GP not being very helpful regarding Circumcision

[Debster7808]

I went to see the GP recently at the first check-up after DS2 was born, and I said that because DS1 was circumcised (-he was born in US, where it kind of gets done as a routine just after boys are born-), we wanted to get DS2 done as well, while he's still a newborn. I was really surprised when the GP tried to talk me out of getting it done, which means that I'm a bit lost as to where next to turn to get this done. I can understand that circumcision isn't available on the NHS, which is fine, but if I want to go private, don't I need a GP referral? Should I just seek a second GP's opinion?
Anyone have any experience of getting their boys circumcised in a culture that generally doesn't do it?

Oh for fuck's sake- it is not "so obviously cleaner and healthier"

Well, no more so than a girl's gentials would be "cleaner and healthier" without the labial folds to collect sweat, secretions and bacteria. Why do you not agree with trimming them off too?

It is so obviously cleaner and healthier without a foreskin to trap and nurture harmful bacteria

I think we debunked that myth several pages ago.

Continuing to quote from the Lost list then, to disprove Suzannesee's comment:

Immunological System
The soft mucosa (inner foreskin) contains its own immunological defense system which produces plasma cells. These cells secrete immunoglobulin antibodies as well as antibacterial and antiviral proteins, including the pathogen killing enzyme lysozyme.
LOST Once removed with the foreskin, there is no known method of restoring this immunological defense system.

Lymphatic vessels
The loss of these vessels due to circumcision reduces the lymph flow within that part of the body's immune system.
LOST While some lymphatic vessels remain, there is no known method of restoring those that were removed during circumcision.

Langerhans Cells
These specialized epithelial cells are a component of the immune system in the penis.
LOST There is no known method of restoring Langerhans cells to the penis.

So, frankly, bollocks to the idea that it's cleaner and more hygienic to remove the foreskin. No it isn't - it exposes the glans to more danger by removing its protective immune system. Cracking mistake, there.

getting it done because the dad wants his sons to look the same is the single most egotistical piece of bullturd Ive ever heard.

DP has a scar on his face, I had best get the cleaver out eh?

"It is so obviously cleaner and healthier without a foreskin "

Doe smake me titter to think that some people actually believe this. Bet they are the same peope that believe you can get pregnant from a bj

These stupid bloody human bodies that are evolving all the time (eg wisdom teeth gradually going from people as we no longer need them) - but the foreskin still stays there - anyone would think nature thinks there is a good reason for it to stay!

Oh but it looks better without one, right? Oh well that's ok then. Jesus.

Or maybe the dads could have their foreskins rebuilt by a plastic surgeon....then they'd look like their sons? Oh no, wait- that would hurt.......

This is slightly off topic but I have never understood religious people circumcising. Surely if you believe God made us, then you shouldn't mess with what's been created? It's very illogical.

A foreskin is not a birth defect. Leave it there, it's there for a reason. Uncirc'ed men don't have fetid rotting cocks, it's utter crap.

Ah, GreenMonkies, but the OP doesn't like the look of it, which is why it has to go.

Ears are pretty ugly-looking things too. Shall we get rid of those?

Oh! Oh! Here's another, BecauseImWorthIt, finger nails harbour billions of germs, cutting, filing and cleaning them is such a time-waster, lets rip them out when our babies are neonates and can't fight back too. Another problem solved......

I don't like the way toes look.............

TBH knobs are fairly unattractive anyway - why not just lop them off. Then we wouldn't need to argue about circumcision.

Honestly OP, you should really hear yourself, hear your own reasons for 'getting DS2 done as well' (that in itself is horrid) :-

DH and DS1 have 'had it done' - so let's just mutilate another son so he matches the other males in the family

It's cleaner and healthier - absolute rubbish

It's pain free - also nonsense

You prefer the look of it - well it doesn't actually belong to you does it? And you prefer the mutilated version of your son's anatomy to the one that nature intended?

exactly Patti.
DO the religious people advocating circumcision think God made a design fault in boys?

Oh - if it looks unattractive, why not have a pretty pattern tattooed on to it? Just needles; won't hurt at all.

BIWI now there's an idea!

Oooh oooh. Lots of men think women look better with larger breasts. OP, why don't you have implants to make you look better to all those unspecified men out there, and then maybe you can justify cutting bits off your son so he'll look better to all those unspecified women out there? After all, it's just improving appearance.

personally I would not havet his done unless my GP told me it was a medical necessity.

However to go back to your OP and I have not read anything beyond the first and last pages, so perhaps this has already been said: if you are willing to go private, why not call around and ask if this can be done and if a referral is necessary because your GP is unsupportive. I should think there must be some GPS you could pay for privately who are either Jewish or Muslim themselves and must therefore feel differently about it.

I would however think long and hard about it as I am sure you are doing.

I find it mind-boggling that anyone in this day and age thinks circumcision is a good thing to do .

As I said above, I can understand people doing it for religious reasons as they have been brainwashed into thinking that there will be disadvantages to their children not getting it done (even though I don't agree with them, and the fact that apparently God understood Jewish boys not having it done during WW2 or the Russian pogrom means it isn't essential, surely ).

But for a non-religious educated person in a civilised country to take a knife and slice off any bit of their child's body (much less such a sensitive bit) just seems to me to be plain weird. I didn't like cutting my children's finger nails when they were little in case the scissors slipped.

Maybe an idea would be that anyone who wants to do this to their child should have to do it themselves - hold the baby down and actually cut them themselves, so they see what is happening. Not have it taken away and done clinically where they can't see. That might make people question it more.

it's a money driven thing in the USA.

Despicable doesn't begin to describe it

Good posts thumbwitch. Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing that would convince suzannesee that she is wrong. The human body is clearly flawed and must be fixed!

Tragic, isn't it. :(