Gobsmacked

[MrTashaAndBum]

I just think it is cleaner, you're less likely to get STD's if you are circumcized, you're also less likely to get urinary tract infections. Its just something I feel necessary for the over-all health of my baby, both now and later in life.

That is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read. I have a forskin and have rarely caught any infections or stds, much less than any woman I know. Go figure.

A man who hasn t got foreskin, doesn t go to the toilet and get a little bit of urine, behind i know that sounds disgusting but its true , foreskin traps alot.

Shake, pull back and wipe ladies - followed by a flush and wash! It's rocket science I know but a 2 year old boy can pick it up (lil bro in law), so I'm sure most of the USA (with its high c/cism rate) could learn it too... although it is the go-faster nation so they might need non-friction paper... hmmm - a whole new market for a product right there!

I just wanted to have my say so people dont think bad of me for saying I will be having my son circumsised. My son will be circumsised purely for religious reasons. It is nothing to do with cleanliness or catching Stds because as responsible parents it is our job to teach them about washing properly and about safe sex when the time comes. As for it being cruel and painful, that would only be if you left it until the child grows up and is fully aware of what is happening to him which is what happened to my husband when he was 7. Therefore my son will be circumsised as soon as he is well enough and a doctor agrees he is well enough which could be at birth or a few months old. I hope this doesnt make me appear any less of a good mother purely for choosing to do it.

Thats probably the most sensible answer I've read in this thread (apart from mine obviously but I don't think I can count mine, can I? No, TnB said no so... pfft). Well done, Doumauk.

Anyway, I'd write more but I need a pee... pull, wipe, flush and wash... could we make it a song, ladies?? (An accomanying YouTube video not needed!)

 

[Uvlollypop]

another point if u.s health insurance companies wont pay out for circumcision because its seen as cosmetic, the hiv debate holds no weight seeing as it would save them money in the long run medicating people that that arnt cut when they catch hiv? if thats such a great back up plan in the war against hiv??

 

[genkigemini]

I am honestly not sure why it is so common in the US. To be quite honest, I didn't even know a lot of guys weren't until I was an adult. That is just how it is and I was rasied Christian, not Jewish.

While I do not think it is cruel, I understand why parents would not do it.

One thing... I really don't see why this topic got all intense. Did I miss the boat? Is this topic really that sensitive?

I am assuming that most of us have made our decisions based on our upbringing, right? If it doesn't really hurt anything either way as far as health goes, does it really merit getting all mad? (I am just curious and definitely not trying to start anything. I just had no idea this was such a sensitive subject.)

 

[nikky0907]

i know jewish people do it and theres a big jew community in the us?

It isn't because of that.I am for example an episcopalian.
Male circumcision in US has nothing to do with religion in most cases.
I honestly can't tell you why it's extremly common here but it is.And nobody is suffering,everyone is fine,sex lives are not endangered.

 

[Wobbles]

Well we all figured out some do some don't some agree some don't some do it because of x reason some do it because of another x reason then some do it because its the norm for religion & culture etc etc etc

Who now wants a lolly pop ??
(No licking UVlolly on the screen please I meant a sugar one) lol

 

[genkigemini]

 

[polo_princess]

I am NOT licking UV!!

(wipes the screen)

 

[mugzy]

ive never heard anything more ridiculous

It may seem ridiculous to you, but it's a view shared by the world health organisation.

From the WHO site:

Based on the evidence presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending the consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. The international consultation, which was held from 6-8 March 2007 in Montreux, Switzerland, was attended by participants representing a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, researchers, human rights and women's health advocates, young people, funding agencies and implementing partners.

you can read the full recommendations here: https://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/news68/en/index.html

As for your question about US health companies... who knows why they do anything. It could be that they know that people in the US will have their sons circumcised whether it's covered by health insurance or not. I'm not too familiar with health insurance laws in the US, but I know that many private health insurance companies worldwide do not cover anything HIV related, that could have something to do with it. It could also have something to do with this from the National Institute of health:

The findings from the African studies may have less impact on the epidemic in the United States for several reasons. In the United States, most men have been circumcised. Also, there is a lower prevalence of HIV. Moreover, most infections among men in the United States are in men who have sex with men, for whom the amount of benefit provided by circumcision is unknown. Nonetheless, the overall findings of the African studies are likely to be broadly relevant regardless of geographic location: a man at sexual risk who is uncircumcised is more likely than a man who is circumcised to become infected with HIV. Still, circumcision is only part of a broader HIV prevention strategy that includes limiting the number of sexual partners and using condoms during intercourse.

