Should women stay out of the circumcision debate?

There is a real debate as to whether or not infant male circumcision is acceptable. I know men who were circumcised as babies that resent what was done to them without their knowledge or consent. I know others who have no problem with it.

As a woman, I have always stayed out of these debates, figuring it was a guy's body, a guy's issue. But I wonder if women should remain silent on this issue. Any thoughts?

then yeah I feel entitled to chip in on this one.

Honestly, from a civil rights perspective, I have no idea what the protocol should be. But I can attest to the general ickiness of the uncircumcised variety...

Then again, that may very well just be social conditioning, so I have no idea...

But I truly appreciate men who openly and loudly support my right to choose.

Sorry! I couldn't resist that silly impulse. :silly:

I think a woman should prevent her infant son from being circumcised, so the son can make an autonomous decision later. That preventive step might land her right in the middle of the debate.

I asked my husband to make the circumcision decision, and I told him that I would support his choice regardless of what he decided.

But, maybe mothers should have some say

Sometimes, there is only one parent around. I had a baby and the dad chose not to participate. So that means I made all the decisions regarding my son, from the time I learned I was pregnant until he was nearly five.

So I'm scratching my head wondering how you can think that maybe women should have no say. Sometimes, you gotta step up and make a decision. I made it on behalf of my son, as I made all the other decisions affecting him.

I diagree that the decision should only be made by the father, or by males. If both parents are involved in a child's life, I think both should have input on health decisions, or if you prefer, medical choices.

I said I gave the decision-making to my husband.

He and I discussed the pros and cons, as well as social and cultural issues. We also discussed the very real concern of pain to our son.

After all this discussion, I asked my husband to bear the responsibility of making the decision, and I gave him my nondiscriminating support.

I was actually responding to the post just above mine, which said that "perhaps" women should have a say-so. I was merely pointing out that sometimes the only decision maker around is the mom. I have no problem with how you and your husband arrived at the decision.

and I know a lot of women who went between cut versus uncut when they remarried and had sons who wanted to look like the new daddy.

If daddy's around, it should be his decision.

Part of me wanted to "give" (as if I could) the decision to my husband because I felt it so unfair that I experienced so much "more" of the pregnancy and childbirth than he did.

Of course, he experienced the act of witnessing the entire process which is important, but I wanted him to have a sense of ownership of the experience (not ownership of our son, we never own our children).

Thanks for the validation.

what is this nonsense about it being a man's decision? The hospital didn't ask my husband, they asked me. And what's this about "looking like their fathers?" Silly.

My son is 23. When he was born they were advising against it. They gave me literature to read. 1.5 pages of why not to do it and a few reasons why you should do it. The reasons in favor of it were things like: so they can look like dad, or look like everyone else. NONE of them were good reasons. The reasons not to do it were health reasons.

The decision should be made on medical information and nothing else. Why in the world would you worry about being different?

I didn't say it was a man's decision. I said I asked my husband to make the decision, and that I would support it.

I have no worries about being different, trust me.

on a part of the body very few people ever see.

I didn't mean to sound shrill or dismissive but I wouldn't turn over a decision about cosmetic surgery of my infant to anyone. Not even my husband.

When I heard how they did it (they prefer the parents not be in the room, strap the baby down in four point restraints, arms and legs strapped to a board), and heard a child scream when it was done on him, and heard my son scream when they stuck him to draw blood....I didn't have the stomach for it.

My husband was with our son the entire time, the doctor (with 50 years of experience) used an anesthetic, the only "restraints" were my husband's and a nurse's gentle hands, and my husband tells me that our son didn't utter a peep throughout the procedure. This was not a traumatic experience for our son - not by any stretch of the imagination.

I know that there are bad circumcisions, and I know that infants have been treated like objects and denied anesthetic and other terrible, terrible things. This was not the case for us.

I don't have the stomach for barbarity either. I trusted that the procedure would be done gently and mindfully, and it was.

the only news that makes the news with people who already have a bias is bad news and horror stories. They ignore everything they don't want to hear.

It's fine - I believe they should be able to make that choice for their child. I just don't want them to legislate taking that choice away from my family because of the choice they think should be right for everybody.

It is so hard to keep busybodies out of our lives, even on DU. My goodness.

if you had a pamphlet like that it sounds like there was some bias.

