Circumcision

[muma19]

DP wants DS circumcised however I don't. I also have MIL getting involved and pressuring me. What do I do? I want to be fair to my partner but I really don't want him veg for circumcised. HELP!!!!

Also, even if you agree there is a risk reduction it doesn't justify it. My risk of death in a road accident would be a lot less if I never left the house.

YANBU

Personally, I think that circumcision is totally unnecessary unless there is a solid medical indication

Your MIL may well have strong opinions on whether your baby gets it done, but at the end of the day she should play NO part in the decision making

It is between you and your partner- it'd be worth getting more information (whether via the internet or from appointment with a medical professional) so you can come to a balanced and reasoned decision i.e. do NOT get it done if you feel it is not right

I do appreciate that when a young baby is involved, all balance and reason goes out the window- you just want to protect your baby at the end of the day

Definitely do not do it to please your partner or MIL!

Yikes!

Didn't realise there were 20 page of discussion already!

but the weight of medical opinion nowadays comes down on it NOT being proven to be beneficial

This is an over simplification. As with any medical intervention there are risks and benefits. It may not be routinely recommended but that's very different from stating that there are no benefits. I note you don't bother to provide any supporting evidence for this assertion. This statement from the Canadian Pediatric Society is pretty typical....

MadMadCow has already said perfectly most of what I would have done in response to this.

I don't deny that cutting off some or all of a body part will reduce or eliminate the risk of illness/infections/cancer in that body part - that's obvious and doesn't require any medical training to know or convince people.

Routinely chopping off a newborn's arms at the shoulders would guarantee that they never suffer from arthritic fingers for the rest of their lives. Removing newborn girls' wombs and ovaries would forever free them of the risk of ever developing cancer in these organs.

Tongue cancer is rare, but devastating when it occurs. Maybe the idea of babies never being able to talk properly would be a small price to pay to know that society would be rid of this condition once and for all.

I find your use of the phrase 'medical intervention' somewhat strange. This phrase is usually used to refer to the treatment of existing illnesses or those for which there is a strong reason to believe that a serious problem is very likely to occur - not something done on the off-chance that one of a few illnesses or conditions could possibly present themselves in later life.

Circumcision is something that should only be done when explicitly medically necessary. Outside of that, it's just mutilation. Utterly monstrous thing to do to your own child.

A baby does not have a foreskin in the adult sense of the word. For a baby it is the same as ripping skin off any part of the body because it is not separate from the glans, it is there to protect the glans wholly until around age 5, when is starts to separate naturally. This would be the safer and kinder time to cut it off without tearing it away from the underlying raw tissue.

I can't believe in this day and age we are even having this discussion. It's so abhorrent to those of us who do not have this as a routine practice,just the same as fgm.

Yes, those who do it do try to find support evidence to continue its practice. If you look hard enough there are pro's and con's to most things, even in research its not usually clear cut black and white (seriously no pun intended)

We do not routinely even remove the appendix, which can and does cause serious complications, including death.

We do not inflict unnecessary pain as a matter of course. We do not conduct procedures removing the child's own choice.

We do not own children or their bodies, their bodies belong to them and we are entrusted with their care until they are independent to decide and consent for themselves.

It's funny how the 'medical benefits' are so often espoused by people who want to practise circumcision for cultural reasons!

There are studies that demonstrate there is no benefit to circumcision. There are others that demonstrate the opposite. Sadly, most on either side are compiled by people with a cultural agenda.

IMO the most likely explanantion is almost certainly as Florescentadolescent stated: circumcision is correlated with religious practise, which is in turn correlated with groups who have less sex anyway. Control for that and there will be no benefit. Don't control for that and you will see correlation and not causation.
And there's no reason to believe that will not equally well apply in sub-Saharan African where most of these studies take place.

Either way, that is not an argument to practise circumcision on infants, as infants won't be having sex. The complication rate is higher, but anyone of majority age can themselves elect to be circumcised, if they themselves are convinced by those uncontrolled studies and wish themselves to run the risk of having unprotected sex with a circumcised penis.

Men don't often elect to be circumcised for non-medical reasons. That tells us something.

