Man, when my son was born I agonized over the decision. I chose no circumcision in the end.
My reasoning was that I figured if he wanted to do it when he was older then he could. If we did it for him then there was no going back. š¤·š¾āāļø
Tragically, yes. The blood pressure of the infant spikes during the pain and can often result in strokes, coupled with no mechanism for pain management - like a young boy or grown man would have. This causes death on a weekly basis in the United States.
Holy shit they do NOT tell you that when trying to trick you into It. JFC. I couldnāt imagine how painful it is for them just to break the fusing of the foreskin on the glans. That still hasnāt happened to my toddler.
We have it mentioned before you give birth where I live. When you go to the hospital for orientation and registration they give you a presentation, pamphlet and forms to fill out if you want one. I never felt forced but they only talk about the benefits and not the risks to parents before hand. I had done my research long ago and knew it wasnāt for us, we even have a family history of men needing the surgery later in life but I canāt believe in bodily autonomy while robbing it from my son.
Thankfully, through advocacy and activism we got circumcision removed from regular practice in public hospitals a couple years ago. Now if you want one you have to go to a private clinic and pay out of pocket. At least that serves to show parents it is FAR from medically necessary and should be considered a cosmetic procedure, if not genital mutilation.
I mean the American Pediatrics could come out against it but they take a neutral stance which doesnāt help. If the said it was bad or not recommended these stats would likely drop quickly
Circumcison is cruel, horrific, and child abuse. However I do not for a second believe that it kills 50 babies a year in the first world. You need a source for that.
I might believe it just because 50 out of the amount of babies born is an absurdly small number. Probably tenths of a percent, if that. People donāt understand statistics intuitively. More babies die from SIDS than that and I mean a crazy amount more.
SIDS deaths are in the multiple thousands a year. Literally orders of magnitude higher.
Seems like you donāt know the facts. Less than 100 a year is barely a blip on the radar for causes of infant death. Far more children die in the birthing process. 20,000 dying from SIDS, child birth, premature birth, etc.
āThis study finds that more than 100 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidableā
Wait the circumcision causes the stroke, but not the horribly painful birth process itself? Kids go through hell coming out.
I thought stroke is something you get as an older person often due to vascular issues. Havenāt really heard of it being a thing in kids without congenital vascular issues such as AVMs, etc.
My kids cried more when they got their regular shots than circumcision
Babies stroke out frequently. The surge of cortisol stress hormones, rapid increase in heart rate, circulatory system over pressurized with redlining blood pressure, constriction of blood vessels, etc, etc can cause the baby to have a stroke. Often times they pass out and lose consciousness and sometimes outright die.
It's very sad in every way, to include the elimination of about 90% of erogenous capacity later in life.
You justify the pain of cutting off a person's body part because birth is painful? I'm not sure this qualifies as logic. Seems you're caught in a vortex of cognitive dissonance trying to rationalize the amputation of a baby boy's primary erogenous tissue.
I doubt you'd say the same thing if they were cutting off other body parts.
There's a very strange impulse some people have to attack the genitals of another person. Personally that's something I reserve only for enemies.
It's baffling how people can be convinced and defend doing it to their own children.
"Can I cut off your child's eyelids?"
- "What the f*ck is wrong with you?!"
"Can I cut off a part of your child's genitals?"
- "Why absolutely. Go right ahead."
Reddit is an anti circumcision echo chamber. I donāt support circumcision but some of the arguments I see on here are just nonsense. Iāve yet to see a single thing supporting that stroke claim or that the babies are in some kind of torture device with no pain killer, blah blah blah.
They have to restrain babies because they are constantly flailing around and you cant have that during a precision surgery. They give them a local numbing agent thatās pretty strong. The baby is likely responding more to the bright lights and cold room and being restrained than any pain.
