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.

or rather theirs!!

I can think of many things that r barbaric but overlooked here

Face lift

Breast enlargement

what about kids who have ears taken back because they stick out? Parents give permission for this operation. Cosmetic kids may be bullied but not always.

Also dropping eyelids although it can be a problem if its blocks vision, however parents often opt to have it done when it is mild for cosmetic reasons. Am I to believe cosmetic procedures are exempt from being barbaric?

Don't get me started on killing animals for meat, If you eat meat please visit a slaughter house and then tell me I'm barbaric thank you.

A foreskin is not analogous to an eyelid.

And neither can it be thought of in the same way as a huge facial birthmark!

As others have said, removing a birthmark of this kind would be seen to be in the best interests of the child. How can genital mutilation possibly, ever, in any context, be regarded in the same way?

I'm an American, born in 1970. Nearly all men my age are circumcised, but only about half of baby boys born now are snipped. It became nearly universal in American hospital births after WWI. Since circumcised men are less likely to contract venerial disease and HIV, and their female partners are less likely to have cervical cancer, I would definitely have my son done. That is, if I chose to have children.

On the other hand, nearly all gay male porn I've seen features uncircumcised men.

We moved to Canada fie years ago and circumcision is much more common here than in the UK, for much the same reasons as the US (ie historical perception of hygiene) although for the last 30 years it has not been covered by the insurance system, so has to be paid for. ds has not reported any issues at school from his natural penis, although he is only 14 so hasn't been showing it to any girls yet. So I suppose he may have cause to curse us potentially. I can' really imagine that happening to be honest.

As a sort of bit of parallel thinking, dh has just had his wisdom teeth removed. In the UK routine extraction of wisdom teeth 'just in case' is now very unusual (wisdom teeth removal was the subject of the first piece of NICE guidance), but here (and in the States) it is a common procedure. Generally done in your teens because removal is easier before the roots get too established. However only a small proportion of people actually have problems with their wisdom teeth, and although dh had a fair bit of pain with his infection/removal I would not have ds or dd's teeth removed essentially to slightly lessen the pain of a procedure that they may never need. Particularly as the side effects / risks associated are significant. But here although the risks are discussed wisdom teeth removal in teens remains common.

Erica would you not instead advise your son/daughter to wear a condom? Or to be vaccinated against HPV? Both are far more effective, with other benefits and fewer risks.

Re penile cancer it's interesting to note that incidence is slightly lower in Denmark where circumcision is rare than in the States where it is common. In any case the biggest risk factor (for what is a very rare disease) is smoking, so again there better ways to protect your child with fewer risks and other positive benefits.

It would be interesting to look at the reported benefits of circumcision and then compare the UK and South Korea, as the UK saw rates drop dramatically whilst South Korea saw the opposite. However I suspect there would be too many confounding factors for any reasonable comparison.

Meanwhile apart from in high risk areas of Africa there are no medical bodies that recommend routine new born circumcision.

The point is that sometimes its in the best interest of a child to do a very low risk medical procedure, especially if the risk of the procedure layer increases greatly, for socio-cultural reasons.

I'm not religious. I am also thoughtful and not brain washed. If I had a boy, is more than likely circumcuse him.

It seems an equal balance regarding health benefits if you do it as a newborn and I belong to a culture where male circumcision is very much the norm. In fact, my stomach turns at the thought of a foreskin. Also all the adult circumcised men I know and have discussed with are pleased they were done as babies.

So, on balance, in the best interest of MY child, I'd probably do it. I am neither barbaric, not stupid, nor evil, thank you.

See Kungfootea that just seems an odd thing to say, I know many men (not in the biblical sense), the majority of them uncircumcised and have never heard them talk about the state of their penises. I asked dh and he said it had never come up as a topic of conversation for him either (he has talked about his vasectomy though).

I would suspect that for most adults it is a non issue except if they have some related issue, or if they have a son and it is suggested/ the norm. I know that my sister was just quite glad not to have had a son with her (non practicing) Jewish partner as she knew it would kick up a storm.

I don't think you (or my BIL) are barbaric, stupid, or evil, or at least not solely on the basis of your views on circumcision but for me the idea of cosmetic foreskin removal turns my stomach, so I struggle to understand how you/he could believe it is in your child's best interest, although I understand that you do.

Well, it appears that medically its evenly balanced. In the absence of strong cultural or religious reasons I can see why you wouldn't. I also wouldn't if I thought it harmful regardless of culture but I don't see the evidence

Prima I am sceptical about your assertion that it is much less likely to lead to complications on newborns than on older boys and men. I'd be interested to see where you got the 'evidence' for that - but of course cited 'evidence' is rarely without bias. I fail to see how a qualified surgeon operating with time on his side and a patient under GA can be more likely to lead to complications that a conscious, wriggling tiny baby with a teeny foreskin and only a second or two to get it right.