And another thing, you're wrong about "nothing else". If you place a lot of meaning on it culturally then make your decision based on it culturally. Those are the same values that your child will hopefully have, so it makes no difference.

Sounds like you have an odd marital arrangement. Also the fact that the hospital staff who did not ask both you and your husband means that they had an intended outcome as well.

Do you think they give that literature to jewish women in the absence of their husbands? Makes you wonder.

No one has the right to mutilate someone else's genitals. This should not even be a decision for parents to make. Baby boys should be left intact and when they grow up if they do not like their foreskins they should be the ones that decide to have it removed.
You cannot undo the damage once it's done. Let the boys be given the choice. Don't take it away from them.
My boys are very glad I kept them from being cut up.

wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that conversation.

"should be" This is not a normative world, and a world of complex cultures and choices. Taking away choices to make things the way they "should be" is culturally insensitive. Unless you plan on outlawing circumcisions for the jewish population or the muslim population, and furthermore, enforcing it and punishing violators, then this whole discussion is beyond absurd.

explain what you plan to do about the jewish problem then. Or the muslim problem. I would bet that YOU are very glad you had the choice to make one way or the other.

Anyway, people have been "mutilating" their genitals since long before your ancestors were sacrificing christians in the woods of merry olde england, and civilization hasn't ended.

I've heard that uncut men have better sexual experiences. I think we should let men have control over their own peckers. :)

:sarcasm:

nt

Put this silly hearsay to rest.

It's all subjective. You would have to control for the same sex partner, the same level of sexual desire with that partner, the same psychosexual dynamic, the same sexual activities, length of foreplay, foreplay activity, etc., and the same degree of sensitivity in everyone, and that's just not possible. Premature ejaculation and conversely reduced sensitivity don't distinguish between helmets and anteaters - it's just a roll of the dice for about 1 in 4 men (based on recent real studies) and appears to be more psychological than physiological.

Everything we "hear" about other people is just anecdotal and any other study that makes such an absurd claim can't possibly be scientific.

Yeah, men should have control over their own, but most of the issues from phimosis to poor hygienic habits develop in children and are problems for life, so really families should have control over their own children, and psychologically healthy men should be a little less obsessed with their dicks.

Muslims do circumcision as part of the rite of passage into manhood, most of the rest of the circumsized world does it to the infant, and then a few guys with anteaters think everyone should have an anteater too. That's just weird.

Now they're obsessed with OTHER people's dicks. Tell me that ain't a little fruity.

on a rational level.

As an emotional deal, maybe. But when study after study comes out that shows that circumcision dramatcially decreases the risk of HIV infection, one would hope that the tendency would be to follow the science and give your child that measure of protection. Don't see why a woman should exclude herself from thinking about that.

I'll have to look up the info later, but there were specific issues with the studies that I read about. In general, even most medical societies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, do NOT recommend circumcision.

unfortunately, as I mentioned- there's a lot of emotion in the "debate," so running a pub med search won't yield many abstracts (academic publishing $$$ thing, I'm guessing).

I expect that the results will continue to pour in in that direction, though.

are myths, including the hygiene one, but HIV protection I hadn't heard about, Is there a study out there to look at?

Having a warm, wet, protected place where sweat, urine and semen collects is of course a hygiene concern.

Of course it can be reduced by frequent washing, but it's just common sense that having a warm, wet place like that is going to be a hygiene concern to some extent. The hygiene issue can be reduced very greatly, but it is always going to be there.

The glans is an internal organ, like your eyeball. Circumcision slices off what is essentially the protector of the glans. All that sweat, urine, semen, etc. is natural. I don't see anybody advocating the removal of eyelids because of the bacteria farm that they are.

90% of human males, and 100% of animal males get no more infections than circumcized human males. Species don't go extinct because of foreskins.

but most of us use toilet paper.

In fact washing one's hair and pits and brushing one's teeth is unnatural.

Life is organic, but we're not monkeys any more, you know.

to get a boy to play with his cock in the shower, huh?

afraid you'll have to connect the dot for me. To something.

Hey there are lots of places besides the shower, by the way.

Circumsicion will no doubt not lead to the extinction of the human race. It's just not that big of a deal.

Smelliness is also natural. Can't argue there either.

