Circumcision

I am sure that is a myth venus

Do you have long flowing hair and a wonderful figure?

all-about-men.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/seven-circumcised-penis-myths-and-facts.html

totally with you Whitewave- barbaric and should be just as illegal as FGM

Circumcision has health benefits including a decreased risk of urinary infection, prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location). Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

My husband, sons, and grandson have all been circumcised and don't feel that they have suffered any trauma from the procedure.

Genital mutilation is a completely different issue, as it affects the whole well being of the female. Circumcision does not affect the male in any way.

Circumcision for health reasons when there is a problem is a totally different issue. Otherwise, there is not excuse for mutilation - which is what it is. End off - and the pun was not intended!

Many men disagree with you totally re the effects btw. How can you possibly know yourself?

No none of that is true venus

However I realise that I may well be treading on delicate ground here, so will now bow out gracefully from this conversation.

And so will I.

Did you read Elegran's link Venus?

There is plenty of evidence that many men do suffer after effects- and research in Danemark shows for women too (painful sex and dryness and poor/rough sex too).

Yes, Whitewave, I did read that article which has been lifted straight from the internet. However, do not take everything you read at face value. Because it's been printed, does not mean that there is any truth in it. Look on other sites and you can read about the benefits of circumcision.

Granjura, I know a consderable number of men who have been circumcised, and they are fine. My nieces's' husband was circumcized before he got married to her, and he told me that there was no difference from what he felt before, so I'm willing to take his word for it, but you are right, as a woman, I can't speak from personal experience.

I can assure you that I have attended many circumcisions, and the baby's cry does not change when the procedure is being done, and in the case of my grandson, didn't cry at all.

I do believe that many members of the royal family have been circumcised, but I don't know if Prince George was.

George 1 brought the practice over from Germany and then the procedure goes through Queen Victoria's children to Edward V11 to the Duke of Windsor. Prince Charles and Princes Andrew and Edward are also circumcised. About one third of the world is circumcised, males up to fifteen.

Unless there is overwhelming significant proof of harm done to the child, and there is no such evidence , then circumcision should be allowed to continue.

I entirely disagree. This is a cruel and quite unnecessary historic hangover from the desert. Just because something is widely done doesn't make it a good thing. I have heard babies scream in pain. Venus you are kidding yourself but I suppose you have to believe its a good thing as you appear to have colluded in its perpetration.

Both FGM and male circumcision are assaults on babies and children and have no place in a civilized society.

There are no medical indications for circumcising healthy baby boys.

"I can assure you that I have attended many circumcisions, and the baby's cry does not change when the procedure is being done, and in the case of my grandson, didn't cry at all."

That's the reason why doctors used to believe babies feel no pain, it's been proven wrong:

"In a study of 5-, 12- and 15-month-old infants, Kouider et al. showed that even the youngest infants had full capacity for conscious perception, although their ability to express such perceptions had not yet developed."

It's an assault on a defenceless child unable to give consent- and for no reasons whatsoever in the vast majority of cases. How anyone can condemn one, and condone the other - is beyond me.

And how a mother or grand-mother can collude in this and even attend - is way beyond the beyond- I would pick my GS up and run forever...

That's exactly how I feel Granjura. I couldn't possibly stand by when it was being done!

I also always understood that neither Jewish nor Muslim women were allowed to be present at the circumcision. One of the common objection to it, apart from that of 'assault without consent on a child' - is that excluding women is part of the patriarchal cultures which consider women as somehow 'inferior and subservient'.

granjura, that is absolutely untrue! Jewish women can be present at a circumcision and Jewish women are at the heart of family life. The child is not Jewish if the mother isn't. No way are they 'inferior and subservient', quite the opposite infact. Please get your facts right.

FGM is a totally different issue altogether. Whereas circumcision is a minor procedure, FGM most certainly isn't and should not be talked about in the same terms as circumcision. It affects the female for life!

Jane, as I mentioned before, my grandson did not even cry when being circumcised. So you were present at many circumcisions, as you say that you have' heard babies scream in pain?' Why go more then once, if you feel so strongly against it?

Crun, Jewish babies are circumcised at 8 days old which is the optimum time for this, whereas babies and children who are circumcised later in life, as you have said, '5,12 and 15 months', would be aware of pain.

Her Majesty, the Queen, was happy enough to have her three sons circumcised and I'm sure that she took advice on the matter from the highest authorities before making her decision. Our future king is circumcised.

As I have stated previously, there is no overwhelming proof of harm done to the infant.

Yes Teetime. It may seem barbaric, but there is evidence that it reduces infection with the human papilloma virus and hence cervical cancer in women.
www.webmd.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/news/20110106/male-circumcision-cuts-womens-cervical-cancer-risk

Sorry just realised I have missed out 2 pages of posts .
As you were

The evidence about reducing cervical cancer has been discredited.

The current medical advice is very clear: boys and men should only be circumcised if there is a medical problem that makes it necessary.

Why would anyone go against medical advice for their child?

The only posts I can find on the internet relate to the year 2011, which infact states that circumcision does infact cut down the risk of cervical cancer.

Luckygirl, where have you drawn your information from that discredits this?

Where is this evidence regarding 'members' of the Royal family?(Sorry for pun!) Is this just more wishful thinking? We will absolutely not agree on this. It is a cruel, unnatural and unnecessary procedure.

Can't get rid of the image Oh oh oh La de la de la

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10201882/Circumcision-is-one-of-the-oddities-of-the-Royal-Family.html but not so much now. Princess Diana seems to have put her foot down about her sons.

" The NHS now tries to guide parents away from the practice and the most recent figures suggest just 3.8 per cent of male babies are circumcised in the UK. This is down from a rate of 20 per cent in the 1950s, when there was a belief, especially among those who could afford to have it done privately, that it was more hygienic."

"The Prince of Wales is among the royals who have been circumcised"

"Nearly all of those now undertaking the practice do so on religious grounds -- it is done by nearly all Muslims and Jews -- as well as a few on cultural grounds. " from the Telegraph article.

Why on earth would we want to know who is or isn't circumcised? Quite extraordinary.

Knowing that royalty were circumcised wouldn't change my mind about it. Following a religious tradition started thousands of years ago in a hot sandy land may convince those of the same religion that they are doing what God decreed, but that does not make it right unless for medical reasons.