WTF? "Half of all uncircumcised males will, over the course of their lifetime, develop some kind of medical issue related to their foreskin."

[missingwelliesinsd]

Question as a Brit in the USA. I just read this news article on the never-ending debate (in the USA at least) of whether it's better to circumcise male babies. Some paper just issued by the Mayo Clinic concluded that the benefits out weigh the risks 100-1 and it would be unethical to not circumcise a male baby just it it would be if you don't get immunizations for your child. WTF?

I know that circumcising can help reduce STD transmissions - but hey, just use a condom! What I can't believe is that "50% of non-circumcised males have medical issues with their foreskins." That would make 50% of most of the male population of Europe having foreskin issues at some point. Can this be right? I tend to think it's just American prejudice against foreskins after decades of snipping. I'm TTC and if I do and we have a boy, no way am I snipping the poor thing.

Here's the article:
jezebel.com/circumcision-rates-decline-in-the-u-s-1557539810

broken

I remember being for quite some time, quite literally open mouthed, when I did some research and found out that mohels suck the babies penis. I understand not always but it happening ever is one time too many.

Mind blowingly awful

Oh my God.

Yes, the mohel story is horrific.

Thankfully, it bears very little resemblance to the vast majority of infant circumcisions, which are performed in hospital or clinic, by doctors, with some form of anaesthesia.

No one circumcises using their teeth for God's sake! Metzitza b'peh was traditionally done to draw blood away from the wound, not because of some paedophilic sexual desire. Obviously, there's no need for it in an era of sterile instruments and its only done in a tiny minority of circumcision among the ultra orthodox community. I have been to many brit milahs of the sons of child abusers friends and not once have I seen such thing. I'd suggest that the poster who seems to have a collection of such videos is perhaps rather worrying.

My take on this is from DH's view. He is not circumcised and his penis was incredible sensitive and actually hurt when the exposed head is touched. Therefore, if he had been circumcised then unless he was to be driven insane with pain, the end had to become numb. That to me sounds cruel.

That's conjecture if I ever saw it!

My dh was circumcised as a newborn. He's very happy with his situation, does not feel mutilated or abused and has no sexual dysfunction.

trevaron

I expect that years of exposure to drying air and rubbing clothes would have caused his sensitive glans to become relatively hardened and insensitive. That's the usual effect. Opinions differ on whether sexual insensitivity is a good thing.

Over sensitive glans seems to be a problem for uncircumcised men.

does not feel mutilated or abused and has no sexual dysfunction

Good for him. Unfortunately a lot of men actually do. Why take the risk? Why not let them decide for themselves when they're older. It's their foreskin.

And insensitive glans seems to be a problem for circumcised men.

I'm sure I wouldn't feel mutilated or abused now if I'd had a tonsilectomy shortly after my birth. I wouldn't remember it. But I suspect I would feel pretty upset about it at the time.

As it goes I had them removed when I was 11 because I got severe tonsilitis a lot. Yet no one recommends that tonsils should be removed at birth because you might have a tonsilectomy-worthy problem with them later.

If 'avoiding possible problems' was a logical reason for performing vasectomies then removing tonsils shortly after birth would also be the logical thing to do.

Lot of loons in this thread. If we were in Egypt or somewhere, people would be giving all kinds of reasons in support of FGM too, saying how some women who don't have it need this and blah blah blah.

Look, just fuck off, it's unjustifiable as a routine policy, it's a mutilation.

The reason to circumcise as a newborn is that you have a short period where the circumcision is much more simple and straightforward. Circuncising older children and adults is more difficult with a much greater chance of complications.

If I didn't circumcise my newborn (hypothetical - no skin in the game, scuse the pun) then they may similarly regret my decision when adult, particularly if there are cultural/religious reasons as well as medical ones.

I'm not religious but I do come from a culture where male circumcision is the norm. However I wouldn't consider circumcision if I thought it were harmful. I've only had girls so never had to actually do it but when pregnant I've considered and looked at the evidence - both anecdotal and scientific. My conclusion is that, on the whole, health pros and cons are about evenly balanced. Therefore it is a valid religious, cultural or even aesthetic preference. The cries of child abuse, mutilation etc in the face of such evidence I think are due to prejudice and a need for cultural/moral superiority.

That was my (and is still his I would imagine) experience Piglet.

Shakshuka, If you come from a culture where one form or another of mutilation is common, then we quite understand that you consider it normal.

But in what way do you feel that cutting parts off a human body is not mutilation?

And we can quite understand why you, who do not come from a culture where male circumcision is the norm, have trouble understanding it. Unlike you, however, as a minority ethnic group, I can also understand those who choose not to circumcise their boys.

What do you think you know about my culture?

Are you going to answer my question about the meaning of the word "mutilation?". What do you think it means?

I was wondering who the 'we' in your statement was referring to piglet? Unless you're using the royal we.

Lot of loons in this thread.

Thanks Aga, that really elevated the debate.

Us and Them.

Always comes back to that when talking about genital mutilation.

is the majoritys refusal to engage in a reasonable debate only you lose the argument for reasonable when you claim non-circ'd are at a greater risk than HIV. That argument doesn't stand anyway. Boys are cutmoments aafter birth in countries such as Africa and have been for centuries. So how do you then explain there is still HIV there?...

I don't agree with the cultural argument. FGM is also cultural and part of their tradition and considered normal too. Perhaps we should stop campaigning for that also? P.s I am not speaking as an ignorant brit. I was with and married to a Nigerian for 8years. Where such practices are cultural and normal back home. We talked and discussed and researched at length. My stance today is the same as it was then. For medical and religious reasons yes. Cultural/Traditional is not a strong enough reason IMO.

Boys are cutmoments aafter birth in countries such as Africa and have been for centuries. So how do you then explain there is still HIV there?...

With arguments as well researched as this, you don't need someone on the other side.