I went to college in Europe and lived with a family that limited me to two showers a week. I think they thought even that was extravagant. I can guarantee that smelliness is natural and is practiced in many places, or it was 25 years go when I went to college there anyway.

a condom is all that is necessary to properly protect both a circumcised and uncircumcised man. (of course, not having sex is the only foolproof way, but you know what I mean)

the studies were conducted using questionable control groups, mostly men who frequent prostitutes in Africa, where condom use is not common and HIV is rampant. The circ'd group was mostly made up of those in relationsips.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

Circumcision and HIV infection: review of
the literature and meta-analysis

Summary: Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection. Study designs have included geographical analysis, studies of high risk patients, partner studies and random population surveys. Most of the studies have been conducted in Africa. A meta-analysis was performed on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
"The United States HIV incidence rate is 3.5 times higher than that of the closest advanced industrialized nation. Storms 28 and Nicoll 32 noted that the high incidence of male circumcision in the US did nothing to prevent the spread of this infection. Nicoll, in fact, states that "the US is the industrialized country most burdened with HIV."32"

"Sociocultural confounding factors. Poland makes it clear that circumcision is not performed at random. Circumcision is a socio-cultural marker that may indicate wide differences in social and cultural practices among different groups and tribes. For example, circumcision incidence in the U.S. is lower among poor and Hispanic people.6 Circumcision (and, conversely, intactness) are socioeconomic indicators that may relate to differences in sexual behavior, hygienic behavior, and access to medical care. Failure to control for these confounding factors is a frequent source of error in such studies.

Circumcision changes sexual behavior. Circumcised men have a greater tendency to engage in riskier, "more highly elaborated" sexual practices.31 Such behavior includes unsafe sex (less frequent use of condoms, which deaden sensation even more for circumcised men; anal sex, or sex with multiple partners). This may contribute to the high rate of HIV infection in the United States, where circumcision rates are still of epidemic proportions."

Sometimes, you can do that statistically, although the gold standard is a randomized trial where you follow the cohorts and document the results between the groups.

as extremely suspect (in other words, total, complete nonsense):

"Circumcision changes sexual behavior. Circumcised men have a greater tendency to engage in riskier, "more highly elaborated" sexual practices."???

Intact penises move within the foreskin, simple movement. Circumcized ones rub up against the vaginal walls, or uses friction to gain sexual release. This is what must be done for sexual gratification when 70,000 nerves God gave you are severed off by a Doctor looking to fatten his wallet. $600 a procedure...and insurance pays it.

One of those health insurance cost cutting things.

for OR against circumcision - just the ridiculous statement in that article that circumcision makes men engage in more dangerous sexual practices. Does it make them engage in more anal sex, go to more prostitutes, change sexual orientation, or increase the number of their sexual partners? Don't think so.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that male circumcision may provide protection against HIV-1 infection. A randomized, controlled intervention trial was conducted in a general population of South Africa to test this hypothesis.

CONCLUSION: Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa. (Preliminary and partial results were presented at the International AIDS Society 2005 Conference, on 26 July 2005, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16231970&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

can facilitate infection with many things including HIV. Foreskins are highly vascularized, and microscopic abrasian can result from the simple mechanics of sex in some cases.

As I understand it, HIV 1 is more highly infectious through mucous membranes than other variants, which also means women in developing countries can be more easily infected through sex and fewer exposures.

Anyway, it's always funny how everyone wants to justify who they are themselves by trying to force everyone else to be like them. The anti-circ crowd is just shrieky and statistically absurd considering that the great grand majority of men don't give a damn one way or another about their own weeners, much less someone else's.

"The anti-circ crowd is just shrieky and statistically absurd considering that the great grand majority of men don't give a damn one way or another about their own weeners, much less someone else's."

That pretty much states it. To call circumcision "genital mutilation" is highly excessive, IMO. Give me a break...

I did not have my son circumcised because at the time, I could see no reason to do so. If I had known about the HIV studies, I might have made a different decision.

Course he can always have it done himself when the time comes. And really, he shouldn't be having unprotected and/or promiscuous sex, regardless.

that's only been really well documented and replicated in the last year or two.

I think a lot of people get caught up (for lack of better words) in a "psychology of prior investment" or a "buyers remorse" type thing.

And they shouldn't.

