Circumcision

[leannac]

Anyone know how you go about getting baby boy circumcised? Do the midwives offer to arrange it when he's born or is it sonething you go to gp for?

People are taking it seriously because mutalating a babies genitals is very serious.

"had a long term boyfriend with foreskin before, his also functioned normally...
In my case I thought that the penis without the foreskin proofed to be more loyal... "
Well, I certainly took this to mean that a circumcised penis was a loyal penis! Maybe because it has such high self esteem because of not being bullied like all the poor uncircumcised penii. I suppose it could also mean that the circumcised penii were nasty bullying types, though. Having bits cut off you without your consent can do that to an organ.

It absolutely disgusts me that there are people who think that it is a valid 'choice' to mutilate their child. Whatever the gender of the child or the body part involved it is simply wrong to remove part of your child's body unless there is a valid medical reason. Why do some people find this difficult to understand?

I had a boyfriend who had been circ'd at around 4yo, apparently due to medical issues. He was cross about it as he said it impaired the sensation for him, I'm not sure how he worked this out, but there you go.

I definitely prefer a man to have everything in place. It makes more sense to me that way.

Can't say much on the politics of circumcision but to me it's a hateful and monstrous thing to do to a child without a good reason.

"this is an argument obviously I will not win here, it is fine... But would you name your son a "craphead" or "idiot" just so he will suffer a ridicule to the rest of his life.... It will not give him harm initially, but the suffering to the rest of his life will be far more greater... "

Of course you won't because your reasons for circumcision are ridiculous and unreasonable. How do men get ridiculed anyway?Do they walk around the US with everything hanging out? How would anyone else other than the man's partner(s) now whether he had been circumcised?

exactly bunbaker. I asked this a while ago but never got an answer. What a ridiculous reason!

"Wasnt slavery once legal and morally acceptable in the UK?

There should be a version of godwins law for this sort of crap. "

This is true. It was also abolished in the UK waaaaay before the US. Maybe the US will take the UK's lead on circumcision too eventually :)

Those of you who came to yell at me earlier. I read the thread before I posted.

My son has a circumcised penis because he had serious, repeated infections which if left untreated would have caused terrible damage and the possibility of not being able to get an erection when he was older.

I perfectly well understand that what people are referring to is the practice of circumcision for non-medical reasons. They are referring to it as genital mutilation. As my son is circumcised they are, therefore, referring to him as mutilated.

If you met an amputee would you describe them as mutilated? For whatever reason they were an amputee?

My opinion on non-medical circumcision is neither here nor there but there are many of us who have had to have our children 'mutilated' by your definition for their health and referring to their genitals as now being mutilated is offensive. I take offence at it. I am neither obtuse or misunderstanding.

If you can't understand the point I am making now, Trazzle, whowhatwherewhen then perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse.

AYeti - If someone gets their arm cut off in an attack they are usually described as being 'mutilated', if someone has to have their arm amputated for medical reasons, then they have had to have their arm amputated.

Its the intent behind the action which makes us describe it as mutilated. You know really we aren't referring to people who have had to have it done for medical reasons so stop seeing offence where there isn't any.

I understand why you find it upsetting Yeti and think mutilation is an inappropriate term to use. My DH is circumcised (religious reasons) and is perfectly functional in all ways. I would certainly not consider him mutilated. However, I wouldn't choose to circumcise any sons we have unless it was for medical reasons because it's an unnecessary risk and causes unnecessary pain and suffering.

Of course I can see what you are saying yeti.

I completely disagree with non-medical circumcision myself. When my DS was a baby we were told that he may require circumcision after suffering the worst case of balanitis the Drs at our local hospital had ever seen. The circumcision would have been medically necessary. I do not have a problem with that at all.

I don't think your DS has been mutilated. I'm sorry that that is the impression that you have got from this thread as the posters have been pretty unanimous on making a distinction between medically necessary circumcision and that which isn't.

No one has made any comments regarding the boys who have had this done and I can probably speak for just about everyone on here who would never judge a man on his penis whether it was circumcised or not. I certainly don't care what DH's is like.

As the poster below said, it's the intention behind the action. Most of us would (gladly?) have our sons circumcised to help with problems such as your DS', regardless of our views on it as an automatic practice on some newborn babies.

By the way, I wasn't shouting at you before. I honestly thought the distinction between medically-necessary circumcision and other types had been made quite clear up-thread. Apparently not.

Of course I can see what you are saying yeti.

