Explanation for circumcision

For the circumcised men out there, at least those who were circumcised during childhood - what reasons did your parents give for this action?

(A cousin of mine was circumcised "because he had a phimosis and his glands could not be uncovered which made it impossible to wash it and then he could have gotten sick", as his mom explained to him.)

Ultimately I never was circumcised, but more than enough times the subject was brought up and I was given dire warnings of what to expect: infection upon infection, swelling and more infections and should I be amongst the unlucky stubborn ones, maybe even amputation would become an absolute necessity.

This continued even up until my mid 20s as it was a subject that my father would just not let rest, all evidence to the contrary. I never had any kind of urinary or penile/foreskin infection or any other problem. Luckily when I was too young to do any arguing back or refusing to listen, my mother stuck to her guns about refusing it being done with I suppose a typical maternal 'over my dead body' defense. By my late teens I myself knew better medically and just ignored it all, while turning beet red from listening as politely and calmly as possible to all the predicted perdition.

Agracier: So the reasons given by your father were more or less the things that my aunt would say, except that she had a little more reason (her son really did have phimosis). I don't see why somebody with a retracting foreskin should be warned about infections and swellings...

I don't see why somebody with a retracting foreskin should be warned about infections and swellings...

Aha ... but you see, that is the American experience, or perhaps the general American expectation (at that time) of what would happen to foreskins in general ... since they cannot use religious arguments for circumcision, something else needs to be thought up. Medical perdition nicely fits the bill, it's just the thing to scare parents.

Agracier: Much more recently than the 2000s, my mother in law changed our sons' diapers. Oh dear, she realized he was not circumcised. I think it was the first time she saw an intact penis for real.

"Why didn't have him done at birth? - We don't do it at birth in France nor do we intend to. - But it's much cleaner and healthier!" etc

Since that's what they were doing in her family and more generally in the US, it follows that it's Much Better.

She has now gotten over it.

Never asked, but it was the thing to do. Never had a reason to regret it.

Never asked, but it was the thing to do. Never had a reason to regret it.

That's one of the things we must have been thought in school - to always question why things are done, if there is no good explanation why they should be done so in the first place ...

Maybe it's annoying, but even social customs and traditions had a reason for coming into being once upon a time. But relying on social inertia isn't always a smart thing to do because over time things change, people acquire new insights or old fallacies can be explained away.

Not questioning such kinds of procedures is how female genital cutting goes on...

Starting to say I avoided the surgery... there were a few examinations where my pediatrician was very inclined to the operation. I do not have particular issues with my penis anyway during pre-pubertal examinations he diagnosed adhesion of the prepuce and then phimosis. The doctor say it was time to solve the issue. He explained that circumcision was an option in my case.

He stated it would be necessary because:

- it would be more hygienic;

- make easier further genital examinations;

- avoid discomfort when I would be sexually active.

I remember he also explained me the surgical procedure, where he would cut the foreskin and so on... Anyway he convinced himself to try first with medical distention procedures. I subdued to that with anxiety, they were painful and embarrassing moments. After some series of treatments my foreskin became fully retractable avoiding any needs for the surgical procedure.

My father told me that shortly after I was born they [the hospital staff] just whisked me away and did it, never asking consent from either parents. He was quite upset when he saw the irreversible trauma inflicted upon my genitals. He was intact and wouldn't have had it any other way for his son.

That was in 1968. What was done was done. I wonder if it was regularly done without seeking parental consent at the time. I didn't have a single peer that I knew to be intact growing up. I don't even remember seeing an unaltered penis in the high school locker room. As a matter of fact, I think the only whole penises I've ever seen were my father's and my son's.

That's one of the things we must have been thought in school - to always question why things are done, if there is no good explanation why they should be done so in the first place ...

Maybe it's annoying, but even social customs and traditions had a reason for coming into being once upon a time. But relying on social inertia isn't always a smart thing to do because over time things change, people acquire new insights or old fallacies can be explained away.

Unfortunately, the learned elders (religious leaders and healers) can always come up with some gobeldy gook answers to those questions,including the irrefutable 'God's will.'