Parents for the most part try to do right by their kids with the information that they have. For example, when I was growing up, it was still thought (in parts of the South, at least) that kids should be right handed. So I got "trained" to be right handed, even though I'm a natural lefty. Some things that I learned on my own like archery- I do left handed- and I can't hit the broad side of a barn any other way. Others, like penmanship or throwing a baseball I do with my right. Oh well...;)

and I have found that there is always new info coming along that contradicts what I thought before, and my kids are still little! By the time they are grown, I will be able to write a book about my well-meaning parenting mistakes. :sigh:

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

And welcome to DU!!! :hi:

I have no hangups one way or the other about circumcision. I only stated that if I had known about the HIV studies, I might, the operative word being might, have made a different decision. I have not done any serious research on the HIV studies because, having opted not to circumcise my son at birth, I don't think it would be a good idea to do it now, at four years old. If he wants it, he will have to make that decision himself when he is older.

As far as condoms, yes, I will teach my son to wear them, or better yet, forgo sex until he is ready for a committed relationship. But you know, kids make their own decisions and some of them are bad. As a parent, I will try to protect my child from needless suffering anyway I can. My daughter will receive the new injection they have that protects against the papilloma virus that causes cervical cancer, even though I prefer that she not have sex until she is in a committed, long term relationship. Because, again, kids sometimes make bad decisions. God knows my judgment was execrable at that age.

It's called science and public health.

When I was a bit younger, reason trumped emotional responses and loaded language.

It would be nice if it got that way again sometime....

(hint: that means- you have to take the time read the most up to date material for yourself and make an informed decision).

...by the AMA, which was contradicted by another same study by the American Pediatrics Association, which drew the opposite conclusions.

Even so, you hyperbolic vebiage is spreading disinformation. The AMA study said there is a "slight decrease" in infection rates, not enough to warrant a national policy of circumcision. Your useage of the word "dramatically" is nothing more than propaganda.

It's not that hard.

Keywords go in here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

on male circumcision...I think that should be up to the boy/man in question to decide. I've had men cut and un-cut and it frankly didn't make me a bit of difference. I'm just not sure how I feel about it being done to children too young to make an informed choice.

on edit: I really don't see how you can compare the two - circumcision and abortion. But whatever. Have fun.

The equivalent for males to FGM is having the penis chopped off and the balls left behind.

Think about it before you post nonsense equating male circumcision with the drastic mutilation performed on girls and misnamed "female circumcision."

my reply came from the fact that the OP didn't include whether they were talking about female or male circumcision in their headline. That would be why I said we should scream and holler about female "circumcision"...which you should have noticed I put in quotes. Sheesh.

when the clitoral hood is removed.

the foreskin and hood are very similar in nerve makeup.

both are barbaric and digusting in my book.

when a girl/woman goes through this, she is permanently injured to the point of being in constant pain and never being able to enjoy sexual activities.

Male circumcision may be a weird practice, but I haven't seen or heard any evidence that it has any negative effects on men's quality of life--I have, however, heard that it has positive effects...

(I know you weren't comparing them, but I figure someone will at some point...)

i wasnt going to decide this one. whatever he wanted to do. so, in my view, should a female stay out of circumcision debate,

yup

You made the decision that your husband was best qualified to make the decision and told him so!

:headbang:
rocknation

...especially if you are the mother of a son.

As a mother, you are entrusted with making 'good decisions' for your children when they are too young to be able to be able to make good decisions for themselves.

I'm glad that I never had sons, b/c 'back then' I probably wouldv'e chosen for my son to be circumsized....knowing what I know now, I would never let that happen - and I've explained these beliefs to my daughters should THEY some day have sons (however, it's still up to them to choose for their own families some day, and I will respect the decision they make).

We researched and found studies going either in support or against it for a variety of reasons. This was almost eight years ago when we found out a boy was coming.

After a lot of discussion, we decided to go ahead with it. Haven't regretted it.

It's a decision parent/parents should make and no one should feel pressured either way, IMO.

'say' in the matter. And you and your husband might not have any 'regrets' (and neither does your 8 y/o son at this point, b/c being circumsized is "all he knows" and he's a child still) b/c it doesn't really affect you.

Like I said, I wouldv'e done the same thing ~ but now that "I know more", I don't think it's the best thing to do.

Peace,

M_Y_H

When it's far more difficult and dangerous is better?

Sorry, that just doesn't fly at all. Parents make decisions in regards to their children all the time. They do what they feel is best even if others don't agree.

My kids don't go to church. It's a personal decision we made because we don't believe it would be good for our children. It drives my RW mother crazy and she's constantly trying to find ways to get us to relent. It ain't going to happen.

have a say in the matter and the parents do. Think about it.

no one would choose this for themselves...so it must be 'forced upon you' when you don't have a say.

