Circumcision

Denzil2222 · 24-09-2010 06:04PM #1

Why on earth do so many americans have their baby boys circumcised ?

arybvtcw0eolkf · 24-09-2010 06:08PM

Well for the circumsizer then tips can be good :pac:

Although I did hear of a blind circumsizer - he got the sack.

Jumpy · 24-09-2010 06:08PM

Because it prevents possible issues later in life. Also a hygiene thing.

Please dont answer how easy it is to keep clean. No one really cares that you are cheese free. It is the reason behind a large amount of procedures.

Mr Benevolent · 24-09-2010 06:08PM

They're Jewish or enjoy hurting their kids.

Jumpy · 24-09-2010 06:10PM

Plus, KP has to make Hula Hoops out of something.

Noodleworm · 24-09-2010 06:11PM

It was originally a Jewish thing, carried on by Christians to stop little boys playing with themselves. Then they got it into there heads that its cleaner etc because there too lazy to pull back the skin to wash...

Orange69 · 24-09-2010 06:13PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrvorxZp7s

Chinasea · 24-09-2010 06:14PM

I believe it is a Jewish/American stance. I was very disappointed with Miss Christina Aguilera went and got her baby circumcised. I thought that Miss Aguilera was a progressive young woman but turns out she just did what her husband’s traditions expected. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to have this ghastly operation performed (of course there are medical exceptions).

Scoobydoobydoo · 24-09-2010 06:14PM

I believe they do it for hygiene purposes. I think it's mutilation if it's not a medical necessity.

PeterIanStaker · 24-09-2010 06:15PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A0RFDm8_rE

Jumpy · 24-09-2010 06:15PM

Jumpy wrote: »

Because it prevents possible issues later in life. Also a hygiene thing.

Please dont answer how easy it is to keep clean. No one really cares that you are cheese free. It is the reason behind a large amount of procedures.

Noodleworm wrote: »

It was originally a Jewish thing, carried on by Christians to stop little boys playing with themselves. Then they got it into there heads that its cleaner etc because there too lazy to pull back the skin to wash...

My predictions ... they have come truuuuuue.

Donkey Oaty · 24-09-2010 06:17PM

For people who like to scroll up the birth cert, it saves on having to buy an elastic band.

Sanjuro · 24-09-2010 06:23PM

Well, it's an issue that cuts right to the bone...r.

Thirdfox · 24-09-2010 06:24PM

Jumpy wrote: »

Because it prevents possible issues later in life. Also a hygiene thing.

Please dont answer how easy it is to keep clean. No one really cares that you are cheese free. It is the reason behind a large amount of procedures.

That's assuming that smegma itself is "dirty" when in actual fact it is a natural bodily lubricant with anti-bacterial effects. Excessive build up will be a problem of course but excessive anything is a problem.

AH response: Perhaps people don't want to be so sensitive? Americans can't keep it in under the extra stimulation? Down with Male Genital Mutilation!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/07/circumcision_male_genital_muti_1.html

And it seems that the circumcision rate is a lot lower now in the US (56% in 2005).

twinQuins · 24-09-2010 06:26PM

Jumpy wrote: »

Because it prevents possible issues later in life.

Which are only issues for a minority and even then there are usually alternatives to circumcision.

Also a hygiene thing.

Like surgically removing your fingernails instead of cleaning them regularly is more hygenic, yes.

Please dont answer how easy it is to keep clean.

Then don't bring up hygiene in the first place.

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 24-09-2010 06:37PM

The piece of forskin that is discarded is known as 'schmuck'

mikom · 24-09-2010 06:49PM

Denzil2222 wrote: »

Why on earth do so many americans have their baby boys circumcised ?

They love their tips over there.

MagicMarker · 24-09-2010 06:50PM

Because they're idiots.

CrazyRabbit · 24-09-2010 06:52PM

It's much less common know. Some estimates have it at less than 40% of boys being circumcised now, and it's apparently declining. The story I read gave an interesting reason for this. They say it was due to the poor economy and people not being able to afford to pay hospitals to carry out the procedure.

Dean820 · 24-09-2010 06:58PM

I'm in between two minds about circumcision. I can see both points of view. Still though, the poor baby must be in so much pain when they do the operation on him, it seems unnecessary.

Overheal · 24-09-2010 07:03PM

Dean820 wrote: »

I'm in between two minds about circumcision. I can see both points of view. Still though, the poor baby must be in so much pain when they do the operation on him, it seems unnecessary.

Not sure about this. It's still a sterile, surgical procedure. I would think it's actually harder post-puberty to endure, what with sexual arousal and all that. Between the two extremes, the newborn gets the better deal on the pain factor. Not that they aren't ever going to remember it either way.

