Feeling forced to chose a circumcision...is it my husband,is the religion,is it really necessary?

[efy]

I have read some messages related to this tread by some of you and I understand when you guys call people like us....crazy etc.
I come from a non-circumcised family, my three brothers have never done or need it.
After I have changed my religion I wanted to follow the requirements of being from this religion. I like to believe that I have personally done some changes which were related to my self.
Now that I have an almost 12 months son, it looks that I have to fill up another requirement, which is circumcision, because I am from the religion that requires circumcision but the difference is....the change I need to do does not envolve me directly...is actually my little baby boy.
How do I feel about this?? Well I feel is unnecessary, I already feel guilty for planning to handle my little precious boy in someone's else hands to just harm him...yeah that is exactly how I feel...me and his father taking him with his little smile to a place that God knows what may happen.
And you know what, it was actually planned for tomorrow but I feel relief for now because we have discovered the person who was suppose to do it has had an unfortunate case where the little boy had to be taken to hospital for more operations in order to be 'fixed'.
My husband was circumcised when he was 5 and he believes in it, I don't believe and I think is more cultural than religious, I just do not understand why God will leave this for us humans to do it? Why did he leave that thing there if it need to be removed and why on such as small baby? Why??
My husband speaks about it as being just a simple procedure because he is a doctor but this is not the point, what about the baby? how is he going to feel?
I am relief for now but I am not convinced that this is in anyway necessary if at all...
I rather feel pushed to do it along with my baby.

I don't understand what's wrong with washing.

From the same link - last sentence...

"Men who have difficulty drawing back their foreskin (a condition called phimosis) may get a build up of smegma. Men with phimosis have a risk of penile cancer that is 5 to 11 times higher than other men. But because penile cancer is rare their risk is still small."

Did you make up the 25%?

"The NHS now tries to guide parents away from the practice and the most recent figures suggest just 3.8 per cent of male babies are circumcised in the UK. This is down from a rate of 20 per cent in the 1950s, when there was a belief, especially among those who could afford to have it done privately, that it was more hygienic."

"The World Health Organisation back in 2007 estimated that around 30 per cent of males aged 15 and over are circumcised around the world, with almost 70 per cent of these being Muslim."

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10201882/Circumcision-is-one-of-the-oddities-of-the-Royal-Family.html

Martorana said: "I don't understand what's wrong with washing."

Th urethra in a man is long and isn't straight. When a man urinates, some urine gets trapped in the urethra which then leaks. This is why all men lose a drip of two of urine even several minutes after urinating.

In an uncircumcised man this drip or urine spreads out over the glans, bathing it in urine which goes stale very quickly in that nice, warm environment. This is why the uncircumcised glans is usually damp.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: From the same link - last sentence...

"Men who have difficulty drawing back their foreskin (a condition called phimosis) may get a build up of smegma. Men with phimosis have a risk of penile cancer that is 5 to 11 times higher than other men. But because penile cancer is rare their risk is still small."

Yes. We have already established that a 1 in 600 risk of getting a cancer, however nasty that particular cancer is, is not a priority for most health authorities, particularly those with limited resources.

It
Is
A
Small
Risk

Seriously. Breast cancer: 1 in 8 lifetime risk and no-one proposes pre-emptive mastectomies for all, even after breast feeding years.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "Did you make up the 25%?"

*No, Snatch. I didn't. You must be desperate now if you are arguing the toss over 20% or 25% circumcision rate! I have also seen references which give the current over 60's a 30% circumcision rate.

Either way the risk of a uncircumcised man getting penile cancer is greater than 1 in 600, so what is your point?

If you didn't make it up, what was your source?

looking at baggin's link, I see it actually says "Penile cancer is a rare cancer in Western countries. Around 550 men are diagnosed each year in the UK. That means that only 3 out of every 1,000 cancers diagnosed in men in the UK are penile cancer"
and also
"However, it is important to remember that circumcision is only one risk factor for this type of cancer. Other risk factors such as smoking and HPV infection are more important."

I was trying to find how many people per year are diagnosed with other cancers, so I could use baggin's method for calculating the "1 in n" lifetime figure, unfortunately the other cancers I looked at do not seem to have a "how common is it" section.

