Circumcision poll

The United States and Israel are the only advanced countries where this form of infant mutilation is widely practiced.

Even in the US, more and more doctors have come to the position that this is an unnecessary, and even harmful practice whose disease-prevention efficacy is negligible at best.


Where do you stand on it? Would you do it to your child?






My kids were both born in Japan, where nobody is circumcised, so we did not. And I'm glad of it.

Keep that in mind.

That's why there is a spot for that.

Some religions also advocate female circumcision. Is THAT okay, too?

Besides, I'm talking about personal choices and opinions here, not promoting a ban on it.

In using words like "barbaric" and "mutilation". You ask whether or not female circumcision advocated by certain religions is "okay". Frankly it is their culture and their religion and practices, and they can do as they wish. In what capacity are any of us qualified in declaring cultural practices wrong or barbaric or evil. The idea that one culture's customs and practices are barbaric was and continues to be a keystone of imperialist thought.

If you had wanted to make an objective poll, you would not have referred to circumcision as "infant mutilation" and simply posed the question, "What are your thoughts on circumcision."

That is merely a choice in the poll. It is by definition mutilation, as is nipple piercing, or even ear piercing.

The issue is whether inflicting such mutilation on a child too young to understand is right or not.

And for the record, I don't think it's barbaric, but I wouldn't do it to my child unless he had an unusually tight skin or something.

Oh I so strongly disagree.

I don't care what the cultures says, castrating your infant daughter is wrong.

Is intimate contact between fathers and daughters OK too? That's acceptable in some cultures.

If something has been shown to be true by science (for example, female circumcision is not only extremely painful but dangerous as well) then telling people to stop because it is physcially dangerous is not heavy handed, it's a moral imperative to intervene.

What if someone's culture says to kill all people who are gay? Or handicapped? Should we let them go for it? NO. Is that Imperialist? No it's an intervention mandated by behaving ethically.

My culture says gay marraige is wrong, am I assuming I know better, culturally, than my countrymen, yes, is that imperialist? NO.


Edit: However, I think people can do whatever the hell they want, 20 minutes earlier they could've aborted the fetus, so who the hell am I to tell them how to raise the kid? (Besides that a ban would infringe on religious freedom).

....so boys won't have as much SINFUL sensation....another example of religion's psychosis in light of scientific advancement! :evilfrown:

I have just as much "sinful sensation" as anyone.

You've never had sex WITH a foreskin, right?

I'm clipped and sex feels fine to me.

:shrug:

male circumcision exposes more of the glans to contact with a partner.

I've never heard of a child having the head of the penis intentionally removed in circumcision.

us Jewish men last long and strong!

This makes me think of the Dave Chappelle skit with the 'wrap it up' box.

LOL!

but the visual from your I get statement is of a huge stone where it is written. THOU MUST SACRIFICE THY FORESKINS TO GOD.

no, offence intended, it just strikes me as funny.

It's sick and twisted, IMO. If I were to have a son I'd let him decide once he gets older if he wanted to have that done.

I know it's not quite as barbaric as Female Genital Mutilation, but I still wouldn't have that done to my child.

That's funny. I thought that when performed by a competent physician or mohel, circumcision is at worst circumcision was harmless tradition that causes no pain or discomfort, and at best is a beneficial procedure that provides minor health benefits. I didn't now that was sick and twisted. Guess I was wrong. </sarcasm>

I dunno... something about mutilating newborns for no good reason... just strikes me as sick and twisted. :shrug:

Mutilation implies the disfiguring or injury a limb or other important body part. Circumcision does not apply. And yes, their are good reasons to circumcise, both religious and medical.

Mutilation is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. ;)

Sorry, but IMO we're born just fine, and require no immediate modifications for any preventive or dogmatic reasons.

Just for kicks, here's the American Academy of Pediatrics' take on it.

http://www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm

After looking at almost 40 years of research on the benefits and risks of circumcision, the AAP concluded that we can not recommend a policy of routine newborn circumcision.

While circumcision is not essential to a child's well being at birth, it does have potential medical benefits. We do recommend that parents discuss the benefits and risks of circumcision with their pediatrician and then make an informed decision about what's in the best interest of their child.

Finally, if a decision for circumcision is made, it is essential that pain relief be provided for the infant during the procedure.

We agree that parents should make an informed decision after discussing the risks and benefits of circumcision with their pediatrician.