I think there is clearly evidence of some small benefits with regard to STDs, herpes and HIV. It's a very small advantage though, and those health problems are already so easily mitigable through other means, that the cost of chopping off part of your body is probably not worth it.

I'm sure if you went and asked a bunch of 18-25 year old men if they thought it was a good trade-off, they'd decline, even when armed with the latest scientific evidence. So I don't think any adult should really be making that decision for their baby, if most adult males would say no. Why not let him choose when he himself is an adult?

A thought experiment.

Suppose we could study the choices of 100 baby boys.
Suppose they are not circumcised as infants.
How many of those children, when they are older, will fall into these categories:

1. Has considered the pros and cons of circumcision. Is glad they weren't circumcised an as an infant.
2. Has considered the pros and cons of circumcision. Regrets the fact they weren't circumcised an as an infant. Does not wish to be circumcised as an adult, as the complication rate is higher. Wishes their parents had done it to them as a kid.
3. Has considered the pros and cons of circumcision. Regrets the fact they weren't circumcised an as an infant. Elects to thave the procedure as an adult.
4. Has not considered the pros and cons of circumcision.

If the vast majority of that 100 were in groups (2) or (3), you could make a case for performing circumcision on infants, arguing the removal of choise is an acceptable opportunity cost.

I would suspect you'd end up with the vast majortiy of those 100 in either (1) or (4).

There are studies showing sensitivity and pleasure is the same after circumcision of adult males and others that say it decreases, but for me, I would never choose to be circumsized, regardless of any slight health benefit!! No way.

I know this: when my foreskin is retracted, the head of the penis is very sensitive! If it was rubbing on the inside of my underwear all day, it would feel VERY uncomfortable. As in, I wouldn't be able to cope with it. So the fact that a circumsized man can walk around like that all day every day, to me, implies he has less feeling (basically no feeling?) in the head of his penis.

No thanks!

What vested interest does the World Health Organisation have in promoting circumcision or manipulating data?

WeBuilt, the analogy doesn't work because if you cut off a person's arms or their tongue or removed their ovaries their life after that would be severely restricted.
Circumcised men generally lead normal lives and have normal sex lives.

Smother, first of all, the foreskin is not ripped off it is generally surgically removed by a trained surgeon or other person with the relevant training. Secondly, it is not the same as removing skin from anywhere on the body, if you removed skin elsewhere you would be left with a wound, with circumcision it heals perfectly because there is another skin underneath. That newly exposed skin might be red for a day or two but it is perfectly healthy.

Thirdly, I disagree that it would be better to do it at five years old because a child that age will understand some of what is happening but is not old enough to fully understand why it is happening.
It is not a painful procedure for babies/toddlers at all. Nowadays the procedure is usually done under anaesthetic and young children recover so quickly. One of my sons got it done as a toddler and as soon as we got home he went comfortably down for a nap and when he woke up he was laughing and bouncing around on his bed. Another son who had it done as a baby had a feed immediately afterwards and from then on he was fine.

When I said that adults or older boys would remember it, I meant they would remember the healing process which will be more difficult and painful in their case. I don't agree that GA is preferable to LA as you have to fast for a few hours before that so if that was done with children they would be distressed from being hungry and thirsty by the time they woke up afterwards. With LA they use a numbing cream first before the injection.

MrsBethel, I think if the 100 boys were proportionate percentage wise to the current religious and ethnic demographics of the world as a whole, you are right that most would be 1 or 4.
However, if the 100 boys were Muslims or from another community which routinely practises circumcision then I think that most would be 2 or 3.

The idea of being upset that your parents got you circumcised is generally quite alien to people from my background. If men weren't happy about it, they wouldn't go on to circumcise their own sons.

"If men weren't happy about it they wouldn't do it to their own sons" isn't a great argument. Look at the beast ironing thing that was in the news this week (which I'd never even heard of before), it's women doing it to their daughters. So is that OK?

A barbaric practice that's normalised in a given culture is still a barbaric practice.

WeBuilt, the analogy doesn't work because if you cut off a person's arms or their tongue or removed their ovaries their life after that would be severely restricted.
Circumcised men generally lead normal lives and have normal sex lives.

