Marguerite
Active Member
We're not Jewish. My father was uncircumcised and had no problem with it until he enlisted in the army in WWII. Then apparently some army doctor hauled him out in front of the whole platoon and made him stand there, pants at half mast, to explain to the troops as Exhibit A, that an uncircumcised male always has cleanliness issues and is a walking disease factory (or similar). My father was publicly shames because he was uncircumcised. I believe it was partly to do with HItler's antiSemitism and the implication that if you were uncircumcised then you were possibly a Hitler sympathiser (or something stupid).
My father's reaction - as an adult male, he went and got himself the most severe circumcision imaginable, he got every last scrap of foreskin removed. So I was told. And then tried to insist on his grandsons being circumcised.
My eldest sister had boys. At that time circumcision was optional and the attitude was, "make the boy look like dad." My sister's husband was uncircumcised, so she took the option of leaving them uncut.
Eldest boy was fine, until about age 6 when it was discovered that he had a right foreskin and it wouldn't retract properly. So at age 6, the boy had to go to hospital for a general anaesthetic and they cut off just as much as they needed to, to make him functional. From nephew's point of view, it was easy and painless. He refused to even believe he had been asleep at all. "I just blew into a balloon and my head felt funny for a minute, but I didn't go to sleep," he insisted.
Sister's next boy was adopted. When he arrived at 10 months old, after having been in the care of his birth grandmother since birth, we found he had a foreskin like a trumpet bell. His grandmother had been not only retracting his foreskin, she had been rolling it back on itself and stretching it. Poor kid. So no way was he ever going to need a partial circumcision like his adopted brother.
Other boys in the family - I think there may have been one more who needed a bit of surgical intervention due to tight foreskin. But the other 20 or so have been fine.
Of all my nephews etc, only three or four were ever circumcised. Our own boys were not and have had no health problems.
As for arguments in favour of having this done in the first week or so - when they do it that young, it's done without anaesthetic. The argument is, that at that age they don't really connect pain with where in the body or what pain is. But I don't agree - I've heard my baby cry due to pain (heel pricks etc) and I would refuse to allow this to be done (if it was decided to be medically necessary)without even a local.
At least in Australia, when circumcision is done even at a few months old, there is at least a local anaesthetic, if not a light general (like my nephew). It's a lot less traumatic on everyone.
So my view is - if you want to circumcise (and it is a personal choice, for all sorts of reasons from cultural to medical) then I'm in favour of waiting until it can be done with less trauma.
If the newborn is having a bit of a rough start (for whatever reason) then chances are, it was not offered. The delay could only be a good thing, as I see it.
As for having boys all the same - well, they're not. Whether circumcised or not, penises still come in many different shapes, sizes, colours and conditions. The amount of time boys are likely to spend flashing their bits around, should be sufficiently infrequent for this to not be an issue.
A guy can always choose to have things trimmed later on if he wants to. But you can't put back what has been cut off in infancy.
A friend of mind had her boys circumcised; it was a very conservative hospital which in my opinion infringed on parental rights in a lot of ways. Her first son was simply circumcised without her permission. I kid you not. Then they insisted she had to be immunised against rubella, before being discharged from hospital. She tried to refuse (had been immunised two years earlier, plus had rubella in her teens) but was told no immunisation, no discharge. They did this to her after each baby which meant she got a rubella shot every 18 months. Ridiculous. And I remember one of her sons had such a severe circumcision that he had bandaged for weeks and nearly lost the head of his penis as well. They had cut too much and actually cut part of the shaft. Barbaric. The poor kid screamed every time he wet his nappy, and it made me think again of my nephew who had no such problem because when he had his partial circumcision, he was toilet trained and not in nappies.
Whether you agree with circumcision or not (and Andy is right, this thread is not about our personal views) I understand that when it's done as a newborn, there is no anaesthetic. Not even local. But even a few months' delay means it can be done more humanely. There can be cleanliness issues but there are alternative ways to deal with this so it's not a problem. And in some cases, it needs to be done later in life; but again, this should then be a minor procedure, no worse than getting a nose piercing.
Marg
My father's reaction - as an adult male, he went and got himself the most severe circumcision imaginable, he got every last scrap of foreskin removed. So I was told. And then tried to insist on his grandsons being circumcised.
My eldest sister had boys. At that time circumcision was optional and the attitude was, "make the boy look like dad." My sister's husband was uncircumcised, so she took the option of leaving them uncut.
Eldest boy was fine, until about age 6 when it was discovered that he had a right foreskin and it wouldn't retract properly. So at age 6, the boy had to go to hospital for a general anaesthetic and they cut off just as much as they needed to, to make him functional. From nephew's point of view, it was easy and painless. He refused to even believe he had been asleep at all. "I just blew into a balloon and my head felt funny for a minute, but I didn't go to sleep," he insisted.
Sister's next boy was adopted. When he arrived at 10 months old, after having been in the care of his birth grandmother since birth, we found he had a foreskin like a trumpet bell. His grandmother had been not only retracting his foreskin, she had been rolling it back on itself and stretching it. Poor kid. So no way was he ever going to need a partial circumcision like his adopted brother.
Other boys in the family - I think there may have been one more who needed a bit of surgical intervention due to tight foreskin. But the other 20 or so have been fine.
Of all my nephews etc, only three or four were ever circumcised. Our own boys were not and have had no health problems.
As for arguments in favour of having this done in the first week or so - when they do it that young, it's done without anaesthetic. The argument is, that at that age they don't really connect pain with where in the body or what pain is. But I don't agree - I've heard my baby cry due to pain (heel pricks etc) and I would refuse to allow this to be done (if it was decided to be medically necessary)without even a local.
At least in Australia, when circumcision is done even at a few months old, there is at least a local anaesthetic, if not a light general (like my nephew). It's a lot less traumatic on everyone.
So my view is - if you want to circumcise (and it is a personal choice, for all sorts of reasons from cultural to medical) then I'm in favour of waiting until it can be done with less trauma.
If the newborn is having a bit of a rough start (for whatever reason) then chances are, it was not offered. The delay could only be a good thing, as I see it.
As for having boys all the same - well, they're not. Whether circumcised or not, penises still come in many different shapes, sizes, colours and conditions. The amount of time boys are likely to spend flashing their bits around, should be sufficiently infrequent for this to not be an issue.
A guy can always choose to have things trimmed later on if he wants to. But you can't put back what has been cut off in infancy.
A friend of mind had her boys circumcised; it was a very conservative hospital which in my opinion infringed on parental rights in a lot of ways. Her first son was simply circumcised without her permission. I kid you not. Then they insisted she had to be immunised against rubella, before being discharged from hospital. She tried to refuse (had been immunised two years earlier, plus had rubella in her teens) but was told no immunisation, no discharge. They did this to her after each baby which meant she got a rubella shot every 18 months. Ridiculous. And I remember one of her sons had such a severe circumcision that he had bandaged for weeks and nearly lost the head of his penis as well. They had cut too much and actually cut part of the shaft. Barbaric. The poor kid screamed every time he wet his nappy, and it made me think again of my nephew who had no such problem because when he had his partial circumcision, he was toilet trained and not in nappies.
Whether you agree with circumcision or not (and Andy is right, this thread is not about our personal views) I understand that when it's done as a newborn, there is no anaesthetic. Not even local. But even a few months' delay means it can be done more humanely. There can be cleanliness issues but there are alternative ways to deal with this so it's not a problem. And in some cases, it needs to be done later in life; but again, this should then be a minor procedure, no worse than getting a nose piercing.
Marg