You can read the full article here: https://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/2006/AMC12_06.htm

 

[Uvlollypop]

mmmm lolly pop!!! no polo you sharnt be licking me!

 

[Mummy2Many]

For whatever reasons, it is something that is much more common in the States/Canada than it is over here. Cultural differences, I guess. I think it's unnecessary, and I never even considered or discussed it when I was expecting either of my boys.

 

[PeanutBean]

It may seem ridiculous to you, but it's a view shared by the world health organisation.

From the WHO site:
you can read the full recommendations here: https://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/news68/en/index.html

OK, I have decided to bite my tongue and keep out of this debate, as I can't be bothered with the stress, however as a scientist I just have to say something in response to this.

I've just looked through this article and picked out this following point

...that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. This evidence supports the findings of numerous observational studies that have also suggested that the geographical correlation long described between lower HIV prevalence and high rates of male circumcision in some countries in Africa, and more recently elsewhere, is, at least in part, a causal association.

It may be that there is a reason given elsewhere in the scientific literature and to be frank I can't be bothered to look it up but I have to stress to you all the meaning of the relationship as described. It says there is a link, a correlation (the causal relationship) between high circumcision rates and low HIV rates in heterosexuals, however what it doesn't say is why! A correlation can mean anything! Given that (as UV so wisely said) HIV is passed through bodily fluids, this is most probably a behavioural link. i.e. men that are circumcised are more likely to be less sexually active, or more likely to use condoms, or generally have less partners so the chance of contraction is less, or some other similar reason. So that is not to say that circumcision might not be useful in the battle against HIV but it is probably culturally (i.e. behaviourally) specific.

It drives me mad the way correlations are used as evidence for things when the basis of the relationship is entirely misunderstood and frequently can work in the opposite direction or be to do with some entirely unmentioned/unstudied factor that happens to link the two.

Sorry to scientifically rant but it gets my goat!

 

[Uvlollypop]

OK, I have decided to bite my tongue and keep out of this debate, as I can't be bothered with the stress, however as a scientist I just have to say something in response to this.

I've just looked through this article and picked out this following point

...that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. This evidence supports the findings of numerous observational studies that have also suggested that the geographical correlation long described between lower HIV prevalence and high rates of male circumcision in some countries in Africa, and more recently elsewhere, is, at least in part, a causal association.

It may be that there is a reason given elsewhere in the scientific literature and to be frank I can't be bothered to look it up but I have to stress to you all the meaning of the relationship as described. It says there is a link, a correlation (the causal relationship) between high circumcision rates and low HIV rates in heterosexuals, however what it doesn't say is why! A correlation can mean anything! Given that (as UV so wisely said) HIV is passed through bodily fluids, this is most probably a behavioural link. i.e. men that are circumcised are more likely to be less sexually active, or more likely to use condoms, or generally have less partners so the chance of contraction is less, or some other similar reason. So that is not to say that circumcision might not be useful in the battle against HIV but it is probably culturally (i.e. behaviourally) specific.

It drives me mad the way correlations are used as evidence for things when the basis of the relationship is entirely misunderstood and frequently can work in the opposite direction or be to do with some entirely unmentioned/unstudied factor that happens to link the two.

Sorry to scientifically rant but it gets my goat!

that god for some sence

 

[mugzy]

It drives me mad the way correlations are used as evidence for things when the basis of the relationship is entirely misunderstood and frequently can work in the opposite direction or be to do with some entirely unmentioned/unstudied factor that happens to link the two.

I completely agree, but what they are saying it that the 3 randomised controlled study's now back up what they have suspected for years but never had any proof of.

Numerous observational studies indicate that circumcised men have lower levels of HIV infection than uncircumcised men. Throughout the world, HIV prevalence is generally lower in populations that traditionally practice male circumcision than in populations where most men are not circumcisedi.
Until the three randomized controlled trials in South Africaii, Kenyaiii and Ugandaiv were completed, it was unclear to what extent this was the result of a biological effect of male circumcision, or the result of cultural or social factors that can accompany high rates of male circumcision.

however what it doesn't say is why! A correlation can mean anything! Given that (as UV so wisely said) HIV is passed through bodily fluids, this is most probably a behavioural link.