What did you mean?

operation is a far more serious one.

Babies have their decisions made for them because they lack the ability to make decisions, period.

Do you also feel potty training was forced on you? Formula? Nappies?

Sheesh.

potty training is not in the same realm as an unnecessary operation.

You're too smart, Warpy, to offer up such a weak (strawman) argument. I'm surprised!

Btw, Formula? I prefer breastmilk, thank you.

she went straight to bottle.

It's all about parental choices we make. Some may not agree with them and that's okay. Discussions like this are useful, but parents who make ones others don't like shouldn't be made to feel like shit either.

In the end, the government has no right to interfere in the personal choices of their citizens.

because the kid wouldn't decide to do that on his own, either, if he had the capacity to decide, which he doesn't.

My statement farther down that men who resent being circumcised as infants are covering for other issues--big ones--stands.

So, why is it being done to them? It's not necessary. It's probably not even 'good'.

wish it was the way it was originally....but it's too late to change that, isn't it? one is reversible, one isn't. the choice NOT to circ seems pretty clear.

that said...all four of my sons were cut, because their FATHER insisted upon it. this was 16-29 years ago. my choice would be different now.

When it came down to it, in the hospital, we both sort of had an epiphany that, if the decision was making us so miserable, maybe there was a good reason we didn't want our kid cut.

And we haven't regretted it since, either.

But I agree, individual parents need to make the call- I don't know how else you could handle it, because the practice is not going away any time soon. (Both my family and my wife's family are Jewish).. We have enough unenforceable laws on the books as it is. I happen to think we made the right decision, but everyone has to follow their own path, and your mileage may vary.

Not all decisions are going to be the same when it comes to kids...we just cross our fingers and hope for the best.

If our son comes to us and is pissed we circ'd him, we'll deal with it.

Just imagine what would happen if the govt. decided all infant boys should be circ'd. For some reason, that wouldn't surprise me.

but for example, I read that in Canada (not sure if it was certain provinces, or country-wide) insurance won't cover it because it is considered a cosmetic procedure.

decisions" for his children too......

....hubby's often just want their 'boys' to just 'be like them'.....that is often the extent to which many (not ALL) men think about this issue. How many men really question their own circumcision??? Really?

They're circumsized, it's 'worked' for them...that's all they know.

Most of the ones I met really didn't care. They don't remember. Why would they even think about it?

This just confuses me.

(there's not a lot of them out there ~ but there are some).

There's also a whole world of men who AREN'T circumsized (and GLAD that they aren't)....but if you live in the US they are more difficult to find b/c here in the US we just cut 'em regularly.

then he's not insightful or thoughtful?????????

They're shallow or something?

That's a hell of a big paintbrush you're carrying there.

he isnt insightful. pretty offensive

their thoughts on any particular issue. If they can't explain themselves logically/reasonably ~ and there's plenty of room for anecdotal evidence to be added to the dicussion ~ I don't think they understand the issue themselves, and they're just spouting off 'talking points' that they've learned through the years, w/o any genuine thought/insight behind it.

Just curious as to whether anyone can meet your idea of genuine thought/insight.

he isnt insightful. all the rest is filler. you really dont give a shit about any logical or reasonable discussion. you require no discussion what so ever. you firmly have your beliefs. at least be honest enough to own it.

not once lost sleep over Mr.Happy wearing a turtleneck.

If you lay awake at night scheming to make sure every purple helmeted love worm has a set of peekaboo drapes, then you're probably not as grounded and sane as you think.

;)

Me. I questioned it, and you chose to ignore me. Nice liar.:eyes:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html

http://www.tlctugger.com/

google: foreskin restoration

we dont take our parental responsibility lightly.

his feelings should be taken in consideration when it comes to his son. This is a parents' decision. No one else.

and it shouldn't be taken lightly (just done b/c that's what happened to the dad, or that's what the hospital says is 'procedure').

After careful consideration, the decision (whatever it is) should be respected.

You say "This is a parents' decision. No one else." You see, I think it does involve one other person. And that person, and only that person, should get to decide as an adult if they want to elect to have part of their sexual organ removed.

Moms have an equal stake.

I think there are sound health reasons to cut, and the cultural imperative and expectations of females suggest cutting is a good way to go.

