To be dreadfully sad that in the 21st century child abuse seems to be part of the culture in a so-called modern, progressive and enlightened country like the USA

[Perriwinkle]

I've been watching a lot of American baby programmes on satellite TV lately and have been horrified and saddened to see how many parents, who appear to be loving, caring, very protective parents who are determined to everything right by their children, have their sons circumcised in hospital just before they bring them home.

These parents then get stressed and worried when these babies are what they describe as "fussy" (which I've gathered seems to mean a collection of things such as not feeding/sleeping/settling well and crying a lot). Clearly these poor babies are in huge discomfort, due to the barbaric and hugely invasive and unnecessary procedure that's been carried out on them.

When the parents are talking to camera about their early experiences of parenthood, how it has made them feel and what their hopes are for the future, they are all full of wanting to do the best for their child, to love, cherish and protect them and about being the best parents they possibly can for their child. This seems to be so at odds with giving consent for that child to have its genitals mutilated just a day or two earlier.

One woman I saw was talking about how she was in pieces when her son had to "get his first shots" as she called it (injections I assume?) yet she said nothing about his circumcision. I know that the vast majority have it done because when you see them changing nappies you know they have had it done because they have big wadge of gauze there to protect the wound site and you often hear them saying they have to be careful due to the circumcision. If only these parents could be educated to see that it is not in their child's best interests to have him circumcised, rather than thinking it is.

I really can't believe that this practice is still carried out as routinely and widely as it is in the USA even though there is no medical justification for it and no sound evidence to justify that it is in any way beneficial or more hygenic than leaving the baby intact.

What a shame that in many cases such clearly educated and rational people, who do not appear to have any religious imperative to carry out this barbaric practice are still doing this to their children in their droves. It means that millions of children are being subjected to this abusive practice on a daily basis in the USA.

Surely with proper education and information this could be turned around and this vile practive wiped out? I know having it done due to a religious imperative is a whole different argument but surely if non Jewish and Islamic people were properly informed and enlightened on the subject surely the incidence of this completely unneccessary abusive practice could be drastically reduced and in time eschewed by the overwhelming majority of parents?

I understand that routine non ritual circumcision was once a feature of many cultures but that it has successfully died out due to education and enlightenment. Wouldn't it be lovely to think the same could happen in the USA?

The studies on sexual pleasure are summarised at page 14 of this link. Male circumcision does not affect sexual pleasure for men or women.

Posies -- don't women vary greatly when it comes to how sensitive their nipples or clitoris are? Do we assume that if a women has a less sensitive clitoris, she has less sexual pleasure? Some women enjoy sex very much even without direct clitoral stimulation.

All I can say is that I've had lots some American sexual partners, some of whom have screamed or nearly passed out from sexual pleasure so I don't think it's as simple as circumcision = less pleasure.

First of all, there is nothing to that effect on page 14.
Secondly, you can't for the vast majority of scientific observations say it DOES NOT or it DOES. You can say there is no, or little evidence that it does not or does.
Thirdly, some males WILL be affected, that's just the risk of any procedure and there are potential long-term negative effects which some males ARE VERY LIKELY to suffer.

Also, looking at those photos (and I'm a medic so not put off by blood and bits) why the hell would you do that to your baby for no medical reason?
Why?

DamnBamboo Thanks for that!

It's impossible to say, though, how far the effect was "in the mind", isn't it?

As for mood and the like, come on, they make a hell of a difference. Sex when your're both really, really up for it is a lot more fun than when one is just going along :o

WHO are hugely political.
Keritinasation in adults will not be the same as when done in infancy.

You have a point Andrew.

Yes, it's true that some of may well have been in the mind since he was deeply unhappy about having it done, but suffering such that he expected it to bring welcome relief anyway.

Surely if it made it better, or had no impact, that would have been the overall message.

Anyway, I'll personally never know and as quite rightly point out, nor will most males.

you quite rightly point out

This thread is hysterical.

Things we can't judge a parent on: formula feeding, weaning too early, controlled crying/CIO, etc. etc. etc.
Things we apparently can judge a parent on: having a medical procedure done in hospital (which may or may not be necessary).

The chances are that the things mentioned in the "things we can't judge" category will do significantly more damage to the child in the long run. But you all go ahead and pat yourselves on the back that you didn't circumcise your sons. No really, well done you.

DamnBamboo, you can read the photos only or you can read the actual text. It is simply not true that there are "VERY LIKELY" adverse effects. As to why people do it - they do it for cultural or religious reasons. They do it because they think it is the best thing for their child, because it is integral to being part of a community (if Jewish, for instance), because this is what they are used to, because it is the done thing in their country (USA, Korea), because it protects against aids, HPV, herpes, penile cancer and UTIs (Africa).