I completely disagree with non-medical circumcision myself. When my DS was a baby we were told that he may require circumcision after suffering the worst case of balanitis the Drs at our local hospital had ever seen. The circumcision would have been medically necessary. I do not have a problem with that at all.

I don't think your DS has been mutilated. I'm sorry that that is the impression that you have got from this thread as the posters have been pretty unanimous on making a distinction between medically necessary circumcision and that which isn't.

No one has made any comments regarding the boys who have had this done and I can probably speak for just about everyone on here who would never judge a man on his penis whether it was circumcised or not. I certainly don't care what DH's is like.

As the poster below said, it's the intention behind the action. Most of us would (gladly?) have our sons circumcised to help with problems such as your DS', regardless of our views on it as an automatic practice on some newborn babies.

By the way, I wasn't shouting at you before. I honestly thought the distinction between medically-necessary circumcision and other types had been made quite clear up-thread. Apparently not.

But the fact remains that circumcisions an unable to consent baby for any other than medical reasons is mutilation. And we must continue to say this loud and clear till it stops. We must make the distinction between medical and social reasons, but we must not lt this stop us condemning the practice for non medical reasons.

I have had two circumcised boyfriends, both of whom were obsessed with the idea of what an unmutilated penis with a foreskin looked like during sexual activity. I think it does cause psychological damage. Incidentally the most obsessed one was Australian. The other one had it done for medical reasons as a young boy and had no sexual self confidence because he had always felt different - was teased at boarding school etc.

AYeti makes a fair point.

Imagine a 12 year old circumcised boy reading this thread, hysteria about circumcision, talk of mutilation, non-functioning penises, shock horror. It wouldn't be altogether unsurprising if he felt like a complete freak. Not good at the start of your adolescence.

I'm not in favour of routince circumcision of babies, but the long term effects can't be all that disastrous, or it would have died out by some Darwinian process.

We need to be careful that in zeal to educate against routine circumcision the necessarily circumcised don't feel stigma.

I have had many several a few circumcised partners and none of them suffered weird obsessions, lack of confidence or any noticeable ill-effects at all.

And your point about teasing, Muminwestlondon, emphasises the importance of not demonising circumcision.

Poor boy.

To address the op - I live in Australia and have given birth to two baby boys in the last sixteen months, and I can assure you that it is most certainly not routine or normal to have them circumcised. It is never even mentioned.

Anyhow, I strongly feel that this thread has been started specifically to cause the arguments that it already has.

Carlingblackmabel - yes you are quite right. It is the reaction of other people that causes the damage, not the operation itself. Thinking about it, my friend lives in Israel and had loads of boyfriends before settling down and never thought of it as an issue, because it is normal there.

'
I'm not in favour of routince circumcision of babies, but the long term effects can't be all that disastrous, or it would have died out by some Darwinian process.'

just like FGM has died out then?

Carling my understanding from this thread is that no one (or at leastnot many) people have said there would be weird obsessions etc would be side effects...

None of us would look any differently at a man whether or not he was circumcised. Whatever his penis looks like is pretty much irrelevant really.

What we struggle to understand (and object to) is why parents would allow a painful operation on their newborn baby essentially for aesthetic reasons. THAT is the argument and completely separate from having the operation done for medical reasons.

Especially as the OP isn't even seeking to rely on religious reasons and seems to just want her DS circumcised for the fun of it.

And mum do you know people who would "judge" a circumcised penis?

The only girls I know that have any opinion on this are Muslims who clearly would only really have sex with a circumcised man but openly describe uncircumcised men as "dirty" for still having a foreskin. I don't know anyone who has the opposing attitude.

You're worried about hygiene? Hey, here's a suggestion that doesn't involve assaulting your baby with a knife. Are you ready? It's quite complicated...

TEACH HIM TO WASH.

You wipe an intact penis like you do a finger. Don't retract the foreskin, and leave him the hell alone.

Makes me sick to see that MGM is still alive and kicking when FGM is seen as so horrific... They're both equally wrong. Not your body, not your choice.

Carling alternatively, if the foreskin was such a general hazard to health and hygiene, surely by boys would have evolved to be born without one at all?

I believe circumcision just for the hell of it should be demonised, not the actual penis afterwards, because the poor bloody thing, and the boy attached to it, didnt have a choice in the matter. But I'd like to see parents who have chosen to do it for no reason other than medical necessity absolutely be demonised. I for one would never ever judge a male for having a circumcised penis for non medical reasons, Id judge my arse off at the parents though.

Only then will circumcision for vanity/"social" reasons (cutting off a bit of a baby for social reasons WTAF!!!) eventually die out. I think its a while off, but we'll get there