To be pretty uncomfortable with home circumcision

[EastofEast]

We get on very well with our neighbours and are pretty close but I was a bit shocked today, one of those moments where you find you really have opposing views on something quite fundamental.

Neighbour has a (gorgeous) two week old boy. She knocked on the door earlier to return my car keys (went to get a new battery for hers in my car) and I mentioned her new ds was unsettled for the first time ever; joking maybe he wasn't the perfect baby after all. My baby is demanding much more vocal about her needs. She said it was because he was circumcised today. I must have looked a little put off, I don't agree with it at all, as she then said 'oh he's doing really well. We were lucky the doctor came to house to do this one, all the others had to go to a clinic'. I was stunned, I'm amazed you're allowed to do such a thing at home in such an unregulated way. Frankly I wouldn't allow any deliberate harm to come to a child that wasn't medically necessary, but considering some people do do it I thought the rules would be tighter. We're both from (different) backgrounds which circumcise, although I refused to change my son, and I knew she'd do it after a related chat about whether fgm was that bad over a coffee one day but it's still upset me a bit the way it's done. The poor little thing is grumpy with loads of adults around to celebrate the event passing him round and round at 8.30pm.

I know the circumcision vs no circumcision has been done already, and not everyone shares my strong views, but at home? Should this be ok? I can't think of other similar procedures happening in a similar environment.

BOB - It's not a question of posting style. It is a question of being deliberately obtuse.

People shouldn't spend time and energy answering questions like "Why would Abraham do this or that other that for this reason?" or "Why would God do that?" if you & Ice can already figure out the answers by yourselves.

"Cote is complaining that I did maliciously and with malice aforethought"

I said no such thing

"It was supposed to prevent masturbation."

Rest assured that hundreds of millions of Muslim & Jewish men have managed to masturbate. How on earth was it supposed to prevent masturbation, I wonder, given that it doesn't prevent the mechanically very similar act of sex.

There's no reason for justifying it. It comes down to is it right or best for a baby to remove a functioning body part for parental beliefs/religion etc? And the only answer can be no...

How can you say the only answer be "no", if you have read (and understood ) any of the scientific evidence people have been posting on this thread?

Look. There is one right next to your last post.

Why can the answer ONLY be no?

My sons ethnic, cultural, racial and religious heritage dictate that men are circumcised. If he wants any meaningful part of any of that then he will want to be circumcised. Taking a full part in his peoplehood could be an incredibly enriching, life affirming, even a life-shaping part of him. So to be circumcised would undoubtedly be good for him. People dismiss religion as fairy tales which I can't argue with, but you can't dismiss culture, ethnicity and race so easily. It's very much part of a person and not circumcising boys when they are steeped in such a culture could be very disenfranchising.

It very much feels as if people would like to absorb all cultures, ethnicities etc different from their own and mould them into a homogenous mass of western thoughts and values. Where is the evidence of harm of circumcision? My son did not feel the cut. He seemed completely fine the following few days, no signs of discomfort per se. What harm did I do him other than ensure that, if he wants, he can be a full and accepted member of his community?

"Rest assured that hundreds of millions of Muslim & Jewish men have managed to masturbate. How on earth was it supposed to prevent masturbation, I wonder, given that it doesn't prevent the mechanically very similar act of sex."

No idea. But they did. Bonkers, isn't it? Maybe even a bit more bonkers than thinking it's somehow "cleaner".

The majority of circumcisions aren't undertaken for these health/scientific reasons (inconclusive as the research is anyway).. These reasons are just trotted out as a way to try to justify something that is, in my view, indefensible.

What's wrong with just having a wash?

"Maybe even a bit more bonkers than thinking it's somehow "cleaner"."

Well, if you are going to buy into the whole God thing: Maybe God used the word "cleaner" because people of the time with no knowledge of microbes & viruses would not have understood "more hygienic".

Which is why men wash their penises!

Men wash their penises, and yet infection rates are still higher in uncircumcised men.

If circumcision was so effective against STDs then we would see significantly lower STD rates in countries where it is more common, but that's not the case. For example it's estimated that 1 person in 9 in Sweden has had an STD, but in US 1 in 4 teen contracts one each year and over lifetime, 1 in 2 will have one.
If we are really worried about STDs then circumcision is not such an effective way to combat them. If US would stop the nonsense with the abstinence-only sex education, I strongly suspect they could stop circumcision entirely and STD rates would still go down considerably.

I wonder why god never says "oh, you know that circumcision thing- I thought it was a good idea when you lived in the desert- but as most of you don't you don't have to do it any more. And about pork and shellfish- what with fridges and food hygiene regulations, you can eat it now. And you've complete missed my point about gay people and contraception- do I have to spell it out for you!!!!!!!!!!"

So you don't believe in God, curlew. Neither do I.

Other people do.

And still you refuse to address the fact that there are no medical organisations which promote and recommend circumcision, as the research is inconclusive!

Hazlenutt

You do understand that there is often an association which is hidden by confounding effects?

So there are many influences on STI rates, circumcision being one of them - and, in fact, there are much greater influences such as number of sexual partners. It doesn't mean that circumcision isn't protective against STIs.

Smegma is there for lubrication, isn't it? And there is some proper debate between academics about the anti bacterial enzymes thing, I didn't just make it up.

MarjorieDawes this is pretty unrelated to the thread, but I just wanted to ask about a comment you made on page 10. Why do you think that the trachea being in front of the oesophagus is a design flaw?

And still you refuse to address the fact that there are no medical organisations which promote and recommend circumcision, as the research is inconclusive!

But no one here is saying that circumcision is routine. There ARE many medical organizations which say that the medical pros and cons are about even so it's really down to parental choice and preference.

Which is what happens now and which is why I don't understand the hysteria and demonisation of circumcision.

'How can you say the only answer be "no", if you have read (and understood hmm) any of the scientific evidence people have been posting on this thread?'

It is because I understand research that I am skeptical but thanks for the concern (and I guess insults are used when an argument is weak or somebody is unable to consider views other than their own). I could quote research showing the opposite but don't see the point, it doesn't change that s it cruel end of. Lopping off healthy and functioning body parts is no way to address questionable or potential future issues.

There are religious alternatives..