Circumcision

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.

There are many things that were done in the past which would be considered outdated or even cruel now and circumcision is surely one of them.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.

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.)

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!

"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.

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

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!

Just the sight of you caused him to swoon!

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.

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.

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.

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...
.

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!.

Elegran - you are of course entirely correct!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Can I just pop something else into this conversation which I have been reading thoughtfully. DH is circumcised as is my brother and many men of their age who were not brought up in any particular religion but it seems it was routine in many hospitals (they were both born in London Hospitals at about the same time). Both men have told me they like it and the look of it and DH says it feels more hygienic and are not aware of having had any problems with it. I believe there was some work done some time ago in respect of cervical cancer and the relationship to unprotected sex with uncircumcised males although don't quote me on it and I am pretty confident someone can find conflicting studies. I do agree it seems barbaric to inflict this on baby boys but just putting a circumcised male view.

apparently when my father was in hospital for a minor op - can't remember what for now - he was shocked to find that while he was under the anaesthetic they'd circumcised him. until the day he died he didn't know the reason but i know my mum found it rather funny at the time. i think he was in his seventies when he had the op and, as far as i know, had no problems either before or after.

but i agree it is a barbaric process both for boys and girls.

FGM and circumcision are both culturally determined dorset - they are both abhorrent to me and should both be outlawed.

"Abraham's covenant with God" - what a load of rubbish! How is it possible that thousands of years after this story babies are still being subjected to this abuse? Do we still throw people to the lions?

It is not a "very minor procedure" - it carries many risks. Even if it was, it is still abuse of a child's body, over which that child has no say. It is quite appalling. Here is a list of the known complications from the site of Stanford School of Medicine Paediatric Department:

Bleeding
Infection
Adhesions/ Skin bridges
Inclusion cysts
Abnormal healing
Meatitis
Meatal stenosis
Urinary retention
Phimosis
Chordee
Hypospadias
Epispadias
Urethrocutaneous fistula
Necrosis of the penis
Amputation of the glans
Death

Both of my husbands were circumcised, but both were born in hot countries. Neither suffered any long term psychological damage

Well said Indinana.

I imagine that all these religions that believe in the covenant Abraham made with God, also believe that it was God who created man. Can they not see the irony in this? Do they not question a God who creates something with a flaw that has to be surgically corrected?
I'm sure this God could have amended his design (after all, he is omnipotent, so this shouldn't be a problem) instead of making a covenant with Abraham to correct his mistake in perpetuity by subjecting baby boys to this barbaric practice.