Explanation for circumcision

I got my circumcision because my foreskin was too tight.

Agracier: I read that Queen Victoria had her male children circumcised because she then felt as a rightful heiress of the old King Solomon, King David etc. and that then all male royal children were circumcised until Princess Diana opposed having this practice imposed on her sons.

The high nobility probably followed the royal example.

I read that Queen Victoria had her male children circumcised because she then felt as a rightful heiress of the old King Solomon, King David etc.

I guess if you are a Queen Empress, you can convince yourself of virtually anything ... ha ha.

Interesting to compare rates in different parts of the world, I suspect UK rates will fall further.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

I think that in many parts of North America, the subject was not really up for debate. The parents were not really consulted, and the procedure was routinely performed soon after birth.Now that rates are declining, it is clear that Family Dr.s are leaving it up to the new parents to specifically opt for it. Did I not read a year or two ago, that in Germany a court convicted a doctor for "genital mutilation" for performing a circumcision? IIRC, the decision was reversed after an outcry from Jewish groups.

Ibrox

The case in Germany (where I currently live) didn't involve a doctor per se. A traditional Muslim circumcisor had botched the job on his patient and his parents had to seek medical help.

The biggest upshot was that the Cologne regional court took it upon themselves to declare a ban on circumcision, effectively bringing up all sorts of ill feeling from the remaining Jewish community here, as well as the enormous numbers of Germans with a Turkish or middle eastern background.

Angela Merkel was very quick to squash it, but a lot of damage had already been done and there was a lot of outcry within the country of WW2 all over again type sentiment.

Snoman: There is, I think, a strong rationale for prohibiting anybody not a surgeon operating in a medical environment from performing this surgery.

After all, we do not allow random individuals to act as surgeons or physicians, even for trivial illnesses, so why should there be an exception for circumcision?!

My circumcision was due to a tiny phimosis the doctor noticed during my bladder surgery when I was 10 years old.

Pecan nutjob - I'm kind of with you on that. But the court in Cologne decreed no circumcision unless medically necessary - which of course, dismissed an important facet of muslim and jewish culture. Given Germany's history, you can imagine it didn't make the country look good. That's why Merkel was so fast to respond.

I do , in theory, think all surgery should be left to the surgeons. In the case of a mohel though, that's pretty much their main job and training. In their own fashion they ARE surgeons. What happens in orthodox circles with sucking the blood and so on I think is abominable, but in general, I think those guys would have as much practice as a medico. The main difference is that (as far as I know) they don't anaesthetise other than a little wine, whereas a medical infant circ without pain relief is unheard of these days (at least in Australia and here in Germany).

Snoman: I've heard of circumcision without anesthesia among Muslims in North Africa and Middle Eastern countries.

Pecan Nutjob - very likely. I was talking about infant medical procedures done by medically trained surgeons in hospitals or clinic settings. I worked in the medical field in Australia - all circs were done with anaesthesia there and from what I've been told here in germany, the same is true. In areas where ritual circumcision still takes place I can imagine it doesn't happen the same way.

Snoman: The ones I heard about were done both by physicians and by traditional practitioners... but the thing is, anesthesia is complicated and I suppose it's easier and cheaper to go without it.

Plus, the boy proves he's manly by undergoing it.

Boys growing up in the U.S. In the seventies and eighties did not need an explanation for why they were circumcised. This was the normal condition of the penis as far as any of us knew. I first became aware of circumcision when I was 13 and played doctor with s school classmate who had an uncircumcised penis. I thought the uncircumcised penis was much less attractive than the circumcised version and this was the first occasion that caused me to start thinking about the practice of circumcision. I began to think it was very interesting and exciting that American men had their foreskins removed primarily for the reason of aesthetics. I also began to start noticing the varied circumcision outcomes of boys I saw in the locker room and began studying the techniques of neonatal circumcision and the devices employed for the procedure.

Simple - Jewish. No argument possible. God's will or some similar nonsense.

Jds4med: Do you know if there is a different in outcome between Jewish circumcision, routine hygienic neonatal circumcision, and circumcision later?

There's an ultra orthodox sect that sucks blood from the wound by mouth. That was essentially stopped when there was an outbreak of genital herpes in little boys.

As an infant (or parent) I'd choose a professional that does hundreds a year before a resident or even ob/gyn or pediatrician that does 'some.' I know there's a higher rate of complications as you get older.

For me the explanation was a phimosis, but I was very young (less than one year). I suppose that a pediatrician tried to retract my foreskin and could not do this. My brother was not circumcised, he could retract it also very young.