I was especially interested to see from baggin's link that

"Uncircumcised men should regularly pull back their foreskin to clean under it. If they don’t do this, secretions and dead skin cells can build up. This thick, often bad smelling substance (known as smegma) can cause irritation and inflammation of the penis. Men who have difficulty drawing back their foreskin (a condition called phimosis) may get a build up of smegma. Men with phimosis have a risk of penile cancer that is 5 to 11 times higher than other men. But because penile cancer is rare their risk is still small."

So I think we can agree that the filthy stinking penis mentioned earlier, as well as being highly undesirable, is a good indicator of a grown-up person who might benefit from making his own decision as an adult. It is not relevant to people without this problem. I do however see from an ad link that sometimes appears on this thread that there are stretching methods which can deal with phimosis without surgery.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said:
"It
Is
A
Small
Risk"

*A small but entirely preventable risk, and a particularly nasty disease with devastating consequences.

However the point is made: this is one of the benefits of circumcision you should consider when deciding whether to circumcise your son.

The other benefits include:

1. It is cleaner. This benefit has also been established in this thread, the only argument against it being "I don't care that the glans is covered in stale urine as the female parts may also have stale urine on them."

This seems to be the intactivist mantra: If you can't solve EVERY problem then don't try to solve any! (There are other cancers you can get so don't bother protecting your son from penile cancer; There are other parts of the body which are not clean so don't other making any part clean!)

1. There is growing evidence that the risk of acquiring variety of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV) is reduced in a circumcised man.

To which intactivists respond, "Use a condom!"... as though a circumcised man cannot use a condom! Circumcision seems to provide a level of protection and since not everyone uses a condom all the time (particularly since pregnancy can be avoided with the pill) it is clearly better to be circumcised AND use encourage condom use.

To claim circumcision is wrong you need to demonstrate that the drawbacks significantly outweigh these benefits. And yet the intactivists have to resort to lies and exaggerations to do this....

1. "It makes sex less pleasurable." Not true. Old, fat circumcised men simply blame their age and weight related impotence on their circumcision. The sensation of having the exposed glans stimulated would seem to balance any stimulation received from the ridged band sliding over the glans, and either way an orgasm is more intense the longer the build up to it is.

1. "It is barbaric and unnecessary." No argument at all. One man's "barbaric" is another man's "civilised." And we have already established that there are at least some benefits from it so whether it is necessary or not depends on the level of risk you wish to take.

1. "It is painful and lots of babies die" Lies and exaggeration. Done professionally there is no risk of death or serious injury and it should be virtually pain free. Not that intactivists give a damn about truth, they will happily post videos and pictures of (non)medical negligence and screaming babies and claim it to be the norm in order to frighten parents because of their own foreskin fetish. Shame on them. Shame.

PigletJohn said: stuff.

You do understand "risk factor", don't you? Do you think, perhaps, that ALL uncircumcised men have an equal chance of getting penile cancer? No. Being uncircumcised is only one risk factor, phimosis is another, as is smoking. However because they are only factors which increase your risk you can stop smoking and cure your phimosis and STILL contract penile cancer. Circumcision removes the greatest risk factor of all, the foreskin. Penile cancer in uncircumcised men is almost unheard of.

"It makes sex less pleasurable." Not true. "

Not true for you. True for plenty of other circumcused men. Not necessarily old fat impotent ones (how charming)

Do you advocate a double mastectomy after breast feeding has finished? Or even before, since the health benefits of breast milk vs formula are nothing like the 1 in 8 breast cancer risk?

Do you believe in pre-emptive removal of the tonsils and appendix?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch tried to score a cheap, irrelevant point by posting: "If you didn't make it up, what was your source?"

FUlly referenced historical circumcision figures for you to study:

www.cirp.org/library/statistics/UK/

I am not an activist. I am vainst the performing of no. Medically necessary surgery on people unable to comsent.

Baggies. Some questions.
Why not wait until a boy is able to consent so that he can decide for himself?
My dp has taught our son how to keep his penis clean- why didn't mt you do the same for yours?
We will be teaching our so that if he has sex with someone about whose sexual health he is not 100% sure he should use a condom. Why don't you teach your son the same?

It wasn't a cheap point. It was a question.

if baggins insists on using his silly term "intactivist" to mean a person who disapproves of cutting off bits of the human body without medical need, does anyone mind calling him a "mutilationist?"

