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.

My cousin had phimosis and he had to be circumcised. He was 9 years ols and he had to wear skirts when it has healing. If it had been done earlier he wouldn't have been humiliated wearing skirts.

MK - I don't think you're a fascist, but your ludicrous generalizations make me suspect you'd get on quite well with them.

I personally think smoking is disgusting, and it has far worse outcomes for the smoker and family members than circumcision. Do I think all smokers are bad people? No, because I realise that that would be a ridiculous generalisation and no thinking person would take me seriously.

BramshawHill

Actually it does cut down the risk of contracting HIV, but increases the risk for other infections.

The foreskin has a role in preventing infection, but because of the way HIV mimics 'safe' substances the foreskin allows it to pass into the body.

So if you are in a remote part of Africa, with no access to condoms it might be useful. But in the west not.

Although having a partner who needed to be circumcised as an adult and it should have been done as a child. It should only ever be done for medical reasons.

My circumcised husband is very glad it was done when he was a newborn. As are all the circumcised men I've ever had this discussion with. None of them would have thanked their parents for not having done it when they were babies. None of them see themselves as mutilated. Most of my friends with boys circumcised them as newborns, they're excellent loving parents nonetheless!

Far more important issues for you all to get on your high horses about.

Gutzgutz - My (white, CofE) Dad was born in a northern city in the 1940s and was circumcised too. I think due to relatively poor hygiene (cost and difficulty of having hot baths), overcrowded housing and the fact that medicine was much less advanced than it is today it made sense to do so at that time. I think he always thought it was a good thing as he had a friend who had to be circumcised as an adult for medical reasons and found it (understandably!) traumatic. Dad asked whether we would get DS circumcised but I said no way. The only reason I'd allow my DS to be circumcised is if it were medically necessary.

OP - You are right it is odd that circumcision still persists in the US as cultural norm. I find it astounding actually. I'm less sure about religious reasons. I'm loath to dictate to people how to practise their own religion even though I find the idea of non-medical circumcision repellant. Allowing a man to choose to be circumcised at an older age might be an option?

DP is Jewish and circumscribed. He wishes he wasn't. I'm expecting our first baby in November and if it is a boy then he won't be circumcised. P especially finds the concept of a bris odd, the idea of gathering to celebrate a baby boy by cutting a part of his penis off. If we have a son who grows up and wishes to be religiously Jewish he can make the choice himself.
Of my partners before DP one was circumcised for medical reasons and after the initial super sensitivity found he gradually became desensitised.

As for comparing it to cutting hair or nails. well cutting grown hair or nails means they can grow back if desired. A foreskin can't.

Aaah, auto correct. I do ,of course, mean circumcised.

How can cutting off a part of a child be compared to cutting hair!!! Cutting hair does not hurt and grows back and SamG76 compared it to smoking which yes kills people but people make a choice to smoke, no baby chooses to have part of his body chopped off for no reason.

Not sure why this has to be spelled out but chopping off bits from babies is a bad thing to do, you would not chop of a baby's little toe or another part of them which was not strictly necessary!!!

I've been to plenty of brit mila's. Not sure if I'd choose it if I had a boy but the idea of celebrating a rite of passage seems completely normal to me. You might not agree with the rite but celebrating it is obvious like a christening

DH (Waspy Canadian) was circumcised as an infant and so were my two boys. It's done in the Doctors office, by the GP, with a local anaesthetic. It takes two seconds and is nothing like that horrible video that always gets posted on these threads. It's cleaner, healthier and easier, IMO, causes no more distress than infant vaccines and if it confers disease-prevention later on, then it's certainly something for parents to consider. I've never heard of anyone having complications and DH (and other circumcised men I've 'known') are always very happy with their bits. I am always baffled by the hysteria on this subject on here.

Totally agree maca.

Love how people on here have decided for my dh and his friends that they are mutilated! Patronizing much?

Nonsense, as I said in my earlier post I hold the same views with regards the American families who chose to do it. I am quite able to separate one barbaric practice from the otherwise innocuous beliefs of the people concerned.

And your smoking analogy doesn't work unless you believe that people are forcing cigarettes upon babies. I am not a smoker and I equally agree that subjecting a child to passive smoking within the confines of the house or car is a disgrace.

You can see on this thread many posters who are Jewish state that they believe it to be outdated and barbaric. I have no issue with those people or their absolute right to their beliefs. This practice is barbaric and needs to stop. Bringing the EDL and others like them into the argument is poor as you are trying to suggest that everyone who feels as I do (and there is a gat many) is therefore fascist; which is nonsense.

Some very black and white comments here. My son was circumcised at the age of 3 due to a medical condition called hypospadias which meant his wee came out of the wrong place. The first 3 years of his life we had this operation hanging over us, so comments such as it being barbaric would have been unhelpful and upsetting. There are many necessary reasons for a boy to be circumcised, and by seeing my son (and the boy in the bed next to him) recovering post-op, I can confirm that they had nothing barbaric happen to them. Bollocks-off to anyone who says there's no excuse for it and its barbaric. Well done for giving birth to a 'medically-perfect' child and being able to make judgemental comments without considering all the reasons.

Kungfutea, taking a sharp implement and using to cut a piece of the body unnecessarily is mutilation.

Well, that's your terminology, not ny husbands and since he's the one who had it done to him, I think he's entitled to phrase it as he wishes. As I said, patronizing! You don't get to decide how others should feel.

IloveColinFirth - I don't think anyone is saying medically necessary circumcision is wrong. I wouldn't have my DS's toe cut off either in the normal scheme of things but would if it was medically necessary.

Ilovecolinfirth, as was made clear early on in the thread, nobody is talking about circumcision where it is medically necessary. That is a completely different issue. Another child may need a limb amputated due to infection yet we don't suggest doing it to all children. Of course your son needed the op. there is no question of that being the right course of action.

He's glad it was done to him as a newborn. You could refer to ear piercing as mutilation.

ilove everyone has said 'unless medically necessary'. So get the chip off your shoulder and read properly. No one is saying it is barbaric in your child's situation.

There is no need for it any more with a healthy baby boy. Period.

People do refer to ear piercing as mutilation, Kung. All the time on here.

BTW, ear piercing is actually against Judaism.

Confused yet?

Your DH is an adult and can phrase it how he likes.
We do not allow smacking despite many adults saying it did them no harm. Likewise, the cane in school.

That's all well and good for your child tee but not other people's.

Removing your child's foreskin because you think it looks nicer, is bizarre and creepy.

In a modern, western country, then benefits of circumcision are massively outweighed by the risk. Needing it medically (due to a problem with the foreskin/penis) is something different all together. If it's causing discomfort/pain or making a child ill, that is a separate argument to the appearance 'but it's cleaner' comments.

I've seen a fair few penises in my life. They all look different. And if someone can't wash is properly, then the issue is with the man, not the penis.

You could refer to ear piercing as mutilation.

Yes, and I wouldnt pierce a child's ears, either.

Again, Mary, he was pleased it was done to him as a baby, you don't get to decide whether it wad right for him or not! You're all so patronizing and convinced of your self righteousness.