Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

662 replies

FrigginRexManningDay · 06/08/2013 09:35

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.

OP posts:
Kungfutea · 07/08/2013 23:21

Circumcision has never been terribly popular among white Christians in the UK. In the US, very easy to find Dr to do routine circumcision.

Although I'm not sure if health benefits alone would be sufficient to convince me. They outweigh any risk but both are small (risk very small for newborns)

Primafacie · 07/08/2013 23:23

Breatheslowly, it is extremely easy to have your son circumcised in the UK, outside of any religious or cultural groups. Google it if you don't believe me.

Kungfutea · 07/08/2013 23:24

Or an apologist for child beaters since I'm an apologist for child mutilators!

breatheslowly · 07/08/2013 23:27

Even in the US the popularity is falling. And if it is any help, I don't come from a white Christian background. it isn't that cultural environment that has caused my stance on circumcision.

curlew · 07/08/2013 23:32

Ah, so you would do a non medically necessary procedure on a baby for cultural benefits."

Actually, if the birthmark concerned was on a part of the body that was in practically all circumstances covered by clothes, then yes I would leave removal until the child as old enough to decide for themselves

breatheslowly · 07/08/2013 23:33

I still don't see it as a 'choice' made by the majority of the UK population. I just doesn't occur as a question. You don't find people discussing it with their NCT group or at baby classes. It just isn't there at all. While you could say the same about chicken pox vaccinations, most vaccinations are offered by the NHS so the idea of another one is normalised. When I mention that DD has been immunised I tend to get one of two responses, 'that's a great idea, where can we get that done' or 'I wish I had known about that, my child was really poorly with chicken pox'.

breatheslowly · 07/08/2013 23:34

I'm with curlew on that.

Kungfutea · 07/08/2013 23:47

But if the disfiguring birthmark was on the baby's face? And the drs said, OK, remove now as a newborn in a quick and easy and safe procedure or wait until she is a teen and needs a far more painful and complex procedure?

curlew · 07/08/2013 23:56

Since when have foreskins been on faces?

Kungfutea · 08/08/2013 00:00

Never.

Can you just answer my question please?

SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 08/08/2013 00:03

No, I've said there are cultural benefits and I'd guess it's equally balanced between medical benefits and risk with probably more of a lean towards benefits.

If there were medical harm, I wouldn't do it regardless of cultural benefits.

The reason you shouldn't call it mutilation is that you are simply wrong as well as being offensive (which I think you're trying to be). It is not mutilation but a procedure which has medical as well as cultural benefits

I probably wouldn't do it for the medical benefits alone but the fact that it is not harmful and does have some benefit means that I am comfortable giving credence to the cultural importance.

Where do you stand on female circumcision Kungfu? That has great cultural importance too.

Wibblypiglikesbananas · 08/08/2013 00:04

I didn't accuse anyone of being a child beater Hmm. But - attack is always the first form of defence, isn't it?

What I actually did was point out that it's easy to minimise a number of unsavoury practices by using a euphemism or refusing to call them by their real names.

curlew · 08/08/2013 00:11

"Never.

Can you just answer my question please?"
If my child had a huge and disfiguring birthmark on his face then I would have it removed if possible.

Kungfutea · 08/08/2013 00:16

Saggy

I think you'll find, if you bothered to read what i wrote and that you actually quoted (!) that I stated that if it were shown that the risk of male circumcision outweighed the health benefits then regardless of cultural significance, I wouldn't do it. (however, the evidence points to the benefits actually outweighing the risk, albeit both small. )

For that reason, in my opinion, female circumcision cannot be justified as there are no health benefits and substantial risk, depending on the type. There are also a lot of issues around controlling female sexuality but that's a whole different can of worms. Parts of the female anatomy that are important reproductively and essential for a fulfilling sex life are removed which is not the case for male circumcision (hence why one is called mutilation and the other isn't).

Kungfutea · 08/08/2013 00:18

Therefore, Curlew, you would be willing to have your child undergo an operation which is not medically necessary for cultural reasons?