The research shows that circumcised males have fewer urinary tract infections. They also have a lesser chance of developing penile cancer, which is a rare problem.

The evidence is now clear that infants experience pain. And, according to numerous studies, there are several safe and effective methods to reduce the pain and stress associated with circumcision.

New research involving thousands of babies has shown pain control to be safe and effective in reducing the pain associated with circumcision. These include EMLA cream, dorsal penile nerve block, and a subcutaneous ring block. In one study comparing these three forms of analgesia, the ring block appeared to be the most effective.

Circumcision is generally a very safe procedure. Most complications associated with circumcision are minor.

The vast majority of uncircumcised boys do very well and it's unlikely that an uncircumcised infant will require circumcision later in life.

they use local anesthesia for male circumcision.

I sure as hell don't think I was mutilated. Everything works fine. I'm GLAD it was done when I didn't remember it.

How about the weeks of healing? I wonder how pleasant that is...

I don't even remember it.

and I'm still pissed at my parents for doing that to me. I lost a bunch of nerves that would've been nice to have!

I think it's barbaric and no kid should suffer through it...even if he won't remember the pain.

so i guess I'll do it to my kids too...

The real studs were mutilated at some point.

Uncut and quite the performer.

I'm pretty embarrassed that I know that, but I used to work in an adult bookstore.

:freak:

advanced countries where this form of infant mutilation is practiced.

- So, Australia ain't an "advanced" country?
I think it is. I was born there and I have no foreskin.
And I am pissed!

I will never experience the foreskin, as the creator intended.
:cry:

...it doesn't look so advanced! LOL

Seriously, I changed the wording to widely. I may be wrong, but I had read that the only advanced countries where the MAJORITY of baby boys are hacked are the US & Israel.

Israel has an excuse - religion. In our case, I think it's lagely based on puritan hatred of the body and sex.

"Well, in those "Croc Dundee" movies......it doesn't look so advanced!

:grr:

Actually, you are correct.
I'm a 60's baby, when it was widely practiced in Australia.
Nowadays though, that isn't the case.

But I always thought every male in the world was cut.
And when I was living in Britain, my Scottish friend Andrew came running up to me in an absolute fit.
He couldn't believe that a work colleague of ours, also an Australian had told him that he was circumcised.
Andrew could not believe that this guy was circumcised so imagine the look on his face when I told him I was as well.

He looked like he had just been circumcised.

Circumcision is "infant mutilation"?
:eyes:

tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1 To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2 To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter 1.
3 To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.


From dictionary.com

How do these definitions not apply?

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
this definition doesn't apply because circumcision doesn't deprive the body of a limb or "essential part." The foreskin is not essential, and indeed its removal provides benefits.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
Disfigure implies a negative change, so no.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
Male circumcision does "alter a part," but in doing so does not make it imperfect. Some would even say it makes it more perfect.

You could live and hear just fine if your outer ears were chopped off, but would you?

Also, many people DO consider circumcised penises to be disfigured. I wish mine were intact.

Again, you're being pretty presumptious to say that our hacking off what God put there naturally is making it "more perfect"

Parnents deciding to have parts of their children's bodies lopped off just doesn't seem right.

I don't like seeing babies with earrings either.

I'm somehow thwarting God's Will?????? That's FUCKING INSANE.

NOT a natural body part. Moles and the like do not have a function. The foreskin does.

but on moles...what function does a foreskin have? If anything, according to empirical data, it increases the chance of contracting illness...great purpose.

like the port wine mole things, or a cleft palate?

I'm sure some people find them attractive. I don't.

a foreskin is a little snippet of flesh. It certainly isn't essential, and circumcized men are not generally crippled, at least in my book. If we are, remind me to divorce my 7-month pregnant wife for infidelity. ;)

Circumcision is no different than any other cosmetic medical surgery. It DOES have certain health benefits. But mutilation???? Come on.

BTW, circumcision isn't just a Jewish thing, Muslims do it, too. So do many Christians.

and your fourth toe isn't essential.

eom

Ahhh...and where did I say it wasn't, John?

Give me a break, pal.

:eyes:

And I bet you never cut your hair or fingernails either.

Good thing you're not a girl or that virginity would be a big problem.

what the f*&! is that meant to mean?

:shrug:

I don't know about the guys you know, but I've certainly never heard of foreskin growing back!

And as for the hymen, trust me, if there's any pain involved it's completely overshadowed by other more intense pain!