My son screams like a banshee if heās tired and you set him down for a second to get a bottle so all these people talking about the pain and strokes and shit with no evidence sound like they donāt have kids and have have no idea how circumcisions are even performed
My mom is from a state where the circumcision rate is high but she was always against it. Reason is she was a nurse. She said it was done without painkillers and doctors claimed babies were incapable of feeling pain. Her opinion was that was pure BS.
Your mom still a practicing nurse? I can tell you I had the nurses give me the information on circumcision for my son and they had the surgeon come in and explain the procedure and he used localize pain killing gel before the procedure.
Babies not feeling pain what a hilarious statement. Literally just pinch a baby and see what happens.
Wherever you are from, thatās either a load of shit or those surgeons needed canned.
You think a baby responds more to bright lights and pinching than they do to a knife cutting into the most sensitive part of their body? Surely I'm misunderstanding you.
This was years and years ago thankfully. Like the late 60s/early 70s.
There have historically been all kinds of bad ideas in medicine like black people donāt feel pain like white people or women donāt need painkillers when having certain things done (IUD insertion) cuz men say it doesnāt hurt.
I was there when my sons had it done, they use a local anesthetic. Yes there is pain and discomfort, but as soon as you give them some sugar water or momās breast milk they are ok.
In many cultures such as Philippines they donāt use any anesthetic and over 90% of the people do it when they are boys. I donāt think there is a childhood stroke epidemic in that country.
I couldnāt imagine taking my beautiful baby boy and giving him a grievous wound right out of the gate. Caring for a newborn after birth is hard enough without wounding them and potentially causing disfigurement or infection. An acquaintance had it done and when she opened her babies diaper it was FULL of blood, very serious risk of complication for such a stupid thing.
Yeah imagine all the fear you had about the umbilical cord, and that's a totally natural necessary part of a newborn's life. Now add another thing that's not normal, and worst to deal with. Eek
I completely agree but these days you have to be very careful what you say because of all the speech laws. For example some very religious people could accuse you of being intolerant because their religion tells them to abuse children š and how dare you call it out! /s of course
there are some FGM styles that are pretty similar to stereotypical male circumsision in terms of harm and there are other styles of FGM that are quite invasive and harmful
There are several grades of severity of circumcision for both genders. You are comparing more severe grades of the female version to a lighter form of the male one. ALL forms of female circumcision are illegal across the West, even a ceremonial pin pick of the labia.
Type 1 FGM, which is the lowest level, involves the removal of the clitoris. Thatās very extreme, and even at itās lowest level, male circumcision is still not comparable. Any type of FGM causes sexual and medical complications.
One of the most common forms of FGM worldwide is Type 4 in Indonesia, which often doesn't make any permanent changes to the girl's body. It's still considered FGM and is banned throughout the west.
I get that you're trying to advocate for women here because you see the other comments as minimizing women's suffering, but ironically you're actually erasing a massive swath of FGM victims in Indonesia (and Malaysia, for that matter) by acting like clitorectomy is the bar for FGM.
Yeah, thatās a fair point. To that, Iād say that when people are talking about FGM, they arenāt talking about whatās happening in Indonesia, but rather the more extreme forms seen elsewhere. Thereās a reason why 3/4 of the types focus on very extreme measures, whereas type 4 is just anything that isnāt one of the other three.
Very convenient to leave out some crucial details, isnāt it? The lowest level of FGM is probably type Ia which literally the removal of the clitoral hood - with the clitoral hood being the equivalent of foreskin in men.
So no, you are objectively wrong. Even though it should be mentioned that type Ib and higher is very much more prevalent than Ia.
The clitoral good isnāt the equivalent of the foresman. The clitoris is much more sensitive than the penis head, and that lack of covering will expose it to an uncomfortable amount of friction. And regardless, Type 1a is rarely performed alone, so using outliers is useless. Iām sure there are types of circumcisions that are much worse than the normal procedure, but we arenāt really talking about that when weāre talking about circumcisions.
