Circumcising boys - has anyone got experience of this?

[Marty8542]

Hello all,
My husband and I have recently returned from the US, where our first son was born. As is very common in the States, our son was circumcised as a newborn, as a matter of routine.
We now have a second boy on the way, and he will be born in London. I just found out today that if we wanted our son to be circumcised, we'd have to arrange this ourselves and get it done privately on an outpatient basis. I've done a little looking online and can see that there are a few private clinics that offer newborn circumcision to parents who chose this for their sons.
Before I decide on where and when to get this done for our second son, does anyone have any experience or suggestions as to how best to chose which clinic, which method, at how many days old, etc?

I think
It's slightly disingenuous to attack my personal choice comment- as parents we make life lasting decisions and choices all of the time. Arguably the school you send your child to has a greater impact on their future....

Condoms aren't prevalent or easily affordable in some parts of the world. Circumcision arguably helps in these situations.

FGM IS NOT THE SAME. FFS.

In any case, I think that people should stop trolling.

People don't circumcise because they're evil and relish the chance to inflict pain,which is being implied by some.

for all those calling out the tired old argument about grown men / sensitivity... my DH was circumcised in his thirties. He heartily wishes it had been done at birth as routine. And from a sexual enjoyment point of view, he was very pleased he had it done. ANd yes, he did have comparative data.

op, have PM'd you.

Arguments about circumcision in deprived communities with little access to condoms are utterly irrelevant to circumcising a boy growing up in an affluent western community.

Honestly, are people's hopes and expectations for their sons so low that they will accept a slightly statistical decrease in the risk of STIs as a reason to remove a part of their body? I'd far rather set the bar a darn sight higher - I expect to teach my son to respect his body and that of his partners and reduce to a tiny percentage the risk of STIs by using condoms.

And yes, as parents we make life choices for our children. But we don't tend to remove body parts.

there is nothing cosmopolitan about mindlessly performing an unnecessary act of genital mutilation on your child, simply because his forbears had this done to them.

I can only assume that the OP does support FGM, which makes her completely unspeakable as far as I'm concerned.

And I do not believe that simply because Jewish men did this 1000s of years ago, in a time when lack of hygiene could kill, is a good reason either. Still mindless.

"It's slightly disingenuous to attack my personal choice comment- as parents we make life lasting decisions and choices all of the time"

As far as I am aware, we do not perform surgery which has no benefit on people unable to consent "all the time"

And while there may be some benefit in being circumcised from a STD point of view if you have no access to condoms, the OP is an American looking for a private surgeon in London. I think it is pretty safe to assume that the child concerned is unlikely to find himself unable to get hold of condoms once he becomes sexually active.

OP, visit your GP and ask for a referral to someone competent, rather than look at clinics online. A botched circumcision is not what you want. If you are determined to do this, the GP will steer you to a capable pair of hands.

Not long after my baby boy was born, I was looking through a "first year" baby textbook and saw photos of a circumcised and uncircumcised newborn penis to compare. The circumcised one looked so red, sore and weird. I actually cried because I felt so sad and outraged that someone could harm their baby in this way. Please reconsider, OP, it's a terrible thing to inflict on your perfect and helpless newborn baby boy - I really hope that some of the comments on this thread reach the loving, compassionate and motherly part of your soul, despite the fact it must be hurtful and angering to hear that values you cherish are being aggressively challenged.

There is clearly an argument against circumcision, and if it wasn't a cultural practice, personally i wouldn't have had it done to DS. However, had i believed it to be a form of abuse, I would not have done it.

I think it's a bit much to infer that the OP condones FGM. It is not in the same league. Even at the less extreme end FGM causes pain during sex, can cause infections and pain during childbirth.

Of course theOPs son is likely to be able to afford condoms - or indeed have access to free ones. This was not my point.my point was that circumcision has some benefits. As some on this thread dispute this and claim that all who do it are commiting child abuse with no discernible benefit,I wanted to counter it.

I had Friends who were very upset with me. I understood the sentiment. But i do think people can get ridiculous when comparing it toFGM.

