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?

you guys are saying it's child cruelty if it were deemed such it would be banned in the Uk Instead for decades it was offered free on the nhs you cannot say this was an oversight.

Even now it is available as a private procedure in hospitals or clinics.

it is done for hygiene purposes
More importantly because God commands it.

May sound ludicrous to those who follow no religion, but that is the most important reason gods command.

Katarzyna, a genuine question from someone who is not religious. Why is the removal of a baby's foreskin something that your god is particularly keen on to the point that it is commanded?

"There is no age as such but the younger the better since they don't feel it as much"

Sure about that, are you?

The God reason makes me howl...I mean was god merrily whistling when he made man and thought 'crap I have some left over.. I know I'll clag it on there and every baby made can go through all this pain to prove that their parents are worthy to have me as a boss'.

Or is god just a sadistic fuck in general?

Having seen my DS have lumbar punctures at a few hours post birth, I assure you they can feel plenty of pain. And do you know what? I wouldn't want to inflict even a tiny bit of pain on a baby unless it was absolutely necessary.

ArgyMargy- as ivr president usually stated (and only talking for Judaism) it is to do with G-Ds covenant with Abraham.

120 neonatal deaths a year? I find that very hard to believe. Sorry if I have missed the link/article but please post. And I don't consider that one a small number by any stretch, I simply don't believe it. If that were true it would be banned iN the US

AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED- this new software is lame!

To me, the only every vaguely comprehensible reason for infant circumcision is the religious one. I can see how somebody of faith could say "this appears to be an utterly insane thing to do, but the God I believe in says I should do it, so I will- I am confident that the reasons will be revealed to me one day"

I don't agree with it obviously, but I can see why people might think that way.

Any other reason is just bullshit.

I hate how religion always gets a free pass for irrational or harmful behaviour, because it's well, a religious belief. That's not excuse in my view.

I am more likely to understand the argument that all parents already shape their children, physically and mentally, in all kinds of ways that the child has no consent over and no way to erase later. I may not agree with it, but at least it's a rational point that you can discuss and argue over.

"I hate how religion always gets a free pass for irrational or harmful behaviour, because it's well, a religious belief. That's not excuse in my view."

Absolutely not an excuse. But possibly an explanation? And as I am always telling my children, there is a big difference between the two.

A man wanting his son's penis to match his is nothing short of fucking creepy

It does seem an odd thing for God to care about. I get the whole 'thou shalt not murder...steal... Etc' but you would think he would have more important things to worry about than parents choosing to do this to their children.

rf did you actually read my post where I said no-one has claimed the outcomes of FGM and male circumcision are the same?

Just that in your response you talk about outcomes of FGM almost exclusively.

I'm not surprised you cannot stand the comparison. Shame you're not offended enough to stop supporting male circumcision.

Suburban Rhonda- many people are basically saying it's the same, as they are accusing OP of supporting FGM. I Think that it's a little disingenuous to try to argue this isn't the case.

My outrage doesn't extend to male circumcision, you're right. No apologies there. I think I've made my opinions clear enough on why that would be.

Oh and the reason I talk almost exclusively about FGM outcomes - there aren't many negative ones from male circumcision! Some argue decreases sexual sensitivity, all of the other things mentioned as outcomes have been positive.

Where does the god thing stop? Do people agree to sacrifice their sons if God tells them to? For He is a jealous God.

Oh and the reason I talk almost exclusively about FGM outcomes - there aren't many negative ones from male circumcision! Some argue decreases sexual sensitivity, all of the other things mentioned as outcomes have been positive.

rf, please do remind me of those positive outcomes again, leaving out the bizarre idea that anything that saves men from having to clean their own penis properly is a positive outcome, of course.

Women of circumcised men have a significantly lower chance of contracting cervical cancer. Equally, the rates of sti transmissions are lower.

With not of!

"Women of circumcised men have a significantly lower chance of contracting cervical cancer. Equally, the rates of sti transmissions are lower."

Circumcised men in this country often belong to communities where a limited number of sexual partners is the norm. That is why their wives have significantly lower chance of contracting cervical cancer. Nuns have a very low rate of cervical cancer indeed.

So that's a possible advantage for women whose male sexual partners are circumcised, rf.

So where are the "positive outcomes" for the men themselves?

Hakluyt you're right about the demographic - bUT that isn't the reason. Whether or not you agree with male circumcision it is well documented that there are benefits around cervical cancer and women.

Suburban Rhonda - benefit to men is in the STI transmission. You're right that the cervical cancer stats don't benefit men of course.

rf the STI argument is a bit like the cleanliness one, isn't it?

Cut a baby instead of encouraging condom use in men.

Laziness.

Yeah the it's just screaming laziness and can't be arsed really.

Again suburban Rhonda - as I've previously stated, of course theOPs son will be able to access condoms easily BUT this has become a more general debate and many in the world don't have the luxury of being able to access condoms. So in those cases, curcumcision may help STI transmission rates.

And yes, men can just clean properly. I wasn't saying that they couldn't.