When they "know someone"

[sandals]

Whenever I am talking or debating the issue of circumcision, I cringe when the people I am talking to say they "know someone" who was circed later in life or "know someone" who had to be circed later and wished it had been done when they were a baby.

How is it possible that everyone knows someone like this?

I try really hard not to blurt out anything rash.

How do you continue the conversation when they "know someone who..."?

[bugmenot]

They don't know. We have to sort out the truth from the "truth" if you know what I mean.

[baybee]

I simply say that: " in a culture that likes amputating male genital tissue there will be many stories like your friend's. In European countries that keep baby boys intact, you don't hear those stories of later circumcisions either. Just like women, men can get genital conditions that need medical care. Surgery should be the last resort but, unfortunately, it's often the first recommendation. Maybe your friend/relative didn't really need surgery and didn't have a chance to try other, kinder remedies." Baybee

[AntoninBeGonin]

I haven't met anyone IRL who's used that line. To be honest, I wouldn't believe them if they did say it. If they're old enough to have a kid, the chance of them (in America) knowing someone intact is very slim. Regardless my response is the same, I would tell them any body part can fail, but no other part is removed prior to major problems and certainly not because some random Joe Blow had a problem.

~Nay

[Daisie125]

A guy DH works with "had" to be circed at 9 (and is more than happy to tell anyone who talks about it how horrid it was, and all babies should be circed at birth.)

*sigh*

[MommytoB]

I would say that person who you knew proably wasn't told of the alternatives of fixing the problem with his foreskin but most doctors who promote circumcision as a first fix because they were never taught the 'true alternatives' which newer doctors are.

Say if he had a better foreskin knowledgeable doctor he proably would have 'avoided the whole circumcision issue in the first place'.

[Bm31]

We all know US docs are cut-happy and try to fix anything penis-related first by circ'ing. But you can tell this to these types and it probably won't register because they hold the medical establisment in such awe.

I honestly don't hear this in my area; it is so high-circ that it's rare they have one that slipped by to circ later. However, what I do often hear are stories of children getting re-circ'd because they didn't do the first one "right." According to the Canadian Paediatric Society, the ratio is the same; 10 out of 1,000 intact males will "need" a later circ, and 10 out of 1,000 circ'd males will be re-circ'd. So, an infant circ is by no means a guarantee of avoiding a circ they "won't remember."

I think in these cases they often think of it as a minor "fixing" of something rather what it actually is, another circumcision. It's the same, if not worse, pain and exposure to complication as it is on an older child or adult that "needs" a first one. If this fact is pointed out to them, you might be surprised, and sickened, by some of the horror stories people will start to tell about circ complications and re-circs that are done.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by Daisie125

A guy DH works with "had" to be circed at 9 (and is more than happy to tell anyone who talks about it how horrid it was, and all babies should be circed at birth.)

This kind of statement always kills me. It was horrible for one child to be circed at age nine, so we should do the same thing to all children when they're just newborn infants. :

[TigerTail]

I have more sympathy for this mistaken viewpoint when it espoused by the person so tortured at whatever age. I can be quite the gentle advocate when I deem it appropriate.

I save the kid gloves for them; grown people who are arguing for the participance of other unconsenting, unwilling people get the raw goods. So to speak.

[DocsNemesis]

I have run into this myself. Not only the "I know someone" stuff, but my friends ex was circ'd at 15 and is on the "circ em all before they can remember because it hurt so bad" boat. I have done very light arguing with him, but he hasnt ever told me why he supposidly had to be circ'd (I'm guessing they said he had phimosis), which would help. I mean, we all know he probably didnt need to be circ'd to begin with....but I did try to argue the fact that he was under general, he was given pain meds, etc, and it STILL hurt like that. Why subject babies to that when 99% of them wouldnt need to be circ'd at all?? And they dont get any pain relief at all most of the time.
On the other hand, my friend who was circ'd at 8 (again, I dont know why) has decided that his boys will be left intact. I think his wife told him straight up that he probably didnt need to be circ'd and that his problems were as a result of the times-I would imagine his mother was told to retract and clean at every bath. Anyway, he remembers the pain too and while he isnt uber opposed to it, he doesnt want to put his son's through that.