circumcision yes or no

[morocco]

My 5 month old has a tight foreskin and doctors here recommend circumcision but Im really not keen. I spoke to docs in the UK and they said to wait and see but then I started worrying about whether it would be traumatic for him to be circumcised at say 4 or older and whether it might be better to just go ahead now. Has anyone been through this with a child of this age/older? All advice gratefully received

A circumcision for a tight foreskin that has been infected several times probably will require general anaesthetic, as the foreskin can be scarred and toughened by the infection. However, general anaesthetics, for such a minor procedure are very safe, so please don't worry on that score.

Aloha - there are some circumstances where a circumcision is necessary in order to prevent pain at a later stage. In Morocco's case the docs want to do the op now whilst her ds is a baby and won't be too traumatised, rather than wait until he is about 4 or 5. He may be fine with a tight foreskin, but if it gets painful then a circumcision will obviously be more traumatic then. So in her case, it's not a case of culture.

I think there are bigger problems in the world such as child abuse and neglect. You have your opinions on it and others have theirs, but is it really soooo important? There are people dying right now in Iraq, refugees fleeing for their lives, why not get het up about that? I don't necessarily agree with circumcision, but don't feel it's worth getting aggrieved about, or upsetting people for, either. Do you have these conversations with mums who allow their babies to have their ears pierced? Politeness and tolerance costs nothing.

Yes, but Morroccos' son is only 5 months old and the foreskin is not supposed to be anything other than tight at that age - it's normal!

Aloha - I don't want to take 'sides' as such, but I'm with you.

Also no one has made any reference to the frenum also being removed, which in later life will give a lot of sexual pleasure. (So I'm told, obviously)

Simon Howard and StuartC can you comment on that last remark - is it true?

Hi Furball
I'll let you know the answer in a couple of minutes - I've just got a little experiment to do!

jasper, brilliant

Furball - reference your question about the frenum - I've never really studied this before and certainly never considered it in relation to circumcision.
You are right. The highest sensation of the whole area is indeed at the frenum. Stimulation (fingers, tongue, etc) by a partner is at its absolute peak when it touches this point.
I'd only previously considered that circumcision would reduce the sensitivity of the head, due to permanent exposure. As circumcision also removes the frenum, this source of pleasure must be lost.

I have just come across this thread and find some of your opinions very strong and unnecessarily derisive of each other. The original poster wanted 'advice', not strongly held opinions on cultures/religions or whatever else.

I did have to have DS circumcised under LA and it was most unpleasant; I was glad not to have him under GA and that was a personal choice. I will never forget that day and how terrible I felt. This does not mean I would refuse to have any future sons circumcised. I am too tired now to draw comparisons of 'abuse' that some of you show concern about but it is rather a strong term to attach to this.

I think that it would be more helpful if your well-articulated arguments were presented with more relevance to people's questions on this board.

I agree with you Rhubarb but I am going to leave it here. Sorry but I do think comparing circumcision to child abuse and stoning women to death is sensationalist. Also, don't understand Aloha why you can't see that in many cultures it is not considered a "pointless" operation at all.

The point about the frenum was what I was trying to get across much earlier in the thread. My ex felt he had been denied some form of pleasure because he was circumcised. Somewhere along the line there has to have been the idea that perhaps circumcision would reduce masturbation. Personally I believe they were wrong as my ex was a bit of a

Sorry that was a tad peurile but I was trying to make a serious point.

sml, no the paediatrician is not an expert in circumcision, but then he's not got anything further to do with it. His role was purely to diagnose the problem with my son's foreskin & to recommend further treatment, thus referring me to the specialist, who I will be seeing in 3 weeks or so. He told me it would be ga when I asked , but as he will not be performing the surgery, I didn't persue the questions, as I thought it better to save them for the doctor who will be doing it.

Mears & TIssy thank you both v. much. It has been a relief to read calm, reassuring and practical words. I hadn't considered the aspect of him being awake & therefore frigghtened, only the concerns over ga, (call me dim!), so that has been a welcome reassurance.
This is rather what I was hoping to get out of the thread.

Um- what is the frenum & do I need to be asking the doc about this?? I am preparing myself for much blushing!

Can I politely request that if people do really want to continue to make hysterical & insensitive comments about pain infliction on babies, can you start a new thread, so that I and other parents concerned can get this necessary information without being upset & offended further by irrelevant and ill-considered comments. Thanks so much.

The frenum is the bit that attaches the head of the penis to the foreskin. During intercourse or masturbation it sort of helps the rolling of the skin. Its snipped and disconnected in circumcision, so there is less rolling of skin over the glans and head.

I'm sure a man could explain this better

The frenum is also like the connecting tissue under your tongue...if that helps at all

Monkey - it might be helpful for you to speak to tha anaesthetist about GA because that seems to be more of a concern to you than the op itself. It is usual for a consultant anaesthetist to be present when children are anaesthetised. Anaesthetics are not as dangerous as you possibly are imagining and in many situations are preferable to local anaesthetics. HTH.

mears
I think opinions must vary about the need for a GA in different countries. It was so quick for my sons, it only lasted a few seconds and was done almost before they realised.

Well I beg to difer about the frenum being cut off. My dh who is circumsised (he's not jewish I am, but he had it done at about 2.5 for medical reasons) still has that bit of skin. All men that I have known (not a vast amount) also looked the same. So I don't think it effects that much.

Also if a man is a little less sensitive there, that can only be a good thing sometimes, they might last longer!!