Starting to say I avoided the surgery... there were a few examinations where my pediatrician was very inclined to the operation. I do not have particular issues with my penis anyway during pre-pubertal examinations he diagnosed adhesion of the prepuce and then phimosis. The doctor say it was time to solve the issue. He explained that circumcision was an option in my case.

He stated it would be necessary because:

- it would be more hygienic;

- make easier further genital examinations;

- avoid discomfort when I would be sexually active.

I remember he also explained me the surgical procedure, where he would cut the foreskin and so on... Anyway he convinced himself to try first with medical distention procedures. I subdued to that with anxiety, they were painful and embarrassing moments. After some series of treatments my foreskin became fully retractable avoiding any needs for the surgical procedure.

Just like that.

Obertaller, jds4med: I suspect my cousin's physician's explanations (increased risks of infections etc.) resulted in my aunt, then my mother, freaking out because my aunt and my mother were cleanliness freaks.

So it's not only a question of "religious elders" or doctors but also a question of personal feelings towards cleanliness and sex. For once, despite all her insistence on washing, my mom seemed to consider oral sex disgusting. And I could see that she appreciated the "clean" look of my cousin's circumcised penis, but that the "surgical removal of a piece of body" ick factor was stronger.

Hasn't this subject been beaten to death? Those who believe in it do snd those who don't don't. The old notion that smegma causes cervical cancer is no longer felt to be true. The increased incidence of urinary infections in uncircumcised infants and children has been documented in the pediatric literature. We will never know if it causes decreased sensitivity. Otherwise it is just a matter of individual choice. Sorry I can't see it as genital mutilation.

Liquidsky: I'm asking what the parents gave as justification, not what the scientific literature says.

As for "individual choice", there is little choice for children - it's what the parents (often their mothers) say.

(The people are know who were circumcised during childhood had no choice: my cousin was told that he had to do it not to get sick from his phimosis, those born in Muslim and Jewish families had it done by the parents when they were young because it's religion, and those born in the US were circumcised at birth. So none of them had consented.)

Pecan, the decision whether to do a circumcision is usually now done to make junior look like dad. One is never done without permission in writing from the parents.

Liquidsky: In the US, yes. It's even stronger than that - when my American mother in law changed our son's diapers, she was astonished. She had never seen an uncircumcised penis. Then the questions "Why didn't you get him cut? It's much healthier and cleaner! That's how we do it here!"

What you point out is that it's the personal choice of the parents, not of the child.

And it's done for just aesthetics ("like daddy"), religion (at an age where children cannot possibly understand religion), excessive views on hygiene, and no actual medical emergency to justify it. I mean, "you could possibly be getting an infection there in a few years if it does not self retract" is a poor justification...

One is never done without permission in writing from the parents.

That's a good one. My younger brother, born in 1958 in the US (New Jersey) was circumcised expressly against the wishes of my mother. This was brought up by her many times over the years, always with bitterness at the condescending way American doctors deigned to treat foreigners (she was namely Belgian) and not really care what they wanted or not.

I'm going to surmise that back in 1958 things were done differently in hospitals and that giving birth in a hospital automatically included circumcision as a matter of course in the eyes of American doctors, a sort of package deal. Sort of like a 'no substitutions' sign in restaurants.

Agracier, I've read several times indeed that until maybe 1970 or later American hospitals routinely circumcised newborns without asking the parents, as per normal procedure not requiring consent.

It seems however quite abusive of them to do so AGAINST the expressed will of the mother. (Perhaps your father had consented?)

I fall into the group that had it done at birth. I never had seen an uncircumcised penis until I got hold of a porn magazine in my early teens. I did not know what I was looking at until I eventually found out by some other guys my age who told me. I was born in 1955 and I am guessing in that era it was common to circumcise at birth.

So not only did I not get an explanation as I got older, I was never told that I had been circumcised in the first place. Before I found out about circumcision in my early teens, I actually thought my circumcised penis was how it had always been since birth!

Am I angry- no. I am actually glad I was circumcised at birth given that I probably would have had it done anyway. I am sure it would have been painful to go through as a teen or adult. I am glad I can't remember what it felt like at birth but I am sure it did hurt as an infant.

