Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To feel angry about this "advice column" re. male circumsision?

56 replies

MattDillonsPants · 21/03/2016 13:35

www.yahoo.com/beauty/decision-circumcise-causes-festering-anger-050904450.html

I know it's just a daft advice column but this man is obviously suffering. In a nutshell he's circumcised and feels immense anger towards his parents for doing that to him and his penis isn't right because the doctor took too much away. He says he was sexually assaulted in primary school but feels more invaded regarding his penis than he did about the assault.

"Abby" says that he might have "misdirected anger" towards his parents when really he's angry about the assault.

Now he may still need help re the assault but who is SHE to say that his anger about being mutilated isn't real?

I honestly think that circumcision in males needs to be made illegal. I don't CARE about religion either. My DH is circumcised...it was "normal" in Australia in the 70s but he HATES his penis being incomplete as he puts it. He feels violated and pissed off about it....our sex life is good but really, having met men who weren't mutilated like this, I know that penises which are complete are easier to handle sexually.

OP posts:
samG76 · 21/03/2016 23:49

Trashcan - I find that statistic hard to believe. Most circs are for religious or cultural reasons and nothing to do with healthcare.....

madamginger · 21/03/2016 23:57

My DS is 7 and has a tight foreskin, the dr wants him to be circumcised.
DH and I have decided to wait until he is older
a. In the hope it will resolve and
b. I think it's a decision he needs to make himself.
It's his penis and he has to live with the consequences

Lanark2 · 22/03/2016 00:13

Circumcised guys are mystified by talk of cheese dick and whiffy dick by 'intact' boys at school.

Original poster
MattDillonsPants · 22/03/2016 03:38

Who cares if uncircumcised men get a little stink on now and then? They can wash! What's so hard about that?

And yes, circumcised men are less sensitive.

OP posts:
Out2pasture · 22/03/2016 04:09

circumcision like breast feeding are topics that people have strong feelings about.
op you have a right to feel the way you feel about the issue.

but it is still promoted by WHO for the prevention of HIV
www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

Mistigri · 22/03/2016 05:38

The HIV issue is irrelevant in the developed world where there are far more reliable ways of preventing it. The WHO only recommends it for HIV prevention in countries where there are high infection rates and high levels of heterosexual transmission.

The benefits of circumcision are extremely debatable except where there is a specific medical need.

SlowFJH · 22/03/2016 05:50

Performing an unnecessary surgical procedure on a child (therefore a person who cannot give their informed consent) is assault in my book. The parents and / or the person performing it should be liable to prosecution even years after the event.

larrygrylls · 22/03/2016 06:03

Slow,

Parents have every right to perform legal medical procedures on their children. Given that circumcision is a very minor procedure and not only protects against hiv and many other stds, but also removed the risk of a late and painful circumcision, it can be considered analogous to vaccination (or is that assault to, as the child has not 'consented'?).

And as for circumcised men being less sensitive, how is this measured? I mean circumcised men achieve orgasm just the same as uncircumcised and, if really less sensitive, this just makes it last longer.

To me this should be left to individual parents.

Mistigri · 22/03/2016 06:08

Actually, parents don't have the right right to inflict unnecessary surgical procedures on their children, in other contexts doing so would be seen as a sign of either abuse or mental illness or both.

Comparisons with vaccination - a non-surgical procedure with significant and proven benefits that massively outweigh the risks - is also very inappropriate.

SlowFJH · 22/03/2016 06:15

It's only legal because of historical religious sensitivities to the Abrahamic faiths. Cutting off a part of a baby's body is barbaric.

AllMyBestFriendsAreMetalheads · 22/03/2016 06:25

I can sort of get doing it for religious reasons, but it's when people say they want their baby by to look like his daddy that baffles me. Do men and their sons regularly compare their penises?

larrygrylls · 22/03/2016 07:15

Misti,

Not for you to say what comparisons I can or cannot make. There are clear protective benefits to circumcision, as I have outlined above.

Circumcision is not, nor is it likely to become illegal, so talk of prosecution and assault (a crime) are, imo, completely inappropriate.

Lanark2 · 22/03/2016 07:16

What about haircuts?

FreeSpirit89 · 22/03/2016 07:43

'The while driving it underground is a tired argument'

So unsafe abortions didn't happen when they were illegal no. Women didn't die from squirting soupy liquid into the wombs to stop a pregnancy and gain an infection. Coat hangers? No.

Women from Ireland crossing the border, to obtain one. Doesn't happen. No? Must be my imagination.

If there religion dictate it they will do it, weather legal or not. Because that's what there 'God' tells them. Why no keep the practice safe and sterile where the child can reach adulthood to be pissed off.