Never discussed it... I think it was routine where I grew up in the midwest at least - frankly I don't think I knew otherwise until there was one kid in school who was uncut and looked different than the rest of us at shower time in gym class. Similar predominance of cut guys of various ages at health clubs, etc. would suggest it was the norm before I came along in the 70s. Having spent a lot of time living and traveling elsewhere as an adult I've certainly seen more diversity in whether people have had it done as infants or not - some of cultural, but a lot of it not. And i know a couple of guys who had it done later in life for medical reasons (e.g., foreskin uncomfortably tight). I think all but neonatal procedures done in a clinical setting are done with anesthesia. I've been to a couple of bris ceremonies and I don't believe any anesthesia was used, though the babies were days old.

For me the explanation was a phimosis, but I was very young (less than one year). I suppose that a pediatrician tried to retract my foreskin and could not do this. My brother was not circumcised, he could retract it also very young.

Obviously a pediatrician who was unfamiliar with the development of the foreskin. The infant foreskin is attached to the glans and is not supposed to be retractable.

Pediatric chronic balanitis can be a real issue leading to scarring, phimosis, and adult sexual dysfunction.

Since this doesn't happen when males are circumcised at birth (assuming the procedure is done carefully), obviously certain ancient cultures who wouldn't have had access to antibiotics and advanced corrective surgery simply decided that in order to preserve reproductive male members of the tribe, preventative removal was the answer and it became cultural practice.

I was circumcised shortly after birth because at the time it was still cultural practice and medically viewed as preventative medicine.

My son was not but had to be at age 2.5 due to the very complications mentioned above.

I was cut age 6, I was told it looks nicer, and would be better for when I got older, and that all the boys at my new school were circumcised as it was best, this I was told afterwards, I was not told anything before I was done, there would be no point I was only a boy and it had been decided it would be done

I am circumcised and so are my sons ( big mistake ) I know know that we have been robbed of many benefits of having a foreskin I do believe that the practice of mutating a mans penis is wrong and should be stopped. There is world wide outrage aginest the circumcising of woman why is it different for men it also causes male difficulty with sex .

I should have said this in my previous post,

I’m glad I was circumcised, i’m Proud to be cut,

I have no problems sexually, quite the reverse,

indeed I think circumcision has many benefits and foreskin has negatives

If anyone thinks being circumcised leads to sexual problems then he needs to see a shrink or have a talk with Mr. penis.

If anyone thinks being circumcised leads to sexual problems then he needs to see a shrink or have a talk with Mr. penis.

There are hundreds of millions to billions of circumcised men in the world. If circumcision caused significant problems it would be very apparent.

Susie: There are circumcised men who complain about irritations and injuries in the scar area. On Zity, there are men who had been circumcised "tight" who explain they can't masturbate without lubrication (recall that historically "tight" circumcisions were advocated by physicians to curb masturbation).

Of course these are not major problems but it is a bit uncouth to dismiss all such claims as invalid, especially from a woman. Would you like to have your clitoris permanently exposed?

There are hundreds of millions to billions of circumcised men in the world. If circumcision caused significant problems it would be very apparent.

About 1 out of 3 men are circumcised. Out of a (far too large) world population of 7 billion, that give 3.5 billion men and therefore a tad over a billion circumcised.

The argument can also be advanced that if NOT being circumcised caused significant problems, THAT too would have been long apparent. And in this case, the numbers are quite the super majority.

And besides, out of the 1 billion and a tad circumcised, the vast majority were done solely because of religious reasons and no other. Certainly an unwise reason to do anything so permanent and drastic.

There appears, from discussions here and reading material elsewhere, that the actual outcomes of circumcision differ widely depending on technique used and other factors. Some males report only a bit of the foreskin removed, some report their skin is so tight that when erect it pulls the scrotum forward. The latter say they cannot masturbate without lubrication (reminder: some physicians pushing for circumcision in the late 19th/early 20th century advocated tight circumcision precisely because it made masturbation difficult and uncomfortable). Some, circumcised more loosely, report no such effect.

So it's very misleading to extrapolate to everybody from individual experiences without qualifying precisely what had been done and for what reasons.

(The same issues appears, in much graver terms, with "female circumcision". For some females this just involved the removal of a small bit of the clitoris hood, and these report no adverse effect. For others, sadly, much more has been removed. It's no use lumping all these cases together.)

As with others, my circumcision was due to an extremely tight foreskin. as uninating was difficult, the procedure was essential. now many years later, my penile sensations are still heightened. good.

Jewish here. So glad.