That's a good one. My younger brother, born in 1958 in the US (New Jersey) was circumcised expressly against the wishes of my mother. This was brought up by her many times over the years, always with bitterness at the condescending way American doctors deigned to treat foreigners (she was namely Belgian) and not really care what they wanted or not.

I'm going to surmise that back in 1958 things were done differently in hospitals and that giving birth in a hospital automatically included circumcision as a matter of course in the eyes of American doctors, a sort of package deal. Sort of like a 'no substitutions' sign in restaurants.

There is a story from NYC in, I believe, the 80s. A couple had a boy in one of the major hospitals. After much reflection and discussion, they elected NOT to have their son circumcised. They had to argue with the staff who repeatedly tried to carry out this unnecessary surgery. They prevailed.

When they went to check out, they found a charge for the circumcision on the bill (you Europeans wouldn't understand this concept, the bill that is.). They had to argue again that they didn't have their son circumcised. The cashier couldn't comprehend, apparently as the nursing staff also couldn't.

I hope things are better now, but I don't know.

Thank God I was circumcised not long after birth. I think my parents had it done from a cleanliness standpoint, and for religious reasons. I wouldn't want to have foreskin. It might not be an issue to a great many women, especially Europeans, but the large majority of women in North America prefer circumcised men. I may be totally wrong, but it seems with not being circumcised there would be issues of less sensitivity during intercourse, and more of a chance for health problems and cleanliness. I knew a dude where I use to work that waited until he was 26 to get circumcised at the request of his wife. He said they were having issues of him not reaching orgasm because of limited sensitivity. After he had the procedure done, he had a rough time dealing with the pain for several weeks. Now, he swears by being circumcised because he says he can feel so much more during intercourse. Not everyone of course has sexual issues by not being circumcised, but it is a common problem.

Slim88: Cleanliness of an uncircumcised penis is not an issue if you do like momma told me: everyday, pull back the foreskin fully and wash with soap.

If you don't wash a circumcised penis, maybe it will be cleaner than an unwashed uncircumcised one, but it'll probably smell of pee anyway, which is a turn-off for many women.

I may be totally wrong, but it seems with not being circumcised there would be issues of less sensitivity during intercourse,

The general consensus is that uncircumcised equals more sensitivity. Circumcised equals less sensitivity.

There may be instances where this is not the case, but there may also be other reasons for this. For instance, in the case you cite, it's possible that the foreskin did not fully retract, even with intercourse and so there was no direct contact with what should normally be an exposed glans. Or perhaps there was an issue with the frenulum being too tight and also preventing the foreskin from fully retracting.

However, in the main, a foreskin preserves glans sensitivity by keeping it moist and from being directly rubbed against by clothing or other parts of the body (thighs for instance depending on how one sits etc).

Without a foreskin, the glans dries out and the skin becomes harder/thicker. I believe the term is called kerotonizing (?) and since this somewhat akin to forming a scab on a wound, it's obvious it entails a loss of sensitivity.

For uncircumcised men, it is very easy - but not always pleasant - to try this out experimentally on themselves. Find a simple manner or device to keep a retracted foreskin retracted (something like a small thick elastic hairband) and then go about your daily business for as long as you can stand it. At first it will be immensely sensitive up to being actually painful. Gradually increase the time spent with a retracted foreskin and after about a week it should be possible to do so for a whole day at a time without too much discomfort. And then check out the sensitivity during this time. I assure you, it will diminish.

Sadly, only uncircumcised men can try this out on themselves and experience the results of loss of sensitivity firsthand. Those who are already circumcised, especially since birth, have no way at all of ever experiencing the difference in sensitivity. So, this means that trying to explain the differences in sensitivity between cut and uncut is far too often like talking to a brick wall. And moreover compounded by an unthinking acceptance of social customs.

Agracier: It is psychologically very difficult for somebody to think that their parents had them undergo needless surgery that diminished (even slightly) their feelings.

A cousin of mine was circumcised because his GP convinced his mother that his phimosis would certainly result in infections and that would be horrible, because of the impossibility of washing underneath. He did not question that idea that what occured to him was unpleasant but necessary until much later when he heard that physicians now generally advised against forced retractions and circumcision unless e.g. balanitis has occured. So to him his GP and his mother (who was a hygiene nut, like mine) probably overdid the case. He now feels a little angry about that. But it took him years to overcome his reluctance to think that his mom could have made such a mistake.