It wasn't really meant to be an analogy - just a logical extension of where you could end up using 'medical' justifications. How about a couple of fingers or toes, then, or maybe earlobes that could harbour dirt? At what point do you judge that an act of non-consensual mutilation which brings with it undeniable negative consequences is a step too far?

Would you say that, because murdering a random stranger in the street would clearly be abhorrent, it would therefore not be bad (or maybe even an act of kindness?!) to just knock them out with a mighty punch from which they would recover after just a couple of days in hospital? After all, you never know what other previously-unknown health conditions might be discovered and subsequently cured whilst they're in hospital?

Even if you are/were a man who had been circumcised as an adult and were therefore in a position to say that YOU noticed no difference in your pre- and post-circumcised sexual enjoyment, you still wouldn't be able to speak for all men in general.

I just can't understand the desperation to mutilate babies for no actual reason and try to justify it by saying "oh, they'll probably be fine - even though they've had thousands of sensitive nerve endings taken from them without their consent, it probably won't make any difference - it's not like I've chopped their arm off."

"There are studies showing sensitivity and pleasure is the same after circumcision of adult males and others that say it decreases, but for me, I would never choose to be circumsized, regardless of any slight health benefit!! No way."

The studies that show it doesn't must assume that the actual males who have reported that it has had this effect, must be lying.

I think it is fair to say that in some males it definately does. And that means you don't risk that lightly on behalf of another, as you cannot know ahead of time that it won't have this effect on this male.

That newly exposed skin might be red for a day or two but it is perfectly healthy

Can you actually hear yourself!!!?

I think you must have come here for....well what purpose exactly.

The adult human male has told us all very clearly. You simply ignore it. You ignore everything in favour of slicing off foreskins, which actually are fully attached as babies to 5ish. Saying its done by a qualified surgeon, doesn't make it acceptable to do to a infant to mutilate their perfect little bodies. A woman who never wants to bear dc and certainly wouldn't ever BF has no need of her female parts which can increase chances of illness, but you don't presume to take that decision for them.

You presume to have the right, but its wrong. You have no right to cut your children, its gross.

They're clearly not perfect for you, and that makes me feel a bit sick really.

Are we ignoring the male who tells us he couldn't tolerate even the feel of sift cotton underwear against his penis if it were to be circumcised?

Is that not a widespread fact?

You can't surely ignore what he's written,truthfully, this is what it is actually like, so as you cannot put sufficient controls into an experiment where a man can flip between being circumcised and not, all you have is the guy who isn't knowing how sensitive it is to any exposure!

CallipygianFancier, I don't think it is ok, because it is harmful. Circumcision is not harmful. But if you wanted to try and persuade people to give up the practice of breast ironing, you would have to put together a coherent and logical argument and engage in discussion with people.
Just going in shouting 'barbaric!' is not going to make any difference, and I often wonder when people come on to threads like this just to say how appalling they find a certain practice: who are the comments aimed at and what are they hoping to achieve?

WeBuilt, in answer to your question: At what point do you judge that an act of non-consensual mutilation which brings with it undeniable negative consequences is a step too far?

'Non-consensual': In general our experience leads us to believe that the vast majority of our sons when grown up will be happy that we consented to circumcision on their behalf.

'Mutilation': People in our community don't define it thus.

'undeniable negative consequences': I don't believe that there are. The only potential consequences which have been mentioned are pain and possible loss of sensitivity.
Pain, especially nowadays in an era of easily available anaesthetics, is usually minimal. Any slight amount of pain will be quickly forgotten and is outweighed by the lifelong benefits.
With regards to loss of sensitivity, this would not be severe, and is only an issue if you see the maximisation of sexual pleasure as a goal to be aimed for in and of itself. I repeat that circumcised men have normal sex lives and the same fertility rates as non-circumcised.

I don't fully understand your points about murdering and punching people in the street; it reads as if you think I am trying to persuade you that circumcision should be done within your own ideological framework/worldview and according to your decision-making criteria. I'm not; I'm trying to give some insight into the perspective of some of those who do routinely circumcise, but that takes place in the context of a different worldview and a different set of decision-making criteria.

Finally, you said: I just can't understand the desperation to mutilate babies for no actual reason and try to justify it by saying "oh, they'll probably be fine - even though they've had thousands of sensitive nerve endings taken from them without their consent, it probably won't make any difference - it's not like I've chopped their arm off."

