of him being infected by HIV is not mutilating their son. Again, don't think that'd be key concern in UK but circumcision in the bigger picture of HIV is a non-issue.

Statalover - do you think that female circumcision is mutilation?

Only - with Female Genital Mutilation, it sometimes 'only' involves the removal of the clitoral hood, or the removal of the labia, or the piercing of the clitoris - not the complete amputation of the clitoris as is commonly believed.

If those things are considered to be mutilation, I fail to see how the complete removal of (or even just a part of) the foreskin for non-medical reasons can be considered anything other than mutilation.

FGM covers such a broad spectrum of procedures and is performed for very different reasons. I can't think of any benefits to FGM with huge health consequences to women in its most extreme forms.

But there are benefits to male circumcision and very low rate of complications.

It's not something I've really looked all that much into as, thankfully, I have girls. Despite male circumcision being the norm in my culture I'm not sure which way I'd go. But I still think it's a different issue to FGM, despite some similarities, and trying to link the two is disingenuous and detracts from the serious problems associated with FGM.