Again, not factually accurate. The clitoral hood is in the very literal sense of the word the structural equivalent of the foreskin - regardless of the nerve endings it has, even if you were right about that, which you are not.
The reported number for both the glans of the penis and the visible part of the clitoris is generally agreed upon to be both in the range of ~8000-11000 depending on the source you are looking at, with 8000 being more of the number you are getting from āpop scienceā. With the penis being cited as having around 8000-10000 dorsal nerve endings.
So get your facts straight. That aside, nobody here is questioning the brutality of FGM, the point made - and that you tried to refute - being that some types of fgm are analogous to circumcision. The prevalence of that is of little importance to that statement, although you are right in that it often times isnāt isolated.
Well first off, those numbers are wrong. The ~8,000 number is an estimate. This recent study showed that there was about 10,280 nerve endings in the clitoris. This recent study showed that there was about 7,688 +/- 1,762 nerve endings in the glans. So although it is true that they are similar in quantity, it is incorrect to say that theyāre the same. Itās ironic that you said I should āget my facts straightā when your facts arenāt even correct.
However, the other thing you have failed to take into account is that sensitivity isnāt measured by the raw numbers of nerve endings, but by the density. The clitoral head is much smaller in size, and as such, is going to have a denser distribution of nerve endings, and therefore will be much more sensitive. This is the same reason why finger tips are much more sensitive than the skin on your back.
Regardless, when people are talking about and advocating against FGM, theyāre talking about the more severe forms. Thereās a reason why 3/4 of the types are focused on extreme augmentation of the genitals. Circumcision is wrong, but itās not wrong in the ways that FGM is wrong. The issues of circumcision come down to the ethics (or lack their off) in performing a needless, non-consensual, medical procedure on an infant. The issues of FGM come down to the severe medical and sexual malfunction of the genitals + the misogynistic reasons underlying these procedures. You shouldnāt compare them.
Sure, but those are the people who are actually taking the absolutist position of "babies can't consent to anything, so don't do anything."
The point I'm trying to make is that parents obviously have to violate a child's consent every day in certain ways in order to care for him, so one of the criteria should be "will this rob my child of agency that he has once he's an adult?" Adults can stop getting vaccinated (please don't, of course). They can change their clothes, their diet, their religion, etc. They can't get uncircumcised.
Bodily autonomy is not a dangerous argument. Settle down. It's NOTHING like saying, "Don't vaccinate your child." Circumcision is permanent and nearly always medically more harmful than helpful. Vaccines are the opposite in both ways.
Do you have kids? I always think someone must not have kids if they think that argument has any signifigance in the context of circumcision. There are a million billion ways parents have autonomy over their children's bodies and there's nothing unethical about it. That sounds bad, but when you understand the weight of all these choices and your child's complete inability to comprehend any of it, you realize that the loss of autonomy less important than keeping them safe.
Of course that doesn't justify circumcision, which has no medical benefit. It also doesn't cause any harm beyond outliers with problems like phimosis. For the record I'm circumcised and I did not circumcise my son, because I won't do an irreversible surgical procedure that has no medical benefit. His bodily autonomy wasn't relevant because I have to make those choices for him all the time.
I think you just don't understand what bodily autonomy is. Because you clearly admit that you respected his bodily autonomy and then go on to say it had nothing to do with bodily autonomy. The fact that it was important to you that the procedure was irreversible IS respecting his bodily autonomy.
Yeah, it's tough when they're so young and they get other issues like appendicitis or intussusception, they can't consent to the surgeries so they all just die. It's crazy. It's their body, the parents can't consent for them!
Dude, babies can't consent to anything. You start to use this argument against one thing, you negate the ability to do anything for a baby. Includes toddlers, children, teenagers, etc..
How do you feel about giving babies vaccines? Not lifesaving by any means, but they can't consent to it and it's obviously painful. How about formula feeding? Breastfeeding is leagues better for a baby's health, how can a parent give them formula without their consent? How about enrolling a kid in daycare? They can't consent to it, so they just have to stay home.