Tzetze · 24-09-2010 07:04PM

I think Hitchens manages to hit the subject squarely on it's head...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X70ss7vsS_c

Hitchens in his book God is not great wrote:

In more recent times, some pseudosecular arguments have been adduced for male circumcision. It has been argued that the process is more hygienic for the male and thus more healthy for females in helping them avoid, for example, cervical cancer. Medicine has exploded these claims or else revealed them as problems which can just as easily be solved by a “loosening” of the foreskin. Full excision, originally ordered by god as the blood price for the promised future massacre of the Canaanites, is now exposed for what it is — a mutilation of a powerless infant with the aim of ruining its future sex life. The connection between religious barbarism and sexual repression could not be plainer than when it is “marked in the flesh.” Who can count the number of lives that have been made miserable in this way, especially since Christian doctors began to adopt ancient Jewish folklore in their hospitals? And who can bear to read the medical textbooks and histories which calmly record the number of boy babies who died from infection after their eighth day, or who suffered gross and unbearable dysfunction and disfigurement? The record of syphilitic and other infection, from rotting rabbinical teeth or other rabbinical indiscretions, or of clumsy slitting of the urethra and sometimes a vein, is simply dreadful. And it is permitted in New York in 2006! If religion and its arrogance were not involved, no healthy society would permit this primitive amputation, or allow any surgery to be practiced on the genitalia without the full and informed consent of the person concerned.

scientific1982 · 24-09-2010 07:10PM

I had it done when I was 8 for medical reasons. It stung after for a few days but I was lucky enough to be knocked out for the actual operation. Circumcising babies is just plain wrong imo. They cant be anesthetized and being babies their nervous system is super charged. Must be agony for the poor ****ers.

Daisy Steiner · 24-09-2010 07:12PM

My nephew had to be circumcised before he was 2 years old. His fore-skin was too tight and was causing him pain. The doc said better to do it earlier rather than later. The poor little mite was so sore after it but recovered within a few days.

I was in hospital when I was 12/13, was in the same room as a 7/8 year-old boy who had it done. Poor fella bawled for 10 hours straight after the op

.

galwayrush · 24-09-2010 07:23PM

Don't pay to have it done, it's a bloody rip off.

Terry · 24-09-2010 07:25PM

Needless cosmetic surgery.
A barbaric ritual from biblical times which has no place in today's society.
People get up in arms about FGM, but apparently it's ok for men to have part of their genitalia removed.

Overheal wrote: »

Not sure about this. It's still a sterile, surgical procedure. I would think it's actually harder post-puberty to endure, what with sexual arousal and all that. Between the two extremes, the newborn gets the better deal on the pain factor. Not that they aren't ever going to remember it either way.

Were you circumcised? If so, how do you feel about it?
Would you prefer to have had the option yourself?

About 20 years ago one of the neighbour kids had to be circumcised for medical reasons. His mother was telling myself and a friend about it and how she felt so sorry for him because of the pain he was in.
Two minutes later the kid walks out of the house and says "Mammy, me willy's sore. Will ya kiss it better".

The three of us fell around the place laughing. Couldn't help it. It was just the innocent way in which he asked the question.

rubadub · 24-09-2010 07:41PM

Terry wrote: »

People get up in arms about FGM, but apparently it's ok for men to have part of their genitalia removed.

Yes, its quite strange that it is so accepted.

Even if there is a medical need it could often be treated by stretching the foreskin, but I suppose this might require a few doctors visits to check on progress, so why not just butcher the child and save a bit of time.

Cutting off part of your gentials full of nerve endings which give sexual pleasure, and skin that keeps the glans more sensitive should be an absolute last resort. Many men are trying to restore their foreskin.

Ronin247 · 24-09-2010 07:54PM

A lot of American doctors are of a certain religion and push the circumcision agenda on confused new parents.

On a lighter note Hale and Pace had a song about circumcision,

one two drip on my shoe,
three four not any more.

yank_in_eire · 24-09-2010 10:14PM

Don't know about the pain - I don't remember it - but it sure gets me a load of attention in the pub:p

The way they do it now is similar to removing lamb's tails they just put a band around it until the extra bit dies and falls off:eek:

Torres9 · 24-09-2010 10:14PM

I got it done the day after I was born...

couldn't walk for a year after

:pac:

RMD · 24-09-2010 10:22PM

I can pull me foreskin up to my belly button. I'd like to see 1 of them freaks try and copy my party trick :pac:

Circumcision

Comments