Just most of them are not in America. Here we show cut guys in porn because that is what the audience expects.

When my wife and I told them to leave it on our son after he was born.

Kudos to you for sticking up for your son. :)

It is your decision, not theirs. They need to mind their own business. Reminds me of the grocery store check out clerk who wants to comment on the items you buy.

Geez, dont you have anything BETTER to get worked up about??? There have been circumcision threads here before. It's hardly barbaric enough to warrant all of the fervor.

It is the lounge, after all.

There are those who think it's barbaric. Personally, I just think it's misguided.

And you know what? I don't care. I don't know where these guys are that have lifelong trauma from something when they were a week old, but I sure don't. I dunno about these supposed 'nerve endings', but you know, I'm not having any problems with it, seems just fine to me.

I would most definately NOT have my sons circumcised. If he wants to do it when he is an adult, he can make that decision.

Even though it had been done to me. One can always make that decision as an adult, after all.

I believe in infant male circumcision for families that so choose through a competent physician or mohel for religious and medical reasons.

Most polls have an agenda. I think there is a choice for every viewpoint here, even if it's not worded as you'd like.

So you're a fan of the "sexy little mayor"?

based on my experiences with circumcised versus uncircusized males.

There was definately a huge difference in the flow of energy.
I surmised from this that this trauma (welcome to the world. . .whack) might be responsible for the rather huge spiritual/sexual schism which is endemic to our culture.

Just guessing here.

Then I met a Hassidic Jew and he dragged me to a Sephardic bris. He explained that on the eighth day of life a baby starts producing a different kind of endorphin (opiate) that enables the baby to deal with the procedure more confortably. At that bris, the moile was a total magician who put the baby in a trance through song and that baby didn't even cry. Then I went to another that was horrific. That moile hadn't a clue.

The problem with non spiritual circumcision right after birth is that it creates a rather huge restriction that is palpably obvious in intimate situations. It like all restrictions can be overcome if addressed sensitively.

Needless to say, my son is uncircumcised.

I really have NO idea what either of you are talking about. Would you please explain?

I'm a moron. :yourock:

...couldn't you just type that?

Are they moheler's? I don't mean to make fun, I'm asking for some ILLUMINATION into how this whole thing works. I don't know much about Jewish culture....please explain and enlighten me (and others reading this). Thanks in advance.

mohel's are specially trained jews (often they are also rabbis) that perform the brit (or bris depending on where you come from or what dialect you speak, standard hebrew is brit) which is a naming ceremony and circumcision.

Circumcision is supposed to bond the child to G-d, and to judaism.

According to Biblical account, Abraham circumcised HIMSELF at 99, at G-d's command (and then every man in his household). I'm happy to have had mine earlier.

I had never seen it written. "Mohel" is the Hebrew word for a person trained to do circumsizions. They are also often the ones who perform the slaughter of animals and observe food processing in accordance with Hebraic law so that everything is Kosher.

It doesn't reduce nerve endings but it removes the foreskin which has very loosely concentrated nerve endings (like an eyelid) but which has the function of protecting the head from friction, often from clothing which can sometimes over time desensitize the areas wherein nerve endings are intensely concentrated.

That could be why someone else posted the theory that those without foreskins had more endurance than those with them.

Foreskins may create heightened sensitivity resulting in lowered endurance.

MUCH lower infection rate. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/26/health/main609019.shtml>

Circumsized men are less likely to give cervical cancer to their mates, too. <http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992157>

Not to mention the rare penile cancer which is even rarer in circumcized men. <http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/treatment/penile/healthprofessional/>

But, hey, hug your turtleneck if you need to hide in it.

Which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics (or whatever that group's name is... can't recall just now) no longer endorses the procedure.

and their position was "whatever the parent wants". They stated that there were some health benefits, but that it was basically a very minor cosmetic procedure that can be done without pain, since they use a local anesthetic.

I wonder if there would be less vaginal infections if women had their labia removed. I know they're very common infections.

Would we all be jumping on that bandwagon as well?

what purpose does a foreskin serve again?

western Europe? Lower HIV rates and uncircumcised. Maybe everyone would be healthiest if we just cut the whole thing off altogether.

Interesting information here

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/links.htm

But my husband and I chose not to have our son circumcised. He can make that decision for himself when he gets older. He hasn't had any infections or other ill effects. I had some friends whose baby had a complicated circumcision and had to go through reconstructive surgeries. It was very difficult for them. Even in this day and age, it isn't without risk.