HIV is indeed passed through bodily fluids, but it cannot penetrate skin - it needs an entry point. By removing the foreskin you remove a number of ways that HIV infection can occur.

There are several biological explanations why male circumcision may reduce the risk of HIV infection for men:
• By removing foreskin, circumcision reduces the ability of HIV to penetrate the skin of the penis due to keratinization or toughening of the inner aspect of the remaining foreskinvii.
• The inner part of the foreskin contains many special immunological cells, such as Langherhans cells, that are prime targets for HIVviii,ix. Some of these are removed with the foreskin, while the remaining cells become less accessible to the HIV virus due to the keratinization described above.
• Ulcers, which are characteristic of some sexually transmitted infections and which can facilitate HIV transmission, often occur on the foreskin. By removing the foreskin, the likelihood of acquiring these infections is reduced.
• The foreskin may suffer abrasions or inflammation during sex that could facilitate the passage of HIV.

Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection, but it only provides partial protection. Circumcised men are not immune to the virus. Male circumcision must not be promoted alone, but alongside other methods to reduce the risk of HIV – including avoidance of unsafe sexual practices,
reduction in the number of sexual partners, and correct and consistent condom use.

I would never tell anyone that they should circumcise their child - it's up to each individual to decide what's best for their child. But there have been a number of posts in this thread that imply that we are in some way mutilating our children and say there is no reason other than religion to do this, that no health organisations recommend it and that there is no evidence that circumcision can prevent stds. All of that is false.

 

[Shri]

I have not yet met a man who regrets that he was 'done' as an infant. And I have asked lots, because of my own troubled thoughts about the whole thing. But I've met a lot of men who remain "as they were when born" who get very angry about the subject. Which from a purely observational view I find quite interesting.

 

[Chellebelle]

My OH wants our son to be circumcised (if we have a boy) although I am not sure. I know he feels strongly about it because it has run in his family for generations... but I have read in many places that it is traumatic for a baby (although everyone that I know who had it as baby does not remember it) so I am still undecided. One site that I have seen this has the following statement:

Is circumcision painful?
Yes. Circumcision is extremely painful -- and traumatic -- for a baby. Just being strapped down is frightening for a baby. The often repeated statement that babies can't feel pain is not true. Babies are as sensitive to pain as anyone else. Most babies scream frantically when their foreskins are cut off. Some defecate. Some lapse into a coma. The reason some babies don't cry when they are circumcised is that they can't cry because they are in a state of shock. Most babies are circumcised without an anesthesic. Anesthetics injected into the penis don't always work. Being stuck with a needle in the penis is itself painful for a baby, just as it would be for anyone else. Babies are rarely given pain medication right after they are circumcised or during the week to ten days it takes the wound to heal. Pain medication is not always effective and is never 100% effective.

I do understand why people will have their sons circumcised and I might still get my son circumcised (I need to talk to my OH's dad to get his views and see what his sons were like following the procedure) but I am still unsure.

 

[lfc_sarah]

I just say each to their own...

Your child, your decision

 

[Scrumptious]

I'm gobsmacked at the reaction to this debate!

If you choose to circumcise your son, fine.

If you choose not to circumcise your son, fine.

Whatever you and your OH decide is the best for your baby then that's the bottom line, it's not really grounds for a debate.

 

[Uvlollypop]

i have no issue with it, its defo not for me, i have an issue with the claims that it protects you from stds

 

[keelykat]

I don't agree with it, only for medical reasons. There is no need. As for HIV etc-surely everyone should have safe sex anyway? its only one of many many things you can pick up through sex etc. And for cleaning-thats not a good enough reason.

Edited-as seems to have offended. I do feel that baby's can feel pain early on though.

keely.

 

[xXDonnaXx]

I didn't know you had a choice whether too have your son circumcised?!? (Huh!) I thought it was only if you needed it done. My younger brother had it done when he was about 5, I think it was because he kept urinating blood? or something. I personally wouldn't get my son circumcised, but if there was problems & needed too then I would. I do think it's alot neater lol.