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said:

""It makes sex less pleasurable." Not true. "

Not true for you. True for plenty of other circumcused men. Not necessarily old fat impotent ones (how charming)"

O, I think circumcision has become the bogeyman for some, an excuse for all sexual problems they suffer. The brain is the most important sex organ and young men can get an erection without touching their penis. As men get older this becomes more difficult and there comes a time when you need to start it up by hand and hop on while it is still going (just like an old car!) Thankfully I haven't reached that stage yet, but when I do I will buy viagra and not blame my age related weak erections on circumcision instead of a badly designed sex organ which evolved when men rarely lived beyond their 30's.

Sounds fair to me, PJ.

From your link, baggins:

"The BMA consider male circumcision to be an invasive, radical procedure"

Are the BMA also intactivists?

I don't think "reduced sexual pleasure" and "impotence" are the same.

This should be a very simple issue.

Humans disagree VERY vehemently on whether circumcision is a good or a terrible thing if done for non-medical reasons.

It is not reversible.

Therefore, the only REASONABLE solution is to never ever circumcise an infant, but to allow every human male to decide on their own circumcision when they are an adult. This makes perfect sense as a. They will know by then whether the are religious or not, and whether they wish to make the decision to be a circumcised person and b. the medical risk that the procedure entails can be recognised, in that the person undergoing the procedure can consent.

Circumcision is good or bad depending on your outlook.

Circumcising babies for religious reasons is a disgusting betrayal of human rights and a foul, dangerous mutilating procedure that should be made ILLEGAL.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: Do you advocate a double mastectomy after breast feeding has finished? Or even before, since the health benefits of breast milk vs formula are nothing like the 1 in 8 breast cancer risk?

Do you believe in pre-emptive removal of the tonsils and appendix?

This is a typical intactivist nonesense argument. "But is you cut off the foot they will never get an ingrown toenail!" they cry gleefully.

There is a massive difference between cutting off a breast and cutting off the flap of skin over the glans. If you cannot see this difference there is no hope for you. So no, I do not advocate removing breasts to after breastfeeding. Tonsilitis is not a devastating disease, it does not kill you (as over 50% of penile cancers do) and does not require amputation (or partial amputation) of the penis (as over 80% of penile cancers do.)

The risk of getting penile cancer is low but the consequences are horrific. The risk of getting tonsilitis are high but the consequences are minimal and easily cured.

Removal of the appendix requires general anesthetic and cutting through the abdominal wall. Not quite the same as a ten minute, pain-free procedure under local anesthetic. So no, I do not advocate routinely removing the appendix.

I do, however, advocate removing teeth so that braces can be fitted to straighten teeth and make them look nicer. As do you, I believe.... double standards, what!

Martorana said: "I am not an activist. I am vainst the performing of no. Medically necessary surgery on people unable to comsent."

And yet you seem to accept the intactivist arguments wholesale...

Baggies. Some questions.

OK. Go for it.

Why not wait until a boy is able to consent so that he can decide for himself?

Because the procedure is far simpler and less painful as a child. The plastibell or circumplast can only be used up until about the age of 8 years because the skin is too thick after that. It takes a few days for the ring to fall off and healing to be complete in a child but takes 4 to 6 weeks for an adult circumcision to heal, and for all that time the teenager or adult must stop masturbating or having sex, which is very difficult for a young male! Also, some of the benefits are greater the earlier the procedure is done: prevention of penile cancer for example.

My dp has taught our son how to keep his penis clean- why didn't mt you do the same for yours?

I did. And he did. But as already noted a penis is only clean until he next urinates so the glans is almost always soaked in stale urine regardless of how well he washes.

We will be teaching our so that if he has sex with someone about whose sexual health he is not 100% sure he should use a condom. Why don't you teach your son the same?

Condoms are excellent... as long as they are always used. Bit drunk, girl is on the pill, no condom to hand... you get the picture. Condom good, condom AND circumcision better.

BrunoBrookesDinedAlone said: "....Circumcision is good or bad depending on your outlook.

Circumcising babies for religious reasons is a disgusting betrayal of human rights and a foul, dangerous mutilating procedure that should be made ILLEGAL."

Believe me, I am no oadvocate for religion. However even religion occasionally hits upon a truth even if it is for the wrong reason. There are far more harmful things religion does than circumcision, brainwashing a child into fearing his own thoughts because he thinks they are being monitored and judged is a far worse thing than circumcision.