What exactly is the advantage of circumcision and why is their such insistence?

[FrigginRexManningDay]

I was watching 'What to expect when you're expecting' last night and one of the male characters was insisting on circumcision for his unborn son,which turned out to be a girl.

One of the reasons he agreed with was making the penis less sensitive. I don't understand the reasons behind it. AFAIK its not healthier or cleaner. I understand it being done for medical reasons of course,but it just seems unnecessary to be so routine in America.

Mother nature doesn't know what it is doing so needs religion to rectify it. Oh, and mutilating a child is OK too. I can't think of any more reasons.

*there
Angels I just can't understand removing a healthy functioning part of the body.

I think it's done for hygiene and / or religious (Jewish & Muslim) reasons.

As for making the penis less sensitive - I don't know if that's true, you'd have to ask a man who's been circumcised.

Some of my patients have been circumcised, probably for medical reasons cos they're Christian mostly. They are no less sensitive when it comes to removing urinary catheters unfortunately!

Me neither. I think it is barbaric.

How about the massive reduction in urinary tract infections and STIs? So yes there is some evidence that it is healthier. Balance of risks and benefits I guess. I am still not sure either way but there ARE reasons other than religious which are sensible

Safe sex would be a much less invasive way of reducing STIs,no?

Also as I said,repeated UTIs would be a medical reason for removing the foreskin. Dh has never had a UTI so it would be unnecessary to remove his foreskin.

My bil had to be circumcised as a child due to his foreskin being too tight. Other than that i can't see much reason for it. As long as a man has good hygiene and practices safe sex then the sti/urinary tract benefits don't really seem worth it imo.

Genital mutilation. It's wrong for either sex.

Dh is a kiwi, and like America, it was the cultural norm to circumcise all male infants when he was born 40 odd years ago.99% of his friends are, and while it's not the norm now, it still happens. You have to pay privately, but I know 2-3 families who have had their baby sons circumcised.

Being British myself I just don't get it- it simply isn't part of our culture and it wasn't even something to consider for DS, but dh did give it a lot of thought.

His reasons for considering it were hygiene and to some extend appearance- being different to peers. Obviously this not the case now, but back when he was a teenager, uncircumcised penises were the object of ridicule and disgust, and something to be slightly ashamed of.
Something that is almost unheard of in Britain in the same era as far as I know.

Mil and I have had a heated argument about this- in her opinion all uncircumcised penises are dirty and riddled with stds. Er, wash and use a condom!!

It's because it's considered normal in America so to be un-circumcised is considered by some to be unattractive, unhygienic and generally disgusting and why wouldn't you just get it done when they are a baby and won't remember it?!

They are usually baffled when people from other countries are horrified by the idea of it. I did once try to tell someone that the idea, to us, of forcing the foreskin away from the penis where it is fused at birth, with no anaesthetic, is akin to removing a newborn's toenails with pliers because it saves you clipping the toenails and you avoid the problem of ingrown toenails which might get infected later in life. They still don't get it.

Dh and ds are circumcised, had it done as children for medical reasons and dh Is now too sensitive iyswim...
One of the reasons is hygiene but proper washing could,sort that out

My eldest was circumcised for medical reasons. He wouldn't have had it done otherwise.

It is cultural. Became part of Muslim and Jewish heritage, probably because living in hot, dusty areas with no indoor plumbing, it did make sense froma. Hygiene perspective. Obviously, this is not relevent now.

In America, I believe it became popular because it was thought to make Boys less likely to "play with" themselves. I don't know if this is true.

There is also a very pervasive myth tha newborn babies don't feel pain, so it is a good time to do it then.

Whatever the reasons they are irrelevant and superstitious. Genital mutilation of boys should be unacceptable.

Apparently it's easier to chop parts of your child's body off rather than teach them how to actually clean themselves. Just like it's easier to pull their teeth out instead of teaching them to brush properly.....

Circumcision absolutely reduces sensitivity, it removes 20,000 'fine touch' receptors, leaving men only able to feel pressure and pain. Men who are circumcised take longer to ejaculate and usually thrust harder due to lack of sensation.

Information on the function of the foreskin.

Any removal of the foreskin without a medical necessity is mutilation and abuse as far as I am concerned.

It reduces the risk of HIV.

How does it do that, oatcake? Surely the HIV is transferred by bodily fluids, being circumcised doesn't prevent them being exchanged - condoms do.

Oh god give oatcake a

There are no good reasons to circumcise a male or female baby unless for medical reasons.

A male baby's foreskin should never and I mean never be retracted for cleaning or general nosiness by parent or doctor, that can damage it.

Clean what you can see.

www.drmomma.org/2009/06/how-to-care-for-intact-penis-protect.html

Oh dear god. Reduces the risk of HIV.
It is mutilating the genitals of someone who has no say in the matter. It is vile.

Give me as many biscuits as you want but circumcising men is one of the HIV/AIDS reducing strategies of the WHO. Apparently it reduces the risk of HIV infection by about 60%. Many, many studies available on this.

Oatcake, I do hope that was a sarcastic comment.

thebirthingsite.com/newborn-health/item/39-video-of-male-circumcision-graphic.html

The OP asked what advantages male circumcision has - I gave her one. Might not be overly relevant in the West but in many African countries it is.

The trouble is if you take a thread like this and combine it with the Ramadan thread, whose title needed to be changed by Mumsnet HQ, the consensus would appear to be:-

1. Muslims who observe one of their most important obligations are 'stupid', make bad workmates etc.
2. Muslims, Jews - and those from other cultural backgrounds - who observe another traditional practice in relation to new born sons are barbaric abusers

It can all end up sounding just a little bit English Defence League...

See what you're saying FrauMoose but just because someone has no respect for any religion/religious practices, doesn't mean they've got EDL tendencies.