You are being pedantic about scientific observations. Of course it is all a matter of evidence, much like everything else in life. There is evidence that breastfeeding is good for the baby, hence we say "breast is best". It is a shortcut that everyone most people understand.

Here is the text I was referring to - at page 8 of the guide (or page 14 of the pdf):

"Male circumcision and the effect on sexual satisfaction

Many adults and parents are concerned that male circumcision will diminish male and possibly female sexual enjoyment and satisfaction later in life. Recent studies show no evidence of this. A randomized controlled trial evaluated the question in 4456 sexually experienced adult males and found that male circumcision did not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men.40 These findings were confirmed in another large randomized controlled trial that found adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction and that circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm.41 Another study showed that male circumcision had no deleterious effect on female sexual satisfaction.
The existing evidence indicates that male circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual function or female sexual satisfaction."

Prima I'm not going to continue to debate it, and to be honest, it's not worth fighting about.
Clearly people who wish to have their children circumcised, can do so and it's legal and it's there right.

Do I think it's right, No!

Do I think the argument for is helped by calling those against, racist or morally superior, No.

Not much else to say on it really, it is just one of those threads.

(my dad is Jewish by the way and I have three brothers. He (my dad) doesn't feel it necessary to be integral to part of his culture and nor do many other Jewish people I know!)

their right

We're not only talking about a medical procedure though, are we? In fact I think the point is we're NOT taking about medical procedure. And yes, I'll judge when it comes to newborns, no anaesthetic and scalpels.

Fair enough DamnBamboo.

Gwendoline, the OP is talking about circumcision in the US, where it definitely is a medical procedure done under local or general anaesthesia.

GwendolineMaryLacey the circumcisions performed in the US are done by a doctor, in a clinic (at the very least, if not in the hospital) with sterile equipment and local anesthetic at minimum.

The only time that it's not done in that way is when it is done as part of a religious ceremony. Which, as has already been mentioned, is not part of this debate.

TIAN Are you new to MN?

CC/CIO are judged as is Formula and weaning to early.

Cutting your child's bits and formula are not mutually exclusive
Refusing to mutilate a boy's penis and breastfeeding isn't either.

There is no good reason to circumcise is the USA it's borne out of their weird puritanical ideas about cleanliness which includes not masturbating.

too. ffs

It doesn't matter that in the USA this henious prodecure is institutionaised, medicalised, sanitised, clinicalised or whatever else it may be. It's still a totally unjustifiable abusive practice to carry out on newborn babies when no medical problems have presented themselves to warrant carrying it out on medical grounds.

There is no way to dress up this abusive practice. You can put a pig in a suit but it's still a pig.

It it a monstrous practice that is carried out on an industrial scale in the USA and should be outlawed.

With proper education on the subject I have to doubt that the vast majority of educated, caring, loving parents would come to eschew it on moral grounds in time. It might take a generation but it would be worth it.

I have no* doubt

Do I think the argument for is helped by calling those against, racist or morally superior, No.

Actually, I think it does because it shows the moral high ground is not the sole preserve of the antis, which is why you don't like it being used.

Calling a practice that Jews and Muslims have done for millenia "abusive" and wanting to make it illegal is in effect race based intolerance dressed up as holier than thou ideology, based on no more fact than their belief is.

With proper education on the subject I have to doubt that the vast majority of educated, caring, loving parents would come to eschew it on moral grounds in time

With proper education - from all sides of he coin - I think you will find that sane people will leave it to individual choice.

Oh wait.....

The whole issue is making me cringe. Absolutely fine on medical grounds though.

This thread will run to 670 posts. The vast majority will say that male circumcision is barbaric. A few of us (including me) will disagree. Absolutely nobody will change their mind

Individual choice? Nope. The individual rarely chooses circumcision, parents do.

It's backward.

Individual choice? Nope. The individual rarely chooses circumcision, parents do. It's backward.

Just as the individual doesn't choose BF vs FF, SAHM vs WOHM and whether to get their Jam samwidges at 18 months,

What do you want to do - give each baby a checklist as it comes into the world to mark off how it wants to be brought up?

(Jam Samwidges at 18 months - check!)

Hmm. Do all you outraged MNers realise that in parts of the Uk you can get routine newborn circumcision free on the NHS? Basically set up to avoid complications from old rusty knives wielded by religious elders. So that's paid for by your taxes.