Why do you think the analogies are tedious? I think they are entirely valid. They are only tedious if you can't think of an argument to blow them out of the water.

If the medical advantages of circumcision were really significant enough to make it worth having, I think it would be available free of charge on the NHS and all parents would be given at least the choice to have it done. So it appears that in the UK the medical advantages of non-medically indicated circumcisions are not significant.

I would have more sympathy for the religious/cultural argument if the parents had a bit cut off without adequate pain relief at the same time as their infant son did.

I completely agree.

Just imagine ritual/routine circumcision had never been invented, and was only ever carried out upon medical need later down the line. If someone (either medical or religious) announced that from now on it would be a good idea to do it routinely to all newborn boys, and it would be carried out not by a doctor but by a religious leader who has been given some training, and it would be done without pain relief - what do you suppose your reaction would be?

And what about your girl children? Inner labia are nothing much more than thin flaps of skin - not especially fleshy. Would you think it was fine to trim them down with a scalpel and no anaesthesia if you could be convinced now that there was a benefit, like so many Sudanese and Indonesian parents for example? And if not why not?

kungfutea or indeed anyone, do you have a link for the theory that a newborn's nervous system/ blood vessels don't mature in the genitals till 2 weeks? I'm a neonatal nurse and have never heard this!

I'm a British muslim convert and had a lot of sleepless nights about this when I was pregnant (and ultimately am very glad I had 2 girls and avoided the issue!). Most men I know are circumcised, including my brother, ythough his was for medical reasons. I actually think there's a case for having it done at a young age purely though seeing my nephews in law and friends babies having it done with no ill effects and barely a whimper.

Having said that, I personally wouldn't have circumcised my newborn as I feel that although I agree any son may not have thanked me for leaving it till he was older, I could justify the decision to do that better than I could justify the other. Plus, I literally don't think I could do it, I hate when my babies cry! It took a bit of persuading my dh as be is born muslim and its so entrenched in his culture but ultimately he agreed. Our plan was to offer it the summer before he went to secondary school the first time in case he wanted it at that point for aesthetic reasons. If not, whenever. I think DH would be disappointed if he'd chosen not to get it done at all but figured I'd cross that bridge when I came to it. The way I see it, if he chose not to do it, it's justified our decision to not get it done as a newborn to be the right one.

I am interested to hear about this nervous system/ vessel thing though!

My DH is circumcised due to hyperspadius and reckons his is far less sensitive.

DS has been circumcised as part of an operation to correct megaprepuce.

I would never chose to circumcise.

Kungfutea - you are not religious, but you would have your son circumcised. Of all the bits of your religion to keep hold of, why this one? It seems to me like a really odd choice. Why not let your son be and just don't wave his penis about around people who might take an interest?

"Don't forget that nature gave us birthmarks for a reason."

The birthmark analogy is stupid. Unless you are saying that foreskins are a genetic "accident" that bizarrely all boys are born with......

if i believed in a religion and the other followers of that religion would shun a baby/small child and make them feel an outsider or not accept them as jewish etc because they werent circumcised i would be seriously questioning my beliefs and my relatiinship with those who felt that way.

ds1 almost had to be circumcised for medical reasons, thankfully othrt treatments worked.

and with regard to birthmarks etc both ds1 and ds2 have a birth mark (ds1) and ds2 a small hernia which gives him am outy belly button. both were offered surgety for cosmetic reasons as babies. we declined ad we felt it was not worth the risks and was their choice to make when older. ds1's birthmark is on his head, he has a largish bald patch because of the birth mark. they are now 14 and 11, they are aware they could have these things operated on if they want. neither if them want to. if they change their minds then we will see the gp and get the referral they need but we wpuld not force them to have it done. when ds1 had issues with his foreskin he knew circumcision was an option but he wanted to try othet techniques before doing that, again his choice at the time.

lots of cultural and religious practises have or are dying out as we learn they are unnecessary, hopefully circumcision will do the same.

I don't understand the asthetics argument either - we shouldn't be fiddling with the aesthetics of small children - they are born perfect just as they are.

and all you saying your husbands/brothers dont mind, how will you feel if one day your sons do mind? plenty of men actually do mind and are distressed and upset by it. there are forums devoted to the issue and all sorts of techniques tried to repair the issue. how will you feel of your sons end up feeling that way. how will you explain why you felt it necessary?

me neither fellatio technically you could say ds1 and ds2 have a small 'defect' but we certainly dont feel that way and i wouldnt choose to put them.through an operation for 'cosmetic' reasons. both operations are offered on the nhs, i asked the drs why they would do them and they said it would be for cosmetic reasons, no medical benefit. so we said thanks but no thanks. if there are compelling medical reasons then fine weigh up the pros and cons but there are not compelling medical reasons for circumcision.