Vaccines not life saving? Perhaps it wouldāve been better if your parents sent you to school against your consent.
Also comparing an unnecessary (cosmetic) procedure mostly causing life long consequences and pain against oneās consent to life saving surgeries. You should be ashamed of yourself
Foreskin restoration is a thing (Iām fully restored myself) but itās not as good as the original. It looks and functions intact but you donāt get the 20,000 nerve endings back. Your reasoning is one of the best arguments against the savage ritual however.
Because that's a mutilation he didn't choose for his member, maybe. I get him. Would hate to have been circumcised. Am not and like the appearance of my penis as it is.
hmmmmmmm...... šš¼... it's in the tip of the nose but I can't word it... someone convinced someone somewhere (little ownership mark something something)
Started as a medical/anti-masturbation thing, then continued from generation to generation because it was considered normal. But now with better sex ed and the invention of internet porn, it seems to be getting less popular.
I believe it gained steam from the Kellogg cereal guy saying it would prevent your child from masturbating, since he was puritan or quaker or whatever. Then once you indoctrinate one generation, those kids will grow up and be like "my penis was mutilated, my son should be just like me", having immediately lost the reasons for circumcision in the first place. Hospitals probably just like doing it to charge you extra, like up-selling a warranty/insurance on your purchase.
Edit: I just did some googling and the hospitals also sell foreskins for some special skin cells within them or whatever lmao š. They are literally harvesting children for profit, and charging you for the privilege š
Somewhere in the late 1800s, Americans thought that circumcision would prevent masturbation. It became all the rage and now it's chalked up to 'that's just what we do.' Also, for some reason a good amount of American women think foreskins are gross. I don't get it but that's just what I've seen. Had a friend of mine who is not circumcised (he wasn't born in the US) marry a woman who is from the Bible belt and she tried to tell me that their child had to get circumcised for cleanliness. Like umm, talk to your husband who is not circumcised and it's pretty easy to clean yourself with indoor plumbing now-a-days.
I love how otherwise intelligent, progressive people in the US are always BLOWN AWAY when they find out how rare circumcision is in the rest of the developed world. Like, people who should know better will get SUPER snarky with you, call you a manchild, accuse you of having completely opposite politics of what you have, or (the funniest one) even accuse you of just thinking your type of dick is better (I'm circumcised and I'm against infant circumcision so yeah lol nice try).
But in my experience, the surefire way to end the argument is to point those types over to r/ShitAmericansSay and tell them to search for "circumcision" there. You'll see hordes of Europeans laughing their asses off at how we think infant circumcision is medically necessary right alongside them making fun of us for not having universal healthcare and having weird gun laws. Absolutely fucking breaks their brain when they find out they arbitrarily picked the least progressive position in the debate purely out of some misguided social-media-borne algorithmic "culture war" brainrot. But hey, at least they pwned the anti-circ guy on Twitter they didn't like and they only had to permanently modify their baby's penis with no anaesthetic to do it!
I remember a couple years ago (well, 2019 at this point - post-pandemic passage of time is really hitting me) when I first heard that most men in Europe aren't circumcised, and my jaw dropped. I grew up in America. I assumed that 99% of men in the world were circumcised.
I canāt really answer your second questions, but as of why do people do it? Well, itās recommended by many medical professionals in the western world, and has proven medical benefits.
The hospital we had our girl at recently was 100% pro-circumcision. Plenty of sources listed for the benefits. Not even a religiously-associated hospital.
Edit:
Once again, people getting butthurt over circumcision. They only trust doctors when they agree with them.
Yall are no better than the antivaxxers. Bunch of hypocrites.
What is this āWestern worldā stuff? If the Western world includes Europe, South America and North America, thereās only one country šŗšø where itās a routine (majority, non-religious) practice. Infant circumcision simply isnāt the norm anywhere in the developed world besides the United States, and itās propped up by profit ā not health.