That's blatantly not what I am saying and you know it. I don't have to justify it; male circumcision is currently not illegal in any country.
I do have actual reasons: circumcision is mandated in my religion and is also a cultural norm which people are happy to adhere to.

Smother, I will quote some of your points and answer them:

Can you actually hear yourself!!!? Well, I didn't say it out loud, so no, but I am fully aware of what I am writing here, if that's what you mean. Your outraged and incredulous reaction suggests to me that you are so used to being surrounded by like-minded people from a similar cultural background, that you have come to see your perspective as a kind of universal norm from which everyone must see themselves as deviating if they practice circumcision. That's not the case, other people have different perspectives from within which they engage in a practice established for millennia.

It's quite clear; you would presumably see any slight pain and redness caused to your child by vaccinations as being outweighed by the benefits of the vaccine.

Similarly for us, slight pain and redness which heals quickly and completely is outweighed by the benefits. You don't accept the benefits of circumcision as being more significant than the pain and initial redness; that's your perspective. We see them as being more significant; that's our perspective.

I think you must have come here for....well what purpose exactly.

I'm not sure if this is a question or a statement but my purpose in posting on this thread is to try and show how some of the arguments routinely used by those who are anti-circumcision are not necessarily relevant to all those who practice it. I have seen threads on this subject in the past before I started actively posting on here and a pp was correct in saying that they are often just an echo chamber.
I'm also trying to give people an insight into the perspective of someone from a community which routinely practises circumcision as such perspectives are often absent from discussions on this forum. And finally, I'm just engaging in general discussion with other posters on the topic and responding to their views.

I might ask you the same thing. The OP's issue has been dealt with and the proposed circumcision is not going ahead but you are still very active on the thread, so how do you see your purpose here?

"With regards to loss of sensitivity, this would not be severe, and is only an issue if you see the maximisation of sexual pleasure as a goal to be aimed for in and of itself."

Blimey. If it's all the same to you I'd rather have the full whack of everything I am naturally capable of. Rather than having a reduction to it made on my behalf because someone else does not see this as a big deal.

Continuing to quote:

The adult human male has told us all very clearly. You simply ignore it.

If you are talking about the poster who talked about sensitivity, I didn't ignore it. His post describes his experience and his reasons for not wishing to be circumcised. I'm not trying to convince him personally to go ahead with the procedure. But I don't see how this one individual experience outweighs the experience of those men who have been circumcised as infants and now have a positive view of it, in terms of being a compelling argument within communities who do routinely circumcise.

Are we ignoring the male who tells us he couldn't tolerate even the feel of sift cotton underwear against his penis if it were to be circumcised?

Is that not a widespread fact?

This made me laugh! I'm not sure what is meant by a widespread fact, I guess you mean a fact which applies on an extensive scale? In any case, I'm not sure how one individual's description of his experience can constitute a fact. I don't see how it impacts anything other than his personal decision not to get circumcised.

The men I've been with who were circumcised as minors enjoyed sex but they obviously don't know any different. My ex who had to have it done for medical reasons as an adult, was gutted because of the decrease in pleasure as like enter said, the glans is incredibly sensitive and as it has to harden/adapt/become much less sensitive, that clearly goes for sexual enjoyment as well.

We had this debate recently (our DS was born last summer). My DH and I are not religious. DH was circumcised as a baby (he was born in London, but grew up in the middle east). His mum was keen on circumcision (she's British, but from an expat community. She's also nominally CofE). And espoused 'health benefits'. We said no. She said it's more painful if it is done when older (true) but DH and I pointed out we live in the UK where most boys are not circumcised. Not in the middle east where 99% of boys are circumsised regardless of religious background.

In the UK, unless you have medical grounds for it, circumsicion can only be carried out by a registered rabbi or Iman.

My BIL and his wife (currently TTC) were having the same debate. She's anti, he's pro because it's easier to keep clean. When he realised it cannot be done by a doctor in the UK unless there's medical need, he changed his mind and they now won't circumcise.

I think sometimes family go for what is familiar. Or worry that there choices are negatively benign judged if you do something different. It's not the case. Things change and circumstances change.