Circumcision

[SouthAfricanmuminUK]

I was thoroughly abused by several English mums of my acquaintance for having my sons circumcised at birth. Although I did my research and found it to be better from a number of perspectives, nothing would convince them it was reasonable. I am wondering if they will retract their accusations now that it has been revealed that Diana, saintliest of all mothers, had both her boys circumcised ...

Yet they all earn 6 figures!

I can remember the movement away from Female Circumcision to Female Genital Mutilation. Female Circumcision made it sound like a rather simple and benign procedure.

Amazing, considering it is a legal procedure carried out by doctors, who have taken the hippocratic oath, in safe conditions, and there are millions and millions of men all over the world leading happy, healthy lives despite the alleged horror of it all

None of those things justify it. At all. Doctors have long carried out procedures deemed unnecessary at the time and now, the Hippocratic Oath isn’t actually a thing, and millions of men rationalise that there’s no point raking up old ground to dwell on it. Some men suffer trauma however and feel they’ve been violated.

How many of the 20% of UK men who have been circumcised suffered trauma and feel they've been violated?

It depends on the study, but some place it quite high.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

Hammond's (1997) sample of circumcised men reported emotional harm (83%), physical harm (82%), general psychological harm (75%), and low self-esteem (74%). The circumcised men frequently reported feeling mutilated (62%), unwhole (61%), resentful (60%), abnormal/unnatural (60%), that one's human rights had been infringed (60%), angry (54%), frustrated (53%), violated (50%), inferior to genitally intact males (47%), impeded sexually (43%), and betrayed by one's parents (34%). Similar findings emerged from a larger sample of 546 circumcised men studied by Hammond (1999).

There is likely selection bias there, but if men are actually asked to consider it, it’s a common report. Certainly not zero. Which means it needs to be considered as a negative consequence of newborn circumcision.

It certainly shouldn’t be hand waved away.

Denying science?? If it wasn't meant to be on your body, it wouldn't be. It's called evolution 🙄🤨😑

Denying science? Are you serious?

@SouthAfricanmuminUK would you also undertake fgm on your daughters?

Why bring Diana into s discussion avout circumcision.
In my opinion taking anything like a knife to the genitals of anyone for anything other than surgery fir medical reasons is abhorrent.
My cousin was circumcised in his twenties for medical reasons and was in so much pain.Genital Mutilation is wrong.

And to take this further:

The paper I quoted suggests 40-80% of males suffer at least one psychological trauma effect. Let’s say that’s a massive overestimation. Let’s say it’s 1%.

You say 20% of UK males have been circumcised. In the 2021 census that was 29,177,200 males.

20% of that is 5.835,440.

1% of that is 58,354 males.

Now let’s be even more generous and say of that 1% very conservative estimate of psychological harm affecting 58,354 males in the UK, let’s say half of those males were circumcised for genuine medical reasons.

Then let’s round that down even more to 25,000.

So if you take a very conservative estimate of psychological harm (even though studies suggest it’s much, much higher) and round it down significantly out of generosity of argument, you’re still arguing that it doesn’t matter about those 25,000 males.

And what do we tell those males suffering psychologically? That it was done for…..what reason? What benefit?

That it’s “cleaner”? Because running water is so sparse in the UK🤨.

That it’s prevented urine infections? Even though the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) is around 1 in 200, meaning of those 25,000 only 125 were prevented from getting a UTI, something perfectly treatable with a week of antibiotics.

Why?

I beg to differ. I find circumcised ones quite grim-looking and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Not that looks are relevant here in any way. It's an unnecessary medical procedure in most (but not all) cases and given how horrified I'd feel if someone cut off a piece of my genitalia as a baby, I'm in solidarity with the men who weren't given the choice ether.

Did you actually think that argument through? Amputating part of a body such as a foot that is causing pain and illness in a patient is a perfectly fine and valid medical treatment, amputating someone's foot that is perfectly healthy because you don't like the look of feet and lowers the risk of athletes foot is mutilation.

Doctors perform invasive surgery on children all the time, removing organs when they need too. Good luck trying to get a doctor to remove an appendix in a healthy child just in case it might rupture though.

Funnily enough. They ignored my comment which made the same point as yours in response to this utter garb

No loving or responsible parent could (medical reasons aside)

Not true. In the parts of the world where FGM is carried out and causing harm. Circumcision is also maiming and killing boys.

You're comparing FGM in third world countries to Circumcision in 1st. I'm comparing the mutilating, you're comparing the quality of the medical practice.

They are both carried out in 3rd world countries. But only one is done in developed areas. We don't strap little girls arms and legs down and cut their genitals away in nice clean hospitals then wrap it back up in their nappy to get weed and pooed on. But we still do that to boys.

A testicle that affects your fertility is comparable to skin?

Don't quit day job

Eh?

Are you a little confused duck?

Swap testicle for another body part that needs removing due to medical need.

The cowardly OP seems to have fled but circumcision should be a choice for a boy/man when they're old enough to understand it and want it, not done to a baby as standard.

Appendix, amputation of a foot etc - don't compare to piece of skin no matter how much you try and make it so.

The foreskin is not simply excess skin, it serves a purpose. It adds to sensitivity - the foreskin contains the most nerve endings in the penis, it provides protection to the glans head of the penis from rubbing against clothing etc. which also maintains sensitivity and aids lubrication during in sex.

A medical circumcism is also different to a request circumcism because a medical one is only done when it is actually required, not simply due to parental preference.

It is still barbaric and unnecessary no matter how much you try and say otherwise

If it's "just a piece of skin" please tell us what piece of skin you would gladly have chopped off yourself in the name of cleanliness and esthetics, @BabyOnBoard90.

Earlobe?

Labia?

Any other piece of skin you are not particularly attached to?

If anything an appendix is even less important than the foreskin because beyond fetal development it holds very little purpose, whereas the foreskin actually does have a purpose throughout a males adult life. But nobody would advocate for unnecessary appendectomies because its still an unnecessary procedure.

Bullshit. Yesterday's thread (deleted) was you making up an imaginary exchange on a bus. And today's thread is you claiming you have an intimate knowledge of other people's knobs. Other people you've never met, while simultaneously claiming several others had an intimate knowledge about your (imaginary) sons. 0/10

Exactly this
And Diana sounds like she was mentally unstable anyway so why would anything she did be considered as a good example