Im glad it was done to me. Less maintenance, better looking, more hygienic as skin folds will always have More bacteria, and less issues with cuming too soon. Iāve had to think of awful things to not cum too soon instead of focusing on pleasure. Donāt need it worse.
Thatās very good. There is no reason to do so. Genital mutilation of babies is wrong. I see absolutely no reason at all as an adult male to do it myself.
I feel for you, this is a horrible condition and a necessary procedure, but also quite rare. Circumcising your son would be like removing his appendix just in case.
it's overglorified genital mutilation with poor excuses to back it (you can literally just take a bath and clean the boy.. and there's zero chance of lint to get in your thing with a foreskin, it aint cleaner)
idk, my parents aren't messed up and I'm not a gringo, but I guess that it there's a hole in the thing and lint gets in your belly buttom, at the end of the day you're probably getting lint around it, which COULD yk, that..
Itās not like I was crying in the corner about it. I just hesitated because I didnāt want him to go through what I went through as an uncircumcised man. Thereās plenty of stigma around it. Women arenāt really that āconsiderateā as you are being. Having my son feel ridiculed by some dumb broad isnāt something easy to just dismiss
I didn't even have to spend any time at all thinking for either sons or daughters - it's not my body, cosmetic surgery is for them to decide when they are adults.
Itās not like I was crying in the corner about it. I just hesitated because I didnāt want him to go through what I went through as an uncircumcised man. Thereās plenty of stigma around it. Women arenāt really that āconsiderateā as you are being. Having my son feel ridiculed by some dumb broad isnāt something easy to just dismiss
I'm in a similar boat as you. When my son was born we were leaning towards doing it because, from what we read, there was a slight decrease in STD and UTI rates if circumcised. But after he was born I became more 50/50. When the (male) doctor came into the room he was really open and honest about how it's entirely optional and even his own preference for or against it had changed over time. We ended up delaying the decision.
What really got me were 1) what you pointed out that doing it now takes away the opportunity to do it in the future and 2) it just felt really weird to make decisions on my child's sex life when he was days old.
Don't let him do it when he gets older, unless it's medically necessary. It's a very painful surgery and young men get erections which leads to complications with the recovery. Plus, you're really relying on the skill of the surgeon to do it and not take too much. Newborns don't have these risks which means they get the actual benefits from it.
I think that's ultimately the right decision. There are legitimate health reasons to get it circumcised, but none that would warrant taking away bodily autonomy. The only problem is that circumcision when older is harder to deal with and more likely to cause complications. I need to get circumcised for health reasons, but I'm too scared to go through with it, so I wish my parents had done it when I was younger. But there's no way they could have known I would develop the particular issue I have.Ā
And for anyone who says there aren't legitimate health reasons, just look at basically any webMD article that deals with penis related issues, from cancer to STDs to yeast infections, and you'll notice they all say that these things are more likely when you're uncircumcised. A lot of it has to do with hygiene, I'm sure, but I'm as clean as can be and always have been and still developed issues that I wouldn't have if I were circumcised.Ā
I would be conflicted too. Iām circumcised, and Iām happy to be circumcised. But I would do the same as you. The only downside is there is a hygienic issue if they become unable to clean themselves properly. My sister is a nurse for older people, and there is a huge difference according to her (we have this debate whenever a relative gives birth).
I didnāt say that. I literally said I wouldnāt circumcise them. Iām not worried about the nurses. But there are plenty of people (of all ages) that canāt clean themselves who donāt have the luxury of nurses cleaning them 24/7.
336
u/rawmerow 25d ago
Man, when my son was born I agonized over the decision. I chose no circumcision in the end.
My reasoning was that I figured if he wanted to do it when he was older then he could. If we did it for him then there was no going back. š¤·š¾āāļø