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:






Or by this guy:

and look, young boys can't even be expected to clean their room, how can they be expected to clean that!

enjoy it more

It certainly has never negatively affected my sex life.

I saw no data for cut guys lasting longer.

so there's less chance of premature ejaculation.

Soap, water, and hand wash repeatedly. Feels good, too. :eyes:
(I really never thought I'd have to point this out to anyone.)

I have two cousins who were not circimsized and caught an infection when they were teenagers. They had to get circumsize din their teens! Can you imagine the pain?

btw - this thread is pretty ignorant. All Muslims receive circumscisions also.

Just because the pain isn't remembered doesn't mean it's any less painful at the time.

Are you telling me you think having a chunk of your cock cut at 16 is no more painful than at 2 days/ Not to mention the head games.

http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-forum-1.php?fid=7523

Pain to an infant/newborn is worse, I would think, because the baby hasn't had that much experience with it.

By 16 most guys have endured a few racks and would be at least prepared for and aware of what was going on.

The poor baby has no idea why it hurts.

Our doctor told us it wasn't painful on newborns. In fact, after watching my son cry for 1 minute after getting his, I noticed no crying when he pissed after that. My cousins on the otherhand have told me how painful it was for a week.

If it wasn't painful for newborns they wouldn't use analgesics.

As for your child not appearing bothered, well... anecdotal evidence isn't worth just a whole lot. My nephew seemed to be in pain every time he had his diaper changed for weeks.

I thought not.

Yeah, your anecdotal info about a newborn crying is precious. If only they wouldn't.

No, I'm not. But notice that *I'm* not the one using painkillers during the procedure - the doctors are!

And yeah, that's what I was just telling you about anecdotal evidence. Yours is no more valid than mine.

I sort of think that if you can't remember something, it almost didn't happen.

I have no "psychic issues" with being circumsized (tho i won't deny having any with the organ itself, all men do).

than having their grapefruit-sized head squeezed therough an opening the size of a grape? Would you support mandatory c-sections to prevent infant pain?

I forget his name, but he weighed in on the last half-dozen 'circumcision is barbaric mutilation' threads here on DU, who was circumcised as an adult. He didn't experience any undue discomfort, and he much much prefers the way things work *after* circumcision, so that should prove that circumcision isn't necessarily a bunch of searing pain dooming someone to a life of lesser pleasure.

My own experience -- having no strong feelings about the procedure, I gave into my wife, who insisted it be done when our two sons were born. (The hospital *asked* us if we wanted it, BTW.) Oldest son didn't react at all, either during the procedure or during healing. Second son, enough pain to be annoying, but on a par with the pain caused by the healing navel with that pesky chunk of umbilical cord flopping around -- something that every baby has to put up with.

It's basically just a procedure. Essential, no. Sometimes done for religious reasons, sometimes customary, sometimes for silly reasons. Usually works out fine, very occasionally doesn't. Some benefits from doing it, some benefits to not doing it. Something to leave up to each parent to decide. And, calling it "mutilation" strikes me as annoying dogma, pure and simple. It's quite simply not at all comparable to 'female circumcision' which actually IS mutilation.

I'm hoping that someone will weigh in who had the procedure done as an adult. I have a cousin who had to have it done as a teenager because of an infection, and he was very glad of it.

I deferred to my husband when the decision came up. And I especially agree that all of this talk about mutilation is just what you say it is.

...it was good. Now THAT's a recommendation! :eyes:

:eyes: How rude.

I'm the last one who will say that anecdotal evidence means much when it comes to scientific research.

My whole point was this mutilation rhetoric is just hyperbole.

That some uncut men get infections? Many circumcised men also get infections. I had one in my early 20s.

And as far as I know, the Muslim countries are not considered advanced.

the fact that the author said America and Israel only.

Author obviously wasn't aware that more than a billion Muslim in the world also get it. And there are advanced Muslim countries. Turkey ring a bell? You think Kuwait is 3rd world???

http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-forum-1.php?fid=7523

It takes a bit more than flush toilets and cars to be an advanced country.

Hell, Kuwait barely qualifies as a nation. It is a sheikhdom ruled by a dictatorial family. Hardly a shining example to emulate. The nations where a starving kid could lose a hand for daring to steal a piece of bread are not advanced, IMO.

Why do you keep moving thje goalposts? you said something silly. No big deal.