Well I don't know specifically what you are refering to, but I'll compare it to having ears pinned back. I can understand that the child might choose to have it done if they feel self-conscious, and I can sort of understand the parents getting it done in anticipation of the child experiencing teasing etc. But foreskins are not a 'defect' - all little boys are born with one. In fact they'd be defective if they didn't have one. And people see your ears day in, day out. No-one needs to see a man's penis unless he chooses to let them. I find it odd that people think their sons are going to have other Jews/Muslims laughing and pointing at their willy their whole lives.

Read the whole thread.

I can't really get overly het up about it, but the foreskin is in place from birth, therefore I'm assuming it exists for a reason?

Style your list made me LMFAO. What's wrong with masturbation?

ds1 has a birth mark that means he has a largeish nald patch on his head and ds2 an outy belly button caused by a small hernia. both were offered surgery as babies. but in both cases there was no medical benefit, it was offered for cosmetic reasons. and i wasnt prepared to run the risks of surgery for cosmetic reasons. the boys are 14 and 11 now and are not bothered by their 'defects'and dont want surgery, if they did we would see gp and get it arranged as they are old enough to choose for themselves.

Fellation and others, linky to the WHO manual on infant circumcision here: whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500753_eng.pdf

It's 140 pages long, so I'm cutting and pasting for ease of reference:

A WHO expert review meeting on neonatal male circumcision held October 2009 in Geneva Switzerland concluded that the procedure is easier to perform and associated with less pain and fewer complications when performed within the first two months of life.

It also lists the following benefits (footnotes removed):

"Benefits

If infant male circumcision is being performed for reasons other than the treatment of a specific medical problem, the health benefits are primarily preventive and may only be realized long after the procedure has been carried out. Circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring some infections and related complications but does not guarantee complete protection. Some of these conditions are not as common as others, and the degree of risk may depend on the behaviours of the individual and the community to which he belongs. The benefits of male circumcision include the following.

? Decreased risk of HIV infection ? male circumcision has been proved to help prevent female to male transmission of HIV, reducing the risk of transmission by 60−70%.
? Decreased risk of urinary tract infections ? male circumcision decreases the risk of such infections in infants19 and adult men. Uncircumcised male infants are estimated to have a 1% chance of acquiring a urinary tract infection. This type of infection is 10 times less
common in circumcised male infants, who have an estimated 0.1% chance of developing such an infection.
? Prevention of phimosis ? this condition results from scar tissue that makes a tight opening in the foreskin and prevents exposure of the head of the penis and the normal retraction of the foreskin.
? Prevention of paraphimosis ? this is an extremely rare condition that occurs when the foreskin is pulled back or down and trapped in the retracted position below the glans. The tissue can become swollen and obstruct the blood flow to the tip of the penis, requiring urgent surgery
to correct the problem. Male circumcision can prevent this complication.
? Prevention of balanitis and posthitis ? under certain circumstances, dirt, sand and other irritants can collect under the foreskin and cause inflammation of the glans (balanitis) and foreskin (posthitis). Male circumcision helps to prevent these conditions by making it easier to
keep the head of the penis clear of possible irritants.
? Decreased risk of other sexually transmitted infections ? male circumcision has been shown to help protect against contracting genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
? Decreased risk of cancer of the penis, which, in some populations, occurs in 1 per 100 000 people and is much more common in men who are uncircumcised. Male circumcision markedly reduces the risk of developing this type of cancer.
? Decreased risk of cancer of the cervix in female sexual partners ? cervical cancer occurs less commonly in women with male sexual partners who are circumcised. Sex with either uncircumcised men or men circumcised after infancy increases a women?s risk of cervical cancer.
? Decreased vaginal infections caused by Trichomonas vaginalis and decreased bacterial vaginosis in female sexual partners.

Male circumcision provides several medical benefits. In 2007, UNAIDS and WHO concluded that the efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. "

OP, you asked what are the advantages of circumcision. HTH

All those "benefits" can be gained by proper hygiene and using a condom. Except the balanitis one- and I would question whether removing an infant's foreskin as a preventative measure is rational and proportionate.

The analogies are moronic because eyelids, toes, breasts, ears, teeth, tonsils etc are all organs and body parts which perform an important function. The prepuce isn't - as shown by the fact that one man in three had his removed, and they aren't dropping like flies. There is a huge body of evidence that removing it is both safe and has benefits.

Removing the appendix at birth or in infancy would be a major internal surgery. Circumcision takes minutes and no, it is not generally done with rusty kitchen knives but with sterile instruments. I do not condone butchering babies with inappropriate instruments, and my personal view is that the baby should receive pain relief, although I am aware that sadly this is not always the case. But that is not the question the OP asked, is it? She asked whether there are any advantages to circumcision. The answer is yes - see above.

The analogy with FGM, as has been pointed out above, is also entirely inappropriate. FGM has no health benefits: it only causes harm. Other WHO link here FGM