Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Original poster

Circumcision - have you had your ds 'done'?

168 replies

monkeygirl · 13/09/2004 11:57

My dh wants to follow the family tradition of having ds circumcised (for non-religious reasons) but I'm not sure if I want him to go under the knife. If you've had your ds done, why and at what age? And do you think it's made a difference (ie health and hygenically-wise)?

OP posts:

prettycandles · 16/09/2004 15:01

smellymelly, IIRC, that 'circumcision' was carried out using an electric cautery, which is a tool that cuts by using an electric current to burn away tissue, the idea being that the severed blood vessels are sealed at the same time. Unfortunately the current was set too high... Awful.

Davros · 16/09/2004 21:37

polly28, LOL!

Pook · 16/09/2004 21:42

Apparently my grandfather was keen to get my uncle cicumcised when he was born, not for religious reasons, but in case he'd ever have to fight in any conflict in the middle east, and might get sand under his foreskin (granddad was in west africa during the second world war, uncle born during the Suez crisis, granddad rather obsessed) .
Anyway - grandmother said no way, so uncle left in tact. Granddad had the last laugh in some respects, as my uncle trapped his foreskin in his zipper when he was about 11. OUCH.

WidgetWB · 16/09/2004 22:30

We had ds done as dh has been as have all males on both sides of our families. I made sure that it was done by the ring rather than the cutting. We went to the hosptial in London and walked out two hours later. Ds didn't cry when the did the procedure, not remotely bothered by it, did wees quite happily after, didn't cry at all, ever. I wasn't particularly looking forward to having my my brand new baby operated on, but it literally took 5 minutes. He fed happily ten mins after. I applied antiseptic gel afterwards for about three days. The bell fell off after about 12 hours I think and he couldn't have cared less. He was 2 and a half weeks old which apparently is the ideal age. I would do it again too - sorry for those who are against but I think its a matter of personal choice - and yes - I have looked at those pictures and read all comments and I see both sides, but its all about what matters to you and your family.

woodstock · 17/09/2004 17:08

IMO I would rather ds have the option of having it done later instead of him saying to me, "Why did you do this to me?" and knowing that it couldn't be undone. I know it is supposed to be less painful/traumatic etc. when they are babies, but I wouldn't want someone else making such a personal decision for me IYKWIM. I read a story once about a woman who had been circumcised in Africa and it was heartbreaking. Why should it be different for little boys?

Twiglett · 17/09/2004 17:42

message withdrawn

fuzzywuzzy · 17/09/2004 17:51

WidgetWB which hospitel did you get your ds done in?? And what is the ring method??? Sorry Very nosey of me.

skerriesmum · 17/09/2004 19:39

I think what is done to females should not be called circumcision... euphemism!

Twiglett · 17/09/2004 19:50

message withdrawn

morocco · 17/09/2004 21:37

a friend of mine got her ds 'circumcised' for health reasons because his foreskin was so tight but she didn't really want him to be circumcised so the doctors showed her a book with photos of the different types of circumcision and the 'outcome' and she opted for 'american' which was a cut in the foreskin but they didn't actually remove the foreskin. It was then rolled up and gradually rolled back down again to cover the tip.
seems to have worked fine
imagine there being a book of these things!

woodstock · 17/09/2004 21:47

I do agree that female circumcision is better described as genital mutilation. What I meant was that it is both considered a ritual type surgery and not a medically necessary one (except of course for rare cases which have already been discussed)
Didn't mean to offend, just offering further opinion and food for thought.
funny how caps do have the same effect as yelling.

Original poster

monkeygirl · 17/09/2004 21:57

Wow, didn't want to start any religious arguments. I don't see it as 'mutilation' and am not opposed to other people having it 'done' for whatever reasons, but we have decided not to get ds done. Hope he appreciates our decision .

Thanks all for your views.

OP posts:

JJ · 17/09/2004 21:59

My sons are circumcised. Haven't added to the debate this time because I did last time, I think.

But sheesh, chopping off a woman's clitoris so that she can't experience pleasure is vastly different than cutting off a bit of foreskin. My husband can have orgasms, foreskin or not. Women with their clitoris and other bits cut out can't. And that's the point of female circumcision.

Comparing the two is ludicrous.

Heathcliffscathy · 17/09/2004 22:00

exactly how is female circumcision different to male circumcision except in terms of degree?

in most cases it is not medically necessary therefore shouldn't be performed.

babies are acutely sensitive beings. to argue that they don't feel as a trauma something being cut off them is imo unrealistic.

if an adult decides to have this done for cultural reasons, fair enough. but to irreversibly alter a baby's anatomy? i just don't think it's right. sorry

Heathcliffscathy · 17/09/2004 22:02

oh god, jj, you know that i really like you. but i've been out with a guy who was circumcised and from his point of view his ability to masturbate had been irrevocably altered and he was mega-angry about it (it was done for religious reasons) sorry for tmi!

misdee · 17/09/2004 22:02

but what about religious reasons?

Heathcliffscathy · 17/09/2004 22:05

surely, surely you can worship your god without doing this????????

i just think it's an anachronism. and i believe in god (rather than dogma). he made the foreskin!!!!!

Twiglett · 17/09/2004 22:06

message withdrawn

misdee · 17/09/2004 22:07

you are very strong on your views.

religion is a lot deeper for some than just worshiping a god.

Heathcliffscathy · 17/09/2004 22:08

the foreskin is really important for male masturbation. i guess it depends what kind of circumcision, but if it is totally removed, you need lubricant to masturbate!

sorry for tmi again

twig, i totally see that your baby was not traumatised...but i don't think you can necessarily say the same for all!

JJ · 17/09/2004 22:09

Here's a bit more on female circumcision. They have the indelicacy to call it "female genital mutilation". My search didn't turn up anything on ritual male circumcision, but I didn't search too hard (although I did do as thorough a search on the latter as the former).

Heathcliffscathy · 17/09/2004 22:10

not worshipping a god misdee! worshipping god!

please, i don't for a minute feel that a person's spiritual life is to be taken lightly.

but neither do i think that god would create the human body in order that bits of it be removed in his honour. imo that is not the loving god that i worship!

JJ · 17/09/2004 22:10

Soph, I'm just going to say I asked my husband said in response to your assertation "uh, no.. I do fine with lubricant but usually don't need it."

And dammit, he's got that look in his eye now!

Twiglett · 17/09/2004 22:11

message withdrawn

Heathcliffscathy · 17/09/2004 22:12

lol twiglett, you're probably right (about the descent of the conversation)

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Swipe left for the next trending thread