We are considering circumcision........

[fustilarian]

For our 3 month old son who is half jewish, but the wrong half. My partner is circumcised and would like his son to be too, but is not adamant if I don't want to do it.

I see that it is a very heated topic on mumsnet.

I think that the procedure without anaesthetic is clearly barbaric and horrifying. With anaesthetic it carries risks too, but would you anti-circumcision lobby say it is barbaric done in this way? If so, why?

Math - did you see my post about the boyfriend I had who could feel very little sexual stimulation directly via intercourse...to me that is a considerable impact, to others it may seem unimportant.

Very sad for your boyfriend, and for you too since you were trying to have a relationship with him under difficult circumstances obviously, but I don't think this is a common side effect, or else nobody would be circumcised, knowing what I know about men.

It definitely affects sensation - men without foreskins are able to 'carry on' for a lot longer than men who are uncircumcised are.

I also think (and apols if this is tmi) there is something massively sexy about handling an uncircumcised penis and seeing the head slowly reveal itself. It's like watching someone undress.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument in circumcision's favour - they are all terribly weak because you really haven't got a leg to stand on and you know it.

Not trying to be flippant or smug here, but how is 'carrying on' for a lot longer not a good thing?

I find men can 'carry on' longer if circumcised
because it reduces the sensation. So not a good thing from their point of view (although poss for their partner if they're not bothered!)

My DS was also fine with Calpol. He experienced more pain with his first lot of jabs.

It might be a good thing from your POV but I think it's terribly sad to lose that level of sensation.

And it comes back to that argument that Dirtyworm put forward earlier - that if this were a bunch of men saying how a 'minor' op on a girl baby made for a much more satisfying fuck when she was older, you'd be roundly condemned. Same difference IMO

ABD, not all female circumcision involves the removal of the clitoris. Some "just" involves removal of the clitoral hood. Would that be ok with you?

What is the purpose of removing the clitoral hood? Is there a medical benefit?

Thanks for your sympathy Math, but I'd like to see some data saying it doesn't affect very many circumcised men before I make a judgment based on that really.

In my limited experience it spoilt sex to a degree for the bloke I knew, and yes, I agree with Spice, he could carry on longer because he just had restricted sensation which I find actually tragic - he was sexually disabled if you like.

I also agree with Spicemonster that it isn't even vaguely a good reason to cut bits off a baby, male or female.

THERE IS NO PROVEN MEDICAL BENEFIT TO REMOVING THE FORESKIN ABD. In shouty caps because it doesn't seem to be getting through to you. No man should be shagging around without a condom nowadays anyway so a reduced risk of catching STDs is a redundant argument IMO

you know...earlobes...what do you they actually do? not much really. and some people get them pierces. so lets cut them off of our babies. they won't miss them.

it is insane.

especially given that the foreskin is MUCH more sensitive than an earlobe.

the foreskin has many important functions:

this site lists many of them

in fact it is an interesting site all round for those of you that can bear to confront what your dh's or ds's may have suffered whether knowingly or not

'It definitely affects sensation - men without foreskins are able to 'carry on' for a lot longer than men who are uncircumcised are. '

I'm from the US, where, certainly in my generation, a large percentage of the men are circumcised.

And I shagged a lot of them, too.

I'm happy to add, that no, I have noted no difference in how long any N. American man I shagged and my Scottish husband (or any other European lovers I had) were able to 'carry on' based on the presence of a foreskin.

Alcohol, fatigue/lack of sleep, etc. were factors at times, but my Scottish husband certainly acquits himself finely in the carry on department, uncircumcised that he is.

needless to say, i'm a convert to not circumcising!

Again, ABD makes a good point.

Sophable, your link claims in its Did You Know section that Babies are Strapped Down To B Circumcised. Babies are strapped down for every procedure done on them. It is to prevent them moving, which is completely desirable and preferable in a medical context to them wriggling around. My little neighbour was recently strapped down in the A&E while doctors tried to retrieve a googly eye he had stuffed up his nose. If this was supposed to be a shocking fact, I am underwhelmed.

wasn't there a poster on MN who had her son circumcised, then her husband stopped going to temple, and she really regretted it?

if you want your son to be Orhodox Jewish, that is already impossible, if you want him to be raised in the Jewish faith in a looser sense, it isn't necessary.

Thanks for all the posts today. It is all very interesting and I am questioning a few things that had never entered my mind before, having had almost no experience of uncircumcised men in my life.

Also, thanks for keeping the debate very civilised, it really makes it much more useful.

I will show this to my partner, but I have to say after much thought today I am convinced in favour of keeping my son intact, as my two daughters are, so it has been a very fruitful debate as far as I am concerned.

My partner has yet to decide though. I will let you know. He may have further points to raise too.

The debate is getting rather heated so to sum up what I think. I don't feel really strongly about it either way.

Where there is an immediate medical need as in the case of my DS2 (severe ballanitis) then circumcision is definitely preferred.

When there is no immediate medical need as is the case for DS1, then no to circumcision because the risk of an operation outweighs the small and disputed additonal risk of cervical and other cancers.

Where for religious reasons circumcision is required then yes but only under anaesthetic and at as young an age as possible.

On the sensitivity/stamina issue, in cases of premature ejaculaton then circumcision is sometimes used as a treatment in adult men. I do not know how successful that is but if it is a proven successful treatment then I would say yes.

I say no to female circumcision of any kind that is done to reduce female sexual enjoyment and where there is no medical benefit.

That seems a reasonable stance to me but I still do not feel circumcision is a mutilation.

Mutilation (vb)

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

or from the Medical Dictionary:
mutilation
the cutting off or otherwise depriving an animal of a limb or other essential part. Farming procedures, classified as mutilations by animal welfare organizations, include tail-docking of cows and horses, ear-cropping in dogs, mulesing of sheep, debarking of dogs, debeaking of birds.

You might not consider it as mutilation but the dictionary disagrees.

I think that sophable's phrase 'bear to confront' is a very good one.

It's emotionally very stressful to think about babies in physical or emotional pain. And of course, none of us can remember - in the normal sense of the word - terrible events from our babyhood.

But that is not to say that we didn't experience them, nor that they weren't horrific, nor that they didn't affect our psyches in ways that we aren't necessarily conscious of but which still endure.

For example we know that an emotionally abandoned baby will be very much affected by that experience, and that very often those effects will continue,even though as a child or adult s/he will probably not be able to recall it.

There's also the additional 'truth' that individuals have a great deal invested in what they 'are' being normative. People tend not to want to perceive themselves as odd or to admit to themselves that they have been let down in some way. So they are more likely to say, for example, well I was [insert controversial child-raising approach] and it never did me any harm.