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.

PrimaFacie

'The reality is that there is plenty of scientific support to back up parents' decision to have it done, and it performed quickly and easily, under local anaesthesia.'

Yes in theory it can be done under local anaesthetic alone but it rarely is because its so traumatic. When boys have a circumcision they normally have a GA and an LA. If you take into account the risks inherent in a GA, it suddenly isn't so attractive anymore -surely?

At least in boys and men there is pain relief given but no pain relief for new borns? It is genital mutilation and torture.

But that's the point I just made. It's far easier medically to do it as a newborn.

Oh I know FGM is a far worse horror. But actually, part of the historical reason for male circumcision was to desensitise and somewhat lessen masturbation.

And whatever the newborn baby is thinking, I doubt it is being 'thankful' for anything. Why would it be thankful that its not being done later? Why would it need to be done at all?

And I know at the start of the thread many posters mentioned the toe analogy but many of those who chose to circumcise would be horrified if their neighbour decided to start a religion which dictated that it was good practice to cut off the smallest toe of all baby girls. And suddenly a whole community of people started cutting of the little toes of baby girls. The government would step in and rightly so. Cutting off the foreskin of baby boys as a cultural practice is no different from cutting of the toes of a baby girl for cultural practice. The only difference is that one is legal.

It's only easier medically because we don't bother to properly anaesthetise infants. Newborns feel pain, to not provide adequate pain relief while you chop off a bit of their penis is foul and barbaric.

The states do not have a 100 percent take up for it
. I think it is getting closer to 50-,50. That has to be a good thing.

Before 2 weeks old, central nervous system hasn't developed properly in that area and blood vessels around there still very small. You only need general anesthetic after 2 weeks old. Far far less chance of any complications.

Bullshit about historic reason for circumcision to lessen masturbation. You know not of what you speak.

I wouldn't call eliminating lifetime risk of penile cancer, reduction in risk of uti dutifully infancy and reduction in transmitting and contracting hiv and other stis barbaric.

Seems to me its an even playoff with risks/benefits medically.

Add the cultural/religious aspect to the equation and its clear why many non barbaric, educated and enlightened parents choose circumcision.

I will try and find a link but maybe in an our or so as on my phone. It is not bullshit that it became widespread as it was known to desensitise the penis and therefore reduce 'fiddling'. I will find a link.

But penile cancer is exceptionally rare. Oh and the HPV vaccine we give to teenage girls, if given to teenage boys increases that rarity.

The rest of the world who do not circumcise are not running around in agony from constant UTIs or other penile problems. They do not cancel each other out at all.

Ok, less that 500 cases of penile cancer in the uk each year. Risk Can be eliminated by the hpv vaccine.
Less than 2% of boys will suffer at UTI in childhood.

It's called risk not certainty. Despite what you think, nothing is certain.

The American academy of pediatrics say that health benefits of circumcising newborns outweigh risk but bot enough to recommend as routine. Fair enough to me and certainly with cultural or religious reasons to do it.

I should say that the masturbation thing could be part of white Anglo Saxon reasons for circumcising. Not part of Muslim or Jewish cultural reasons.

mentions the curbing of masturbation as one of the origins

see 1845 and 1901 as citing masturbation

The last link shows how the masturbation link certainly helped give rise to its popularity in the US.

Good that such barbaric thoughts regarding sexuality have never been part of the Jewish or Muslim discourse on circumcision.

"and I'm appalled at the level of promotion given to circumcision here."

They make money from it, it has NOTHING to do with health unfortunately. Just a money making thing :(

Duelling - I know, it's crazy.

Kungfu - the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends scrubbing brand spanking newborn babies of all their vernix when they arrive in the world, which is in total contrast to the NHS guidelines which recommend leaving vernix in place due to its beneficial properties. I wouldn't trust what they say as necessarily being correct... In fact, given my experience here, it's probably just another 'service' that can be added to the insurance company's bill!

Oh really? That's all it is? A money making scheme?

But you know better thab the American academy of pediatrics I guess

Some pcts fund religious or ritual circumcision.

In the same way, the vast majority of American women assume that giving birth on their backs hooked up to an epidural is the norm. The more medicalised a birth is the more it costs.
I've nothing against epidurals and would have liked one for my 4th baby due to complications after my 3rd but I saw it as an informed choice rather than standard procedure.

Exactly. Circumcision should be an informed choice. No need for hyperbole and accusations of barbarity.

the NHS guidelines which recommend leaving vernix in place due to its beneficial properties

I could just as easily turn this on its head and say the NHS recommendation is dictated by the lack of money or staff to properly wash your baby.

See what I did there :) ? If you look for ulterior motive you can always find it.

Ehh, yes indeed it should be an informed choice-when the owner of the penis is old enough to make that choice.

Unfortunately at that point the operation is far riskier. You've missed your window of opportunity to do it very simply as a newborn.