Why?

How do you not know that your child won't turn to you as an adult and regret removal of the birthmark?

5madthings · 08/08/2013 00:18

Foreskins are not a disfigurement tho.

I answered earlier, my ds1 has a birthmark on his head with a substantial bald patch, we left to and the decision to remove it or not is his, he is now almost 14 and doesn't want it removed, tho he knows the option is there.

Funny all all true insistence that Jewish men dotn mind, I goodled men against circumcision, one of the first links is www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org

Kungfutea · 08/08/2013 00:19

Wibbly

It is equally possible to demonise an innocuous practice by using inflammatory terminology when there is a perfectly good word to describe the procedure which clearly isn't value laden enough for you.

Kungfutea · 08/08/2013 00:20

5madthings

Disfigurement is a cultural concept.

Maybe in other cultures foreskins are considerd a disfigurement. Just like there are cultures where birthmarks are considered a sign of good luck.

Kungfutea · 08/08/2013 00:22

I'm sure there are Jewish men who wish they hadn't been circumcised. There are millions and millions of them and most of them would have been done.

In my own experience, the vast majority dont give it a second thought!

Kungfutea · 08/08/2013 00:22

Disclaimer: based on my own biased sample and considering that it's not usual dinner party conversation!

curlew · 08/08/2013 00:23

So you think of a foreskin as a disfigurement? Something that every single boy baby is born with and which has a function? Which is part of a normal healthy male body?

SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 08/08/2013 00:25

I would imagine that circumcision carries considerable risk in places where it is carried out by non medically qualified persons.
If this needs to be done for a persons religion, then the person it is being done to, needs to be able to acknowledge that need. How does a baby give any kind of consent?
So, if the person involved, has a part of their anatomy removed for non medical reasons, to suit the religious beliefs of another, then how can this be anything other than mutilation?

Kungfutea · 08/08/2013 00:26

I didn't say how I think of it.

Just that disfigurement is a cultural construct.

And that clearly you are prepared to have a baby undergo a medically unnecessary procedure for cultural reasons. SO it's not quite as black and white as people like to say (can't remember if it was you CUrlew, I think it was Karlos who stated that no non medically necessary operation is acceptable)

Although I do think you're exaggerating the role of the foreskin, it clearly has its downsides as well and I think, on balance, babies are better off without them, although the advantages are admittedly small.

Aesthetically - nah, don't like them but fully prepared to admit that's culturally influenced! However, if they were necessary for any function and removing it was detrimental to health and wellbeing, I wouldn't do it regardless of culture or aesthetics.

Kungfutea · 08/08/2013 00:32

Saggy

It's getting a bit repetitive but here we go.

  1. CIrcumcising a newborn is a simple, safe and straightforwad procedure (although should be done by someone qualified to do it!). THis procedure is far riskier and more complex when a child is older. Therefore, if circumcision is ever an option, it's better to do it as a newborn.

  2. The foreskin is not necessary for any bodily function. You can do just as well with it as without it. There are some health benefits to removing it. These benefits are small but they are there and outweigh the risk. This is why it is not mutilation.

  3. In many cultures and religions, being circumcised is the norm. Given that the medical benefits outweigh the risk, and given that there is a window where you can do the procedure simply and safely, it makes sense that many parents, who are not brainwashed, abusers or barbarians, make the choice, in what they perceive (whether you agree or not) to be their child's best interest, to circumcise their newborn babies.

Snatchoo · 08/08/2013 00:41

I find it really hard to wrap my head around anyone that would do it for anything other than medical reasons, even if the medical reasons are the 'it's cleaner', 'no HIV' etc etc stance.

But then, I find it hard to believe that anyone could take seriously a book that told you that you are out of heaven for not being circumcised, or for wearing two different types of cloth, or eating meat on a Friday, or for touching a menstruating woman.

Just my thoughts. I'm really not trying to ridicule anybody's religious beliefs , but for me, be kind to one another and treat others as you would be treated yourself (and a few others which I'm sure will come to me!) seem to be enough.