And have you ever been to Turkey? I have. It's totally developed. Countries like Kuwait and Bahrain are much richer than we are in proportion to us.

And we're advanced compared to them? No country in the developed world has a bigger disparity between rich and poor and you consider us advanced? We don't even have universal healthcare and 95% (!!!!) of Americans are religious and 40% of them are evangelicals. You call that advanced?

Man!

http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-forum-1.php?fid=7523

And this country does have its backward aspects (like infant circumcision!), but I understand that the disparity between rich and poor on the Arabian peninsula is far greater than it is here. And like I said, it's not just development. Turkish prisons are famous round the world not for their cleanliness and humanitarian treatment.

Anyway, I will drop this one, simply because I don't want to be backed into a position of defending Israel as "more advanced" than the arab countries, because I've got serious doubts about that.

I suppose I'd best just concede that the people of ALL nations are freaking cavemen.

I do think that this practice should be discouraged unless it is for religious or pressing medical reasons, though. I'm not of the opinion that it is "barbaric" - just unnecessary and unfair to the child who gets no say in the matter.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Turkey is quite possibly the best example for democracy in the Middle East.

Where do you get that Turkey is "pretty backward?"

EU membership pending...

I think it and Israel are about on par...both a functioning democracies, but have minority "problems" in the Kurds and Palestinians.

not that I wouldn't be open to the option

The "helmet" part is the glans. The foreskin is a skin that normally covers the entire glans when the penis is flaccid. NOBODY is advocating removing the glans! (horrors!)

foreskin is a hood, the helmet is something much more.

:shrug: (The word 'helmet' doesn't apply.)

...I just 'figured' that if I had a son, he would be circumcised (like their dad, who didn't seem to have any complaints). We were living overseas for those years (not in the military, rather living the 'corporate life') and I had a lot of friends (from various continents) who were saying, 'you know, it's not really 'necessary/good - think about it'.

I am blessed with daughters, so I never had to make that decision. However, if I would've had a son, AT THAT TIME, I probably would've done it.

However, knowing what I know now, if I had a son now.....I would NEVER have him circumcised. It IS infant mutilation. As other posters have already said, "if they want to do so in adulthood, that's their choice" and I would have no problem with that.

I feel lucky how it all turned out (having daughters), b/c I would feel very very guilty now (knowing what I know now) if I would've had my sons circumcised shortly after birth.

Five years later with adhesions and pain. It wasn't worth it. I had the "look like daddy" thought going on. Now he has too much foreskin (forgive me James for talking about this online) and has a half circumsized look that isn't going to look like daddy's or anyone else in the rest room. :(

It was standard practice back then.

When my son was born in 1975, he was circumcized in the hospital when he was a few days old. I don't remember even being asked about it - I just dropped in to the hospital one night after work, and my then-wife told me that our son had been circumcized that afternoon.

that showed circumcized men have a lower rate of contracting HIV than uncircumcized men?

I'm circumcized, and I've never noticed any adverse effects. Any male children I have will be circumcized.

you don't have anything to 'refer' it to. You don't know what it's like being uncircumcized.

It's like someone who says 'they don't like to cook' - who's never ever tried to cook before (it's one of the seven art forms, btw) - how do they KNOW they don't like it if they've never done it?!? (or in your case, never had the opportunity to experience something different)?

That's what I always think when told of the infection or cancer reasons to do this.

Sorry, but I'd rather let a son who was old enough to decide for himself if he'd rather wash up after sex to reduce his chances of catching AIDS or just cut his foreskin off.

:crazy:

Change it to removing the labia. Females get lots and lots of vaginal or urinal tract infections -- if it were shown that we'd get less if the labia were removed, would you support that as well?

n/t

is to prevent infections or cancer of the penis.

Now they've come up with an AIDS tie in, since even the AAP had weighed in and said it was unnecessary and only provided some health benefits.

I was saying that if the ris of AIDS is the concern, then if I had a son I'd talk to him about sex and ask him which he'd rather do to prevent himself catching AIDS: wash himself after sex (if he was stupid enough to not use a condom) or cut his foreskin off, presumably encouraging him to have more unprotected sex?!

Jeez, the more I think about that the worse it sounds!

Okay, that's just ridiculous.

Look, not everyone sees the issue the same way that you do. Those who make the choice to circumcise are not mutilating their babies.

The study that says that uncircumcised males have a lower rate of contracting HIV...

