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.

Did I seriously just see someone use the Gilgal society and Brian Morris as proof that MGM is a good thing? Those well known circumfetishists? Seriously?

I'm also still unsure on the 'its a less complex procedure' on a newborn...

Newborn circumcision: foreskin is totally fused to the glans, so a probe has to be forced between the two structures to tear the adhesions leaving the entire glans an open wound (much like sticking a nail file between your fingernail and nail bed and ripping it off), considering the penis is on a newborn the doctor has absolutely no idea how big said penis will grow to, so has to take a wild stab in the dark as to how much he can remove, and if he removes too much foreskin, it can lead to tight, painful erections, curved penis and hairy shaft where the skin from the scrotum moves up the shaft during an erection to compensate for what is missing, that's on top of the removal of 20,000 fine touch nerves, alongside the protective, immunological functions of the foreskin and keratinisation over time of what should be an internal surface. The open wound is then kept in a nappy during healing, warm, damp, tight against the wound, and in contact with urine and faeces. Newborns do not need to lose much blood before going into hypovolaemic shock, only an ounce or so, and in a nappy it is difficult to assess blood loss. It's very easy for a newborn to bleed out. All with little to no effective pain relief during and maybe paracetamol afterwards.

Adult circumcision: foreskin is already seperated and retractable, so no damage needed to the glans through forcible separation, penis is fully grown so correct amount of foreskin can be removed, avoiding the chance of a too tight circumcision,although there is still the high risk of hairy shaft etc considering the foreskin is a large area of skin and one function is to allow the penis to increase in size during erection - that skins gotta come from somewhere if the foreskin is removed. Surgery carried out under effective anaesthetia and effective painkillers are available. Post op wound can be kept in loose, airy clothes and isn't sitting in excrement. An adult male is less likely to bleed out as quickly as a newborn.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, aside from the lack of consent, newborn circumcision is much less complex and risky than adult.

What an excellent post Golden.

foreskin is totally fused to the glans, so a probe has to be forced between the two structures to tear the adhesions leaving the entire glans an open wound (much like sticking a nail file between your fingernail and nail bed and ripping it off)

This is exactly what happened to my son. Before a nice private consultant finally agreed to circumcise him aged 10, we had been back and forth to the docs with his phimosis since he was two. They were extremely reluctant to even discuss it until he was around eight, saying that these things changed all the time, left to their own devices, and that he would learn to retract his foreskin himself all in good time. Any fool could have told you that was never going to happen if you'd seen it!

Anyway, first port of call was to a consultant appointment on the NHS when DS was about 8. We thought we were just going for an initial consultation and were not expecting any treatment, so I had not researched what was about to happen. He put some local anaesthetic cream on his penis and then rammed said nail file/crochet hook type thing down there to separate the glans from the foreskin just as you say. Poor DS screamed out it pain and shock and that was with some painkiller.

and within two months it had healed up and was back to 'normal.'

Of course someone will no doubt use this as evidence that he should have been circumcised at birth.

i'm late back to this, but just to echo another poster above, that if jews can pick and choose which bits of the religious instructions to follow, it seems quite bizarre to decide that god doesn't mind if you don't keep kosher, and if you only go to shul when you don't have more pressing engagements, but does mind if you don't circumcise. the mind boggles.

(i hasten to add, i am fully aware that there are tons of catholics who have pre marital sex and muslims who drink alcohol etc, and that all religions seem to have an element of 'picking and choosing')

How dreadful for your poor DS TheRealFellatio

Our GP was trying to sell us the same procedure? She said that with LA cream it would be painless. We knew this simply couldn't be true.
In the end my DS went for a postoplasty this week (where the foreskin is cut vertically and restitched) we hope that will work to cure his phimosis.

of course they do mrsr. The trick is in deciding what really matters and what is really right and really quite wrong or no longer necessary or relevant in the modern world.

To be honest the more I think about this the more I am convinced that going back many centuries, when it was clear that a small but not insignificant amount of males would eventually experience problems with their foreskins, someone (probably a medical person) decided that is was easier to hold a tiny baby down and get the job done than to hold down a large boy or a grown man, when anesthetics were not available. So obviously without knowing which men would need this intervention they decided to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer and just take a knife to each and every one of them.

I am sure over the history of time, routine but poorly executed circumcision has damaged as many a perfectly functional penis as it helped a potentially dysfunctional one.