Therapy is about talking you round. Often people are angry about one thing but our subconscious mind has more power than we know.

holdonfor1moreday · 22/03/2016 07:51

I've never been with a guy that has had this.

How is it incomplete?

ElementaryMyDear · 22/03/2016 07:56

Given that circumcision is a very minor procedure and not only protects against hiv and many other stds, but also removed the risk of a late and painful circumcision, it can be considered analogous to vaccination (or is that assault to, as the child has not 'consented'?).

It isn't in any way analogous to vaccination, because vaccination doesn't automatically leave the child permanently mutilated. Very obviously, there are much better ways of protecting yourself against sexually transmitted HIV or other STDs.

larrygrylls · 22/03/2016 08:05

Mitigation is a v subjective word. The body is not functionally damaged by it. Many people feel it gives a functional and aesthetic improvement,

larrygrylls · 22/03/2016 08:05

Mutilation that was.

BillBrysonsBeard · 22/03/2016 08:48

I hate the idea of mutilating babies. My DP was born in the Middle East and it was just what you did, part of the culture... They say they don't feel it when they're so young. He actually likes it though and can't imagine him being even more sensitive down there. But he doesn't speak for every circumcised man..

My baby was born in the ME too, there was no way I was letting anyone do that to him Sad and for what? Why is having no foreskin so important? It's awful how barbaric things are still around in 2016 in the name of tradition. Unfortunately it will always be around and done in secret if illegal.

giantpurplepeopleeater · 22/03/2016 10:09

performing an unnecessary surgical procedure on a child is assault in my book

You realise there are other procedures that are performed on children, that aren't medically necessary??

Many of them from a 'cosmetic' angle, to make a person appear more 'normal' and therefore more culturally accepatble. These aren't a medical necessity. Would you class these as assault to? I mean are cultural/ cosmetic reasons any more appropriate than religious ones?

Yes its a medical procedure, but one that can be used to avoid future issues (phimosis being quite common), have some positive benefits (some research has shown benefit in HIV spread and penis cancer rates etc) and is better done at a younger age.

Of course, as with any surgery, it carries risks. But as with any other surgery you need to weigh the risks against the benefits and decide what you think is the best option. And as with any other surgery, it should be up to a parent to weigh those riska and decide what is bst for their child.

ElementaryMyDear · 22/03/2016 10:40

The problem is that parents don't necessarily weigh the risks and don't consider any notional benefits; they simply do it because it's expected. I wonder how many are aware, for instance, that it does carry a risk of severe haemorrhage and death? Only a small one, of course, but the evidence of that is far more convincing than the evidence of protection against HIV.

dratsea · 22/03/2016 10:53

trashcanjunkie

"Actually, there's also the statistics to consider, which puts a much darker slant on things....

In countries where one pays for medical care, the circumcision rates are much higher than countries where it's free. "

Too true. In small town states there was an extra $200 in insurance fees if you had a boy, to pay for the 'operation'. It was over 50% of the income of small town surgeon.

And to those commenting on sensitivity: When giving lectures on circumcision I used to put up a slide - a quote from a classic American Surgical Journal of 80's:

"Without a foreskin coitus can be likened to a colour blind man looking at a Renoir "

whatevva · 22/03/2016 11:00

The risks may be small, but can be devastating.

I watched a documentary about a man in US who was a twin. Their parents sent them to the hospital to be circumcised, which was the norm in 1950s US and probably a very routine operation, performed thousands of times.

However, this time it went wrong. I have no idea why or how, as that bit was glossed over, but it was thought that the way to go was to operate further, and bring him up as a girl Hmm. This was at a time when nurture was thought to be the be all and end all, and no doubt was someone's pet research project.

Unfortunately, it did not work out and at the time of the documentary, Dave was trying to rebuild his life as a man, and having surgery to further that.

I was very affected by what he had gone through. It was a very small risk, but the consequences were harsh.

He later committed suicide.

dratsea · 22/03/2016 11:03

giantpurplepeopleeater

Yes its a medical procedure, but one that can be used to avoid future issues (phimosis being quite common), Too true, but breast cancer is much more common than phimosis,

have some positive benefits (some research has shown benefit in HIV spread and penis cancer rates etc) Better still chopping it all off would result in zero HIV and penile cancer rates.

and is better done at a younger age. Perhaps for the parents but for the young adult this is not the view of psychologists.

whatevva · 22/03/2016 11:13

I have found a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

The original problem was phimosis.

The other twin, who did not have the op after the first one was botched, grew out of it.