When they went to check out, they found a charge for the circumcision on the bill (you Europeans wouldn't understand this concept, the bill that is.). .

Off topic, but there must be some misconception about paying for medical care in Europe.

First off different countries have different systems. In some you have to pay in full and then get reimbursed afterwards. So that means that you certainly know about medical costs. There used to be a time when upon discharge from a hospital, even though in the end you had to pay almost nothing for your stay and treatments, the hospital demanded payment in full before allowing a discharge. That meant either withdrawing savings or borrowing and then hurrying to the medical mutuality to get reimbursed the same or next day.

Over time though, this has evolved into hospitals sending such large bills directly to the medical mutuality and you having to pay the non-reimbursed part either on the spot, or afterwards when a bill was sent through the mail. Some hospitals and specialists still demand payment in full upfront, it all mainly depending on how focused they are on making money versus other things. Religious run hospitals in Belgium for instance are known for their insistence on payment in full upfront. Reimbursement follows, but afterwards.

And with normal doctor consults, you always have to pay the doctor in full on the spot. He then gives the necessary paperwork that allows reimbursement.

But then again in other countries, like Spain for instance, once you have all the proper documentation and papers, the national health service does not charge on the spot. You get treated and that's that. No money exchanges hands. They take care of all payments and reimbursements, even if non Spanish residents/citizens such as tourists are treated in a Spanish facility.

But it took him years to overcome his reluctance to think that his mom could have made such a mistake.

I'd blame the doctor for giving the bad advice. He's the one who spent so many years studying and learning about medical matters, he is the specialist in these things. It's like a financial adviser putting someone into a bad investment. They are the big honchos who are supposed to know what they are doing.

It seems however quite abusive of them to do so AGAINST the expressed will of the mother. (Perhaps your father had consented?)

From what I've always heard, my father had the knack of never being home when the kids were born. He was away at sea. He was in Korea when I was born - as I've often been told - which was a pretty good excuse in those days - and away when the others were born too. It could be he consented or gave permission long ahead of time - which would be unusual for him to think so far ahead ... ha ha.

Anyway, from all that I remember of the feel of the times back in 1950s USA, there just wasn't much room for dissent or differences or other ways of doing things. That wasn't just with hospitals and such, but in schools as well. It was just the way of the times, that's how things were. There's something nostalgic about it and safe in a certain way, but thinking back it mainly feels so god-awful repressive and bleak.

Agracier: I think the GP just repeated what was generally accepted at the time (1970s) in the medical community, and this was compounded by the hygienic obsessions of my aunt.

Regarding bills, I confirm what agracier said. In France it is often the case that one is first billed and has to pay, then one claims the bill from a mixture of compulsory ("public") and noncompulsory (private) insurance. If you are uninsured, which can happen due to a variety of reasons (rarer today) you pay the full price; this happens e.g. to foreign tourists.

To go back to the original question: it seems that in France nowadays some doctors sign prescriptions for circumcision for "tight phimosis", even though no phimosis exists, for Muslim (and probably Jewish) families that do not want to pay for their son's elective circumcision (Social Security does not cover elective circumcision).

Regarding bills, I confirm what agracier said. In France it is often the case that one is first billed and has to pay, then one claims the bill from a mixture of compulsory ("public") and noncompulsory (private) insurance. If you are uninsured, which can happen due to a variety of reasons (rarer today) you pay the full price; this happens e.g. to foreign tourists.

When speaking of 'foreign tourists' this would mean non-EU residents. EU residents can get a document/card free of charge proving they are medically insured in their country of residence. If you present this card in other EU countries, it means you will be treated and billed as if you were a resident of the country where you're being treated.

The payments and reimbursements are then handled via national medical insurance administrations, leaving the patient out of the further business (luckily ...ha ha).

So, for instance a Belgian having the proper papers proving he is covered by Belgian national health care, will be treated as if he were a Spanish resident should he get ill in Spain ... and so on in all other possible permutations of nationality.