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.

[ilovecolinfirth]

Tee2072, check through the thread properly. Not everyone says 'unless medically necessary'. There is no chip on my shoulder, I'm just very frustrated that there can be such sweeping generalisations. And by using the word 'barbaric' when there are people who have very difficult decisions to make is really not pleasant. Period.

[Tee2072]

My child? My child is not circumcised despite the fact that he is technically Jewish.

What are you talking about?

Every man I know, except my husband, is, because I grew up in the US and my family is Jewish. The first time my mother changed my son's nappy she had a bit of a shock as she'd never an uncircumcised penis before.

[Tee2072]

She'd never seen... I missed a word.

[Kungfutea]

I wouldn't pierce my baby's ears either, nor would I refer to it as mutilation. Far more important things to get worked up about imo.

[Tee2072]

Yes, they did, ilove. Don't be so defensive. You absolutely made the right decision for your son and if you were fine with that decision? You wouldn't have to react so strongly on this thread.

[Kungfutea]

Point is tee, you make the decision for your child, I'll make the decision for mine, ta very much.

[TheFuzz]

There is some crap spouted on here. I was done as a baby due to medical reasons and my bro had to be done in later life for similar reasons.

Can't say it's made me feel any 'different'. Had to be done though.

As for mutilation, I feel I've mutilated myself by having a bloody vasectomy - well I will have by the time my next two operations come round - Urologists love chopping bits out.

I'm against any surgery unless necessary, oh and that includes boob jobs, face lifts etc etc.

There isn't any need for it, but if it is someone's religion then you should respect it, unless the laws will change, then it could end up back street stuff.

[MaryKatharine]

I cannot ever have respect for such a process. The reasons behind it whether they be religious or cultural make so difference to my views.

It shouldn't have to be said but obviously if the reasons are a medical necessity then that it totally different.

[Kungfutea]

Good, so don't do it for your child. I'll male the decision for mine.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

Since we're talking about the appearance of a person's genitals, shouldn't we let the child make the decision for themselves. When they are an adult?

We make choices every day for out children based on what we think is best, but in the case of altering their body for cosmetic purposes, in an irreversible way, I think parents who do this are totally overstepping.

[MaryKatharine]

I'm sure you will! I still don't think you should legally be allowed to. Though I accept that forcing it underground will not stop it, only make it most hideous and dangerous for the tiny babies involved.

[GhoulWithADragonTattoo]

IloveColinFirth - I've just thought of something which is actually quite similar. When my DS was 15 days old a doctor did snip off some of his skin with sharp scissors. He had a tongue tie which was affecting his ability to breastfeed. We were told it was a much simpler operation to snip it at less than 12 weeks, after that it became a bigger deal so we did it straightaway. The fact my DS needed that doing is no reason to say that all children should have the skin under their tongues snipped routinely. To do so would be barbaric. Anyone saying they shouldn't do so routinely is not criticising my decision have my son's tongue tie snipped on medical advice. No one would include your son's medically necessary treatment in the description "barbaric". It's only barbaric if done for no reason or reasons which people judge to be inadequate.

For what it's worth I'm sure we'd both rather our son's hadn't needed their treatments but you make the best decisions you can as a parent.

[mrsravelstein]

i've met plenty of circumcised (as a baby for no medical reason) men who wish they weren't. my brother is one of them. i also have several male jewish friends who would be delighted if circumcision was outlawed, because it would make it easier for them to reject the immense pressure and weight of tradition that compels them to mutilate their babies.

[mrsravelstein]

if i chopped off my baby's little toe because i said it was my religion, i would rightly have my baby removed from me. i cannot see how this is any different.

[YoniBottsBumgina]

I am slightly more tolerant of it for religious reasons than for unsubstantiated claims about it being cleaner and looking neater. But when it comes down to it it is a medical procedure and nobody should have to go through it unless medically necessary. (Or, okay, as a cosmetic one, if they are 18+ and have made the informed choice to have it done)

We don't remove tonsils or appendixes "just in case" although those are routinely taken out when they cause a problem. Why should it be the same here?

Also it seems like everyone thinks the surgery is no big deal - it is and there can be complications, even with the modern "plastabell" method. Older surgical methods were risky - there was a famous case where the penis was so mutilated after a botched circumcision that the surgeon inverted it and the parents were told to raise their son as a girl. He ended up transgender. But even with the modern method (Which is basically akin to forcing something under a fingernail to prise it off) there is no general anaesthetic used because it is considered too risky. (There is, if the procedure is done to an older child or adult) - in some hospitals they use paracetamol, which might as well be useless. In others they use a local anaesthetic by injection, which would be painful enough in itself. In other hospitals they use nothing at all. Instead they strap the babies down so they can't wriggle too much. Google "circumstraint" - it is a thing. Made me feel sick when I first saw it.

