Circumcision

Most men who have been forcibly sterilised as a baby find a way of coming to terms with it - they know no different - this is what they have always had as far as they are concerned.

But some are not so happy. And there are protest movements about it among some men, who go to great pains to try and reverse the process.

It is not important what the outcome is - it is the fact that these assaults are perpetrated on tiny babies who have no choice, risking complications for no good medical reason.

No government here is going to stand up to the religious lobbies that perpetuate this barbaric act - it has got to a situation where the powers that be dare not challenge these things - all I can say is God help us!

Sterilised? As a baby?

Did you mean circumcised? I don't think you can reverse circumcision - you can't replace the bit that has been cut off.

Teetime, I too remember the research you mention. Circumcision is performed for health and hygiene reasons, as it much simpler to keep the area clean and free from infection. Many people have their sons circumcised for that reason and nothing to do with religion. My OH apparently caught his foreskin in his trouser zip as a boy and circumcised himself. He wishes his parents had had him done as a baby and saved him all the agro! To compare circumcision to FGM is a nonsense. FGM is agonising, has horrible, longlasting after effects and prevents the girl ever having any sort of sexual pleasure. It is performed to keep women under the control of men and is quite rightly illegal in this country.

Would a government really want to challenge religious practices like circumcision in these troubled times?

Quite frankly (and I agree with the comments on this thread) I think we have more serious issues to worry about.

Circumcision is associated with a huge increase in the incidence of autism.

Until very recently, circumcision was routinely done with no anaesthesia on the grounds that doctors wrongly believed that babies feel no pain. It still is in some hospitals.

Elegran - you are of course entirely correct!

Merlotgran, you say we have more important things to talk about, this subject should not be taken lightly. After all how could we do without deep fried squid rings!.

Circumcision goes back to countries with no access to water and a lot of sand about. Perhaps understandable. Now, just wrong, unless there is a medical need. Boys and men just need to learn to wash.

It went out of fashion here when the NHS came in and doctors no longer got a handy fee for doing it to all little boys. So, generational in the UK. Weird white USians still do it a lot, maybe the fees are still part of the 'medical' preference.

Of course adult men who know no different will find reasons to prefer their mutilated state - ie "it looks neater". But it does diminish sexual pleasure, though few men have a before-and-after comparison. My then husband had to have it done as an adult, after his foreskin was split in a fight when he got kicked. He was never able to recover the feeling he had before. The most sensitive part, the frenulum, is left permanently exposed and so shuts down some of its feeling. So though men can go on having sex it slows them down. Perhaps it was women who encouraged it...
.

Merlot - I take your point, but where do we start/stop? At what point do we say we have more important things to get to grips with so we will tolerate mutilation of baby boys, mutilation of little girls, sharia law - all of which are happening in Britain today in the name of religion and we seem powerless to stop them. Religious tolerance is laudable and I applaud this, but at some point we have to say no - this is not acceptable in our country. We are a civilized nation and will not have any of our citizens committing these dreadful acts in the name of ancient and primitive laws.

crun thanks for that link. I'm glad I'm not involved with autism diagnosis any more. Of course I suppose I could just get male referrals to drop their trousers-could save all that time asking questions! Sorry for outburst of facetiousness. Deliberately harming small babies is a serious matter.

I remember one man who came to me saying he needed to be circumcised
Why I asked
I getting married he replied
Not a requirement for marriage quoth I, only if you can't retract the foreskin.
I can't he said
Show me said I
He did,and it couldn't!
Ok says I I'll refer you to a surgeon.
I reached round for a referral form and heard a crash behind me!
He'd fainted.

Just the sight of you caused him to swoon!

Female circumcision is surely a very different thing in that it removes the clitoris and makes it impossible for women to get pleasure from sex or have I got that wrong. Also it seems to be done with a number of different'traditional' tools with no more than a nod to clinical standards. I know from my husband that his circumcision done in a hospital when he was tiny has had quite the opposite effect!

I don't think anyone who saw Nelliemoser's link on the FGM thread could ever describe male circumcision (or MGM as some victims prefer to name it) as a minor procedure.

What I find most shocking is that here in the UK anyone can set themselves up as a circumciser with no qualifications, training or registration. They carry out the procedure on kitchen tables without anaesthetics or pain relief. Babies have been seriously injured and have died as a result of this archaic superstitious practice and no one is held accountable. There are some types of FGM that are directly comparable to male circumcision, but I can't imagine that anyone would defend them. I can't see how the UK can carry on a debate about FGM without any reference to the laws on male circumcision.

www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11101320/Surely-everyone-carrying-out-circumcisions-should-be-registered.html

"Even so, hundreds of baby boys are being treated in hospital with circumcision related complications every year. In the West Midlands, for example, a survey by Birmingham Children’s Hospital found that 105 circumcised boys were admitted to the emergency department over a 12 month period and 11 of them ended up in intensive care with life-threatening conditions like shock, sepsis and heamorrhage"

So not such a minor procedure after all.

Thank you for that link nightowl.

www.cirp.org/library/normal/aap/

This link (even though from the USA) makes a great case for not circumcising baby boys. Basically, it recommends leaving the baby's foreskin alone!

My DH is circumcised as were many men of his generation. After home births of my brothers, my mother's first outing was to take the baby to the doctor to be circumcised. Then across the road for her to be churched, (don't get me started on that.)

There are many things that were done in the past which would be considered outdated or even cruel now and circumcision is surely one of them. I cannot see any justification except for medical necessity for cutting bits off babies of either sex.

All three of my boys were circumcised (against strong social opinion) just before they started school. I had no religious reason to do it, but my then boss was a urologist and all three had phimosis around that age and were quite red and sore. Being Syrian, he was very experienced, as he did many Turkish boys round our way, and he did it very carefully. He would refuse to do it outside the surgery, as many of the Muslim families were asking him to do.

We sang silly songs whilst he was cutting. He anaesthetised them with a tiny insulin needle, and the whole thing didn't take long.

When the anasthetic wore off, they had some pain for a couple of days, and had to wear a plastic mug over the area to prevent it being touched or knocked. Not long afterwards, I heard one explaining about it to his friend as they both wee'd in the loo together - they didn't seem bothered at all. We have spoken about it since they have grown up, but most of the time, it's not an issue.

It never occurred to me to connect male circumcision with FGM, but perhaps I was lucky with my experiences. Or rather, my boys were.

I agree with those who say any discussion on FGM has to include male circumcision. I;m not suggesting the reason its done, or the life long implications are in any way similar. FGM is done to prevent women enjoying sex , it causes life long pain and health problems. Male circumcision is (as I've understood it) seen as ensuring cleanliness in the hot sandy countries in which it began.

Both are practiced on children/infants too young to given informed consent. Otherwise, they're incomparable.

All these practices must have started back in the mists of time.

So imagine the mindset of the first person who decided that to cut a baby or small child in the most sensitive area of its body without the benefit of anaesthetic or antibiotics, was something eminently desirable!

If someone suggested it today they would be locked up.

The trouble is we let custom and history get in the way of truth and desirability and Sanity.

By the way Elegran the men who try to reverse circumcision are hanging weights from the vestiges of foreskin to try and stretch it; or by having a surgical graft from the skin of the scrotum.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/how-to-reverse-the-irreversible-1338650.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

Oh LG, that brings a tear to my eye.

Me too!

Circumcision is more hygienic and it has been proven that there is a lower rate of cervical cancer among Jewish women because Jewish males have been circumcised.

My two sons have both been circumcised, as has my grandson and all have come through the procedure with no ill effects.