It would imply that I consider unsafe sex okay... if I were to tell my hypothetical son that the options to reduce his chances of contracting the disease were to wash up or chop his foreskin off... the correct answer is use a condom!

But, okay.

they cause pain, and may convey some health benefits. I still have a scar from mine on my arm, about the size of a nickle.

Are you against vaccinations of minor children?

Just personal preference.

say how natural ones are ugly.

I grew up in Europe where NOBODY gets it done. I also played a lot of sports. You can imagine how pperplexed my teamates were. They would ask me if it was a result of jerking off too much :)

http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-forum-1.php?fid=7523

natural is AWESOME. There goes your anecdotal evidence.

;)

But then I think most things that are 'natural' as opposed to somehow touched up or altered are more attractive.

my chest.

On edit: That was a flippant comment...so I hope you don't take it the wrong way. Heehee

Kidding!

;)

Uncut cocks looks gross, and that's a straight guy's POV.

Hare-lips and cleft palates are "natural" (though rare) too, why no outcry about fixing them?

Yeah, I guess I *AM* comparing foreskins to a deformity. That's just me.

I have dated mostly men who were born in other countries in the last several years, so uncut actually seems more normal to me.

All I've had all my life are Midwest Divorcees, and NONE of them ever asked me to leave because Lil' Willie didn't belong to the Capuchin Order....

true story (if you care to listen)....I was babysitting my best friend's son (remember I said that we lived overseas and, frankly we had maids that would do the 'dirty work')....it must've been a Sunday (their day 'off').

The little guy needed a diaper change, which I did....and THAT was the first time I had ever seen an uncircumsized male...I thought (stupidly) to myself....what's 'wrong' with this boy? She (my best friend) never mentioned anything?!....There wasn't anything 'wrong' with him at all! I just didn't 'know enough' AT THAT TIME. Had grown too accustomed to what I was told was 'normal'...not 'natural'...NORMAL, BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!

In both cases, the baby/human/tissue/whatthefuckever hasn't the ability to say his mind.

So don't chop it off.

Let him grow up. When he's 18, THEN he can decide.

Of course, he'll likely say "No"...

:7
Actually, I have 3 boys- 2 circed, the youngest not. No real problems either way. I just read more about it and felt like my gut was telling me it wasn't necessary.

This is my post from the discussion of this topic in March.


(first let me say, that this argument is not directed at those who feel circumcision is a religious rite. I won't get into that discussion. This is only for people who do it for cosmetic reasons, or who *think* it prevents problems)


I worked in the urology department of a major teaching hospital for 10 years, and most doctors agree. Surveys of medical associations, pediatric associations, etc all say it is unnecessary. The US is the only country the routinely does it for other than religious reasons. within 20 years, the majority of boys here will be UNcircumcized, since more and more people are open to learning about it, rather than the old "I want him to look like daddy" argument.


There is NO GOOD REASON for routine circumcision. Only if the child is born with or develops a problem, should it be considered, and those times are very rare. In fact, complications from circumcision are more common than actual medical reasons to have them.


Uncirc'd men who practice good hygeine have no more problems than circ'd men being "prepared" for sex. Some women have a socially ingrained repulsion to it, or they have had a bad experience with someone and then assume the circ was the problem.


The fact of the matter is that circumcision removes MILLIONS of nerve cells and reduces the sensation for a man. "So what? He can still have an orgasm. I never heard a man complain." Well, why don't we remove half of women's clitorises? So what if we have less sensation? Shouldn't we be happy with whatever we get?" That argument INFURIATES me!


If I ever have a son, he will grow up to have every bit of sensation during sex that mother nature intended. Who am I to judge whether or not he'll ever miss it?


Message to future parents of sons out there: PLEASE just investigate it on your own. DON'T make your decision based on what you think is a societal norm, or being afraid he'll be teased in the locker room.


I have some good links I can provide, but I am at work (and no longer in medical research), so I can't really do the search I need to do to pull them up. I'll edit them in later if anyone is interested.



edited to add:

BTW, the reason that non-religious circumcision increased in frequency in the US was more due to the Puritanical origins of our country than anything else. Back in the day, doctors attributed many disorders to the ghastly act of masturbation. Circumcision was thought to reduce the urge to masturbate, and was recommended as a preventive measure to mental illness, blindness, etc.

I missed the previous circumcision threads, so appreciate having the chance to read your input.