In addition because babies are constantly in nappies the site can become infected or irritated because you're basically drenching an open wound in urine every 30 minutes. This can cause complications, it can also cause more general crying and unsettlement (just what you want with a newborn) and problems with breastfeeding because they are in pain.

[Kungfutea]

Funny I haven't met any of these men who wish they weren't circumcised.my brother, dad, husband, cousins, friends, uncles, all circumcised. All of then happy with their situation. Nearly all my friends who had boys had then circumcised. Most are great parents.

If I had a boy, I'd worry that he would be angry with us for not circumcising him as a baby when its much easier.

I've lived in a country where nearly every baby boy is circumcised. It's no less enlightened than the UK. Go and be judgey about ear piercing in babies, no difference.

[FrigginRexManningDay]

I would just like to clear up the speculation about the EDL. I am not English and do not affiliate to EDL.

If cleaning and penis care is too much for some parents to teach then that's a bigger question. My DS is able to take care of his penis.

As for saying its cultural/religious the same could be said about female circumcision.

In Africa a lot of religious/witch doctoring has led to false information about AIDS/HIV and rape is still a massive problem so circumcision may protect the men but not if the female population is still at such risk.

[MaryKatharine]

I am judgy about people piercing their babies ears!
I think it's a horrible and unnecessary thing to do to the flesh of a beautiful baby.
It's not quite the same though, is it? The restraints, the time it takes both to administer and to heal and the fact that there's no going back. They are both nasty and to try and say that because a less nasty procedure isn't illegal then neither should the other one be is slightly disingenuous.

[eddiemairswife]

Quite common in this country in 30s and 40s for all boys irrespective of religion . Probably because it was considered to be hygienic. But practices change over the years. You've only got to look at baby feeding to see that.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

I am judgy about ear piercing in babies, actually.

There are websites full of guys who aren't happy about their circumcisions. There's a mini industry selling all kinds of lotions, potions and devices to help men stretch it back.

At the end of the day, men who have been circumcised as children do not know any different. They might be happy with it because of this. In one sense I suppose that's fine, but I really believe it is fundamentally wrong to be making decisions that could affect your child like this, for reasons of vanity and 'ickyness'.

Countries where it is not routinely done are not full of men with rotting penises, so obviously it isn't a 'problem'.

Wiki references a 1 in 500 rate of moderate to serious complications with routine infant circumcision. That seems awfully high for something with no real purpose.

[TheFuzz]

Given a choice I wouldn't have had it done, but it was done for medical reasons. Wasn't happy 'being different' as a kid, school changing rooms and all. Couldn't care less now (but that's because I'm older and less self conscious).

[FrigginRexManningDay]

Something else that's kind of bothering me is the message it sends to boys,that their penis needed to be made better and nicer. That dosen't sit well with me. The flip side is saying an intact penis not as good and ugly.

[kitty1976]

^^ I agree with Friggin

[Bluegrass]

Personally I think it's a bit fucked up to look at any baby's genitalia and think "I reckon we can improve on that if we hack a bit off".

Still, at least people who attempt to justify on health grounds are trying to argue that it is in the baby's best interests. Shrugging your shoulders and saying you're whipping the knife out because your particular tribal god prefers it to look that way is (in my opinion) obscene, and has no place in 21st Century thinking. Why the fuck is that god supposed to have put it there in the first place if they wanted it sliced off at the first opportunity? Moves in mysterious bloody ways indeed!

If religious groups didn't still hold so much power it would clearly have been made illegal by now. It is one of many things that I think (hope) our descendants will look back on, mouths open in shock saying "can you believe what they did to babies back in the olden days!" .

[aufaniae]

Why does everyone do this in the States? For the answer, follow the money.

It has become the cultural norm in America largely because health care is run on a for-profit basis. The supposed benefits of circumcision have been massively over-hyped by an industry which stands to make money from every circumcision carried out. It's not to do with religion, or hygiene. It's to do with marketing and profit.

In this country, where medical intervention is done on clinical need, we do no do it, as it is not proven that any benefits outweigh the not inconsiderable risks.

And we're changing our health system to be more like America ... why?!