But how is it a benefit. A minor reduction in underlying statistical risk confers no real benefit when the risk is still high enough to necessitate precautions- ie condoms.

rf what are the benefits?

it's following the same thought process as FGM - 'our culture has always performed genital mutilation so we want to as well, because it's tradition'. Yes, circumcision isn't as extreme as FGM, but both are cultural practices that mutilate the body and do not allow for any bodily autonomy on the part of the person it's being done to, and are done, in every case that isn't under medical advice, because of 'culture' and 'tradition'. And I believe that those kinds of cultures and traditions should be challenged and not mindlessly followed.

My son was circumcised under general anaesthetic when he was 7 months old. He has a complex medical problem and gets a lot of UTIs that can affect his already imperfect kidneys. It was done at GOSH, his urologist said that there is good evidence that it reduces the risk of UTIs but it was only done because of his associated issues. I have seen him undergo various things, he's had surgery that left a scar from hip to hip but the only thing that has turned my stomach is the sight of his penis post-op - it looked like a puppy had chewed it! Didn't bother him though tbh. He's 11 now and has still had many, many UTIs so I'm not sure it was of any use and probably wouldn't take that choice if I had my time again.

I have experience of circumcision.

My son was circumcised at 8 years old for medical reasons. It was extremely painful (more so than the other 6 operations he's had to have on his genitals) and something I wouldn't dream of putting anyone, let alone a baby, through unless absolutely necessary.

We're not 'uncultured', OP, we're against unnecessarily mutilating babies.

I've seen a video of it bring performed on a baby and IMVHO it's child abuse.

An adult man cannot see his foreskin back on but he can chose to cut it off if he wishes. He had that choice a baby does not.

I think it's barbaric that some people think it's acceptable to cut of a big of a baby boy in the name of religion.

This thread reminded me of reading an article where the (American) author has been traumatised by his circumcision and is attempting to promote foreskin re growth-while he stresses from the outset that he is speaking only for himself! I just think, as a parent why would you take the risk that it wouldn't affect your child just as strongly?

www.bilerico.com/2013/07/foreskin_restoration_becoming_whole_again.php

The foreskin plays an important role during sex.

It's a natural lubricant.
Contains Millions of Nerve Endings.
Protects the Glans from becoming de-sensitized.

So it's not just a useless 'piece of skin'.

Yes, such outraged wittering, to declare that genital mutilation is abhorrent.

My great uncle died of syphilitic paresis after WWI. Circumcised men are far less likely to contract STDs and HIV. Their wives are less likely to have cervical cancer. It's a Good Thing. I would have the procedure done in America, where the procedure is much more common.

According to the WHO from a quick google, the transmission reduction is about 60%. That might make it worth it if you live in an area where condoms are rarely available.

I certainly wouldn't be telling any son of mine to gamble with those odds if he was circumcised (which he isn't).

Its cruel.

On a religious note, I believe you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So if you are prepared to do this to your son, you should try it yourself first to feel first hand how genetic mutilation feels. It wont be pleasant.

Just because babies cant say no, doesnt mean we can do whatever we want to them.

Why not just let them make their own minds up when they are 16/18 years old.

Zippey - thanks you for your religious instruction. I think OP's DH has had it done himself, and is quite happy. And OP is lacking the requisite equipment.

rainbowinmyroom - you can declare what you like. I could declare that abortion is abhorrent, but it wouldn't make it true, and it would make me sound both insensitive and arrogant.

". Circumcised men are far less likely to contract STDs and HIV. Their wives are less likely to have cervical cancer. It's a Good Thing."

No. Keeping clean and using condoms Are Good Things.

Those defending circumcision still haven't come up with a single genuine advantage for a western man though. The washing thing is better dealt with by, er, washing. The STI thing by condoms (which would need to be used anyway as, at best, the advantage is partial).

Although I disagree with circumcision of all reasons, at least 'God wants me to' is an important and valid reason in the mind of the person making the decision. 'DH was done so his son should be' is not.