Thanks! I'll be passing this on to my pregnant friends!

I'll make my last point, then bow out. It seems to me that the reasons for NOT circumcising are generally well-thought-out, and considerate of the infant as a future individual with the right to do as HE pleases with his own body.

The pro-circumcisers (religious reasons excepted - I respect that it is an important tenet of some faiths) seem to be defending this practice for purely emotional reasons, because they don't want to feel bad about having done it to their child, or because they want to believe that being cut themselves is "normal". A few HIV studies have been introduced, but the fact is that whether cut or not, a man is highly unlikely to get infected if he abstains or takes proper precautions.

I never expected there to be a big brouhaha over this. I just wanted to bring the issue to light, because I know that a lot of prospective parents have never considered NOT circumcising to be an option. Many people I've talked to about it are like"Oh, wow, I never really thought about that."

That being said, people are free to do as they want with their children. The burden of raising a child in a loving home MORE than makes up for any injury that might be associated with circumcision, so do as you will. I just hope everyone considers the points raised here before making the decision to do so.

Bye.

ON EDIT: Apologies to "redqueen". This was supposed to be a reply to the main topic, not redqueen's post. Nott sayingg I'm bored with ANYONE in particular, just the topic.

You obviously read the responses with the same bias that you used to write the poll. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily. We all have our biases. But, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't automatically make their position emotional. There were plenty of facts presented. You just didn't agree with them.

do not come from puritanical origins in the past. They did a lot of crazy things back then. Most people who choose to circumcise their babies now probably don't even know they did it back then. They certainly aren't making that decision based on archaic sexual mores. My doctor certainly is a little more educated and knowledgeable than the average doctor back in those days. If all doctors were in agreement that circumcision should not be done, then we would probably see a sharp drop.

It is a decision that parents should educate themselves about, no doubt.

Norms tend to remain the norms. In some countries, (inlcuding Canada, though I don't know if it is only regional or if it depends on the particular insurance company) insurance doesn't even pay for it anymore, because it is considered strictly cosmetic. Most of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim world does NOT circumcize anymore, so the majority of doctors actually DO agree, and there HAS been a major drop.

In the US, rates vary from the 30 percent range to the 80% range, depending on the region and cultural makeup, with the most culturally conservative areas having the highest rates. To me, that is an indication that the puritanical history theory has merit.

Norms do not always tend to remain norms, thank God. Otherwise, the vast social changes that have occurred just in the past 30 years wouldn't have been possible.

I do not think that doctors in America are any more influenced by puritanical mores than anywhere else. You can certainly argue that there are cultural reasons behind the differences.

eom

Dude...that's just too much. Wincing here...:scared:

"I'm circ'ed." The rest is left unsaid. They expect their little boys to look like dadday in as many ways possible.

I think I read that HIV transmission rates are lower in men that are circ'ed, but I"m not sure.

I dislike the practice, and don't think I could participate in it (as a nurse).

are forever scared for life. No wonder there are tons of penis pills on the market in the U.S.

Cialis, Viagra, and the like......


Lopped off the Man parts and then need pills....see, just don't chop your penis off, and you will be ok....sheeeesh

:eyes:

I'll have you know that I am circumsized and quite a man. Being circumsized is not having the whole thing removed...in fact, it makes the penis *appear* larger...of course, that's no problem if you're already large...

I'd never go outdoors without my jacket. I am very fond of it, and so are the girls.

My two sons were circumcised in the 70s. Because their dad was, and wanted them to be "like him." With more information available, if I were having them today <shudder>, I wouldn't circumsise them.

Leading to strange-looking scars at best and irreparable damage at worst.

Even if it weren't for everything else.

I, like almost every other male in the US was circumcised. Of course I don't remember the pain. I don't have any harsh feelings to my parents either. But when/if I father a boy, I don't think I'm going to have the procedure done on him. The threat of infection for the uncircumcised isn't a problem as long as they practice good hygiene. From what I understand, you just need to wash it regularly and after sex. That being said, theres no real reason to to do it.

The reason its done in America is more out of habit than anything else. People decide to do it to their children just because everyone else has it done too. Parents always worry about their children being teased, and nobody wants to be "different." When you think about it, that point is kinda odd too, because kids don't really go around "showing it off" ;-)

Fucking nasty.

Indonesia, Malaysia, etc... Just a minor point. :)

Unless it's a religious ritual, I don't see why it's necessary.