I've linked to the scientific evidence showing that newborn circumcision is the least risky. Not as dramatic as emotional but untrue accounts of nail files etc.

All these links to whether infant or later circumcision is better are irrelevant. The point is that circumcision of a healthy male of any age is unnecessary. The argument is about doing it at all, not when.

do the risks of newborn circumcision include long term effects kungfu i have read quite a lot about how it can seem fine at the time and heals ok but it is only as boys go through puberty etc that they realiae there is a problem ie too much skin was chopped off etc

and you keep saying the benefits outweigh the risks... but you dont need to be circumcised to lower risks you can teach boys to wash properly, use condims etc and the risks of things such as penile cancer are so low anyway that carrying out circumcision to stop it is riddiculous, you would have to carry out thousands to stop one case of cancer.

why take the risks of circumcision at all when you.dont have to let alone make the choice for a newborn baby who cant give consent.

you keep saying you would get your sons done even if you were not religious, which i find baffling. how would you feel if they were not happy. if they felt disfigured and that you had consrnted to this. seriously how could you look a son in the eyes and say you thought it was better, that you thought it was ok to lop off a bit of their penis?!!

god we are facing the possibility of having to consent to surgery for ds3 at the moment, and its for bloody good reasons, eye injury and i still want to make sure i am making the best possible decision. the idea that i would makw a choice to give my child surgeru based on the minimal if any benefits such as in the case of circumcision is mind boggling.

When I was training we'd see a few babies postnatally that had already been circumcised, it wasn't a pretty sight. Poor, poor babies.

Anyway, the HIV risk interests me. According to the WHO the evidence is 'considerable'. This goes against my feelings on the matter.

Are foreskins just something evolution hasn't yet get rid of? There must be some reason for them even if that reason is no longer valid in the modern world?

I'm not against picking and choosing, Mrs R. If there were people who keep kosher, observe the major festivals and raise their kids with a solid Jewish identity without having a brit, I'd say well done. But I've never come across this. What I have heard of is families who essentially kept nothing at all deciding to give up on a brit. This strengthens rather than weakens my hypothesis that a brit is necessary for anyone who wants a Jewish identity for their sons (which i do).

Are foreskins just something evolution hasn't yet get rid of?
Interesting question. I think if they were really superfluous and a serious cause of infection they would have disappeared long ago.
I haven't yet had a son, but if/when I do there is no way I will allow him to be ritually mutilated.

Evolution takes a long time, it doesn't happen overnight. Why do we still have an appendix? Ever wondered why our trachea is BEHIND our oesophagus and therefore we risk choking when we eat? We do have design flaws!!

The level of ignorance on this thread is really quite astounding.

I wouldn't allow my son to be ritually mutilated. I would allow him to have a circumcision. No need for hyperbole, thanks.

Yes, sallyingforth, I'd also make the best decision I could in the best interest of my child.

Never heard of problems in puberty because too much foreskin was chopped off. Actually, there are often problems in the other way and then circumcision becomes necessary when it is more risky and complicated.

When I speak of benefits, I'm talking of long term benefits.

People who circumcise their boys love their children no less than you and they are just as educated and enlightened. In the country my family is from, nearly all boys are circumcised. It's not an issue.

sorry, above was to 5madthings

curlew

No, the argument has been to wait until a child is older and can decide himself. But then you can't go back to being a newborn and having the procedure done easily and with the least risk.

I've already explained, ad infitum, why I'd choose circumcision.

Can anyone objectively look at your statement and not feel it is ludicrous?

A circumcised penis is necessary to confirm you are Jewish, when all other rules are given up?

Really?

No, Sam said that IF you keep other rules then you'll circumcise and that it's only families who have stopped keeping other rules that stop circumcising.

It's just emphasising the central place that circumcision has as part of the Jewish identity.

Guess it's hard to understand if it's not your culture and you haven't been part of a minority persecuted for millenia

Is there any evidence at all that evolution is working on foreskins?
Mutilation isn't hyperbole. It's applied to cutting female genitals and is equally applicable to male genitals. Your sincere religious belief cannot change the physical fact.

I've already explained, ad infitum, why I'd choose circumcision
No you haven't. You have talked vaguely a out long term benefits but you have not been specific.

And mentioning persecution of a minority in an attempt to gain sympathy doesn't work for me.

Sympathy??? Goodness, heaven forfend.

In any case, that post wasn't directed at you.

Looks like we agree to disagree.