Crunchie....yes there are different methods of circumcision. I believe in the states it is common for the frenum to go, they cut it because it apparently looks neater. In the UK they are not so worried about lawsuits so they leave it even if it doesn't look so 'neat'. Even if the frenum is still there it is no longer pulling the excess skin over the glans and head on a cut penis, because obviously that excess skin is no longer there.

The only reason I'm aware of all this is because my ex really wondered if he was missing out on something so we researched it in depth to try and find out what exactly the differences between cut and un cut were. The pain of the actualy procedure didn't worry him at all. Surprise, surprise, he was most concerned about the pleasure aspect. It didn't bother me either way, and Crunchie yes, perhaps it is a bonus for the woman.

I remember hearing on a Child of Our Times the professor saying not so long ago in the UK they used to operate on babies without administering any anaestetic. Quite a bit more painful than a little snip I think.
I think some people have been a little harsh and disrespectful to other people's religions/beliefs. How can it be considered as child abuse? I haven't heard of anyone being traumatised by it and in America nobody seems to have sued their parents for inflicting circumsion on them, from a country who sue at the drop of a hat that must be good going. All the Americans I have known seem to think we're strange for not circumsizing our sons. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its wrong. Mum2toby I think you were a bit tough on Threeangels, she was only doing what the doctors routinely do in the States. If it was routine here and had been for years you would probably have gone along with it as well as you wouldn't know any different.

I seem to say this wherever I go in cyberspace... there are plenty of folk in the USA who dont' circumcize; I come from one such family. I was told growing up that it was something that "Jewish" people do, not us. I didn't realise it was the usual in much of the USA until I ran into the flame wars in cyberspace. Neither of my California boyfriends are circ'd. I think it's a hotly debated topic now in the USA, and rightly so. I respect people who do it out of religious duty, but just so a boy "looks" like his dad -- I can't respect that at all.

Croppy - it IS pointless. Simple as that. In any culture. It does not prevent disease. It hurts. It is a wound. It involves cutting living tissue off a tiny child. Of course it is different if there is a valid medical reason. I have never said anything other than this. Obviously, I would never criticise someone for having their child's tumour removed. that goes without saying. It is having your child cut/operated on for no medical benefit that I so strongly object to. I honestly find it hard to believe you could really love a child you would inflict a wound upon for no good reason (and yes, there is no good reason for general or ritual circumcision). I have Jewish friends, one of which recently had a child. I was so happy when she told me her husband (not Jewish) was strongly opposed to circumcision as I would find it very hard to be friends with a woman who inflicted stupid surgery on her baby. I don't have friends who have pierced their babies' ears, I'm glad to say (though I have to say, it would be more accurate to compare it to cutting off part of their ears). I find the cultural arguments positively abusive to children, frankly. What is the difference, morally, between saying it is OK to circumcise boys and stone women? Both are culturally driven and acceptable for religious reasons in different parts of the world. As I say, I stand up for the babies here. They have nothing but their cries to protect them. If I can persuade one single person to think again about inflicting unnecessary surgery on their helpless children, then I will be happy. A foreskin on a five month old isn't supposed to retract. Leave it alone. If there are serious medical complications later in life, well, then surgery may well be necessary. Sad, but for the benefit of the child. It is a huge distinction. I wouldn't impose cosmetic surgery on a child, this is cosmetic surgery on babies unless it is medically necessary. I feel strongly about this, yes. I feel strongly about perfectly healthy, happy babies being operated on for no good reason. So sue me. I cry for the children of Baghdad. Just because I care about these children doesn't mean I don't care about other children. Quite the contrary, in fact. If we are talking about the tone of this thread, I wasn't going to contribute again except someone saw fit to call my comments, and those of others, disgraceful. I'm afraid I think hurting babies wihout medical reason is more disgraceful than protesting against it.

BTW baby foreskins are fused to the penis. they don't even begin to retract until a child is two, at the youngest, and may not retract until puberty. You should never, ever try to forcibly retract a child's foreskin. The foreskin is designed to protect the delicate glans from infection and trauma (yes, it serves a purpose!). When it does fully retract normally it only needs the most basic care - a once a week rinse or wash in the shower. You don't pull out teeth because they might decay, why cut off a part of the penis? Hot weather is a complete red herring. The foreskin is a mucus membrane like the inside of the eyelid. Do you worry about that sweating?

In the former, most boys go on to live longer (than just the couple of hours that the stoned women live) and possibly happy lives, and in the latter the women just die painfully.

Was that a serious question?

One more thing before I give up in disgust. There are people posting on this thread talking cold-bloodedly and totally callously about getting their babies operated on for no good medical reason. So this is Ok and posting against it isn't? That makes me feel sick, frankly. I cannot believe that we have got to the 21st century and religion/culture can still be an excuse for barbarity. I give up. I really don't understand some people, truly I don't. All I know is - and this is my final world - I certainly do not understand how a loving mother could inflict pain and injury on a baby if it isn't for their immediate and medically proven benefit. Disgraceful is the word I would use.

I posted this without seeing JJ's question. Don't you understand? I said 'morally' not practically. I'm not stupid. I know the outcome is different. But if 'cultural reasons' excuses cruelty and the infliction of pain on the innocent, then why is it is different to oppose, say stoning or genital mutilation of girls? If we are suppose to blindly 'respect' other religions/cultures, does that not strongly imply that whatever they do under those labels is beyond criticism? So, yes, it was a serious question that, IMO, deserves a serious, not a stupid answer.