I know guys who are livid they were cut as babies, however. Of course, I don't agree with them, but there you are.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

I don't think it's a place for the law to go; there are plenty of reasons why I think individual parents need to make that call themselves, one way or the other. But I was circumcised, I always assumed any son of mine would be too-- but when our son was born, my wife (who is Jewish) and I couldn't bring ourselves to have him cut unless it was absolutely necessary.

IMHO, circumcision is not necessary. Nature doesn't generally stick body parts on people willy-nilly ('scuse the pun) without at least some decent reason. (And yes, I know that men have nipples) That said, however, I think individual parents have to cross that bridge when they come to it. But my experience is that the reality of considering doing it with your kid in front of you is VERY different than thinking about it in the abstract.

is that they're not prepared to weigh in on the accumulating evidence. Yet. Lots of reasons for that- and given that it's an American institution- some of them are economic. Bottom line is that professional organizations are conservative (in terms of accepting "new" or "controversial" doctrines).

benefit in terms of lower UTI rates, for instance- but those are NOT sufficient to warrant recommending surgery. The consensus is, that if people want to do it for aesthetic or religious reasons, that's their choice- but there is not enough MEDICAL cause to recommend that people do it.

And if anything, things are moving away from circumcision. The 'new' 'controversial' thing to do is to NOT circumcise. When I was born, everyone was, pretty much. I'm not even sure how much of a choice my mom had in the matter. They just did it.

a 70% protective effect against HIV infection isn't just "some" benefit. It's a huge benefit- nearly equivalent to vaccine efficacy. If the protective effect continues to hold up (it's been replicated several times) at even 1/2 or 1/3 that rate- that's a pretty damn compelling MEDICAL CAUSE to consider.

And as a responsible person- I'd sure as hell consider the studies on their merit, if I were expecting a newborn son- rather than wait for the Academy to fool around for several years with their internal politics.

community.

Listen to it, don't listen to it- but there is not sufficient MEDICAL evidence to justify circumcision. The AIDS studies you mention (IF the effect shown in certain studies holds up- a big "IF") have not been shown to be definitive. If anything, they show a correlative effect- which is not the same thing as causation.

But, whatever. There's nothing you could throw at me that would EVER cause me to regret my decision not to have my son circumcised. I held him in my arms immediately after he was born and watched him howl when they pricked his feet to get glucose levels. At that moment, I said to myself, "there's no way I'm letting them cut him unless there's a damn good MEDICAL reason." Our doctor- a very smart, up to date guy who was more than willing to do the procedure- echoed the AAP and said no, there is no overwhelming medical reason to do it.

And we heard all the arguments from all sides- one thing you notice when you have kids is, everyone's got an agenda- but, if and when you get to that point, you and your SO will have to make that call for yourselves.

Peace.

I think it's justified simply for cultural reasons, whether there are health benefits or not, but it's a personal choice.

Nature may have a reason for everything, but that reason may be we were running around naked with our business hanging out, something we don't so any more.

to physically distinguish ourselves from other animals that is behind it. Who knows. Probably in the desert several thousand years ago, there were more solid health reasons for it as well.

In terms of cultural reasons, like I said, my wife is a practicing Jew, Half of my family is Jewish- so we're all over the cultural reasons. But if you mean what the 'majority' of boys look like out there, at least here on the West Coast it's now something like 50-50. So the argument that an uncircumcised kid is going to look vastly different than all his peers doesn't necessarily hold water. Besides, I've got a good friend who isn't, and we were all born when something like 95% of boys were circumcised-- and he did fine when we were in college.

That said, I'm perfectly comfortable with the way my business is arranged, I've never felt 'robbed' of anything vis a vis a foreskin. But when it came to my own son, I just couldn't bring myself to let them do it.

Early homo-sapiens running around the bush naked had good reason to not be circumsized.

Funny how men don't tend to get their nipples chopped off. I hope that doesn't become fashionable while I'm alive, as I would find it aesthetically very distasteful.

Not in regards to infant circ.

over my dead body will anyone cut off a part of my child's body. period.

and no, I wouldn't allow ears piercing either.

maybe I am wrong

sorry that was probably over the top - opinions and knowledge are welcome, excuse my sharp tongue ;)

Personally I think it's the parents' issue, nobody else should have any input into that decision outside of the family, male or female. The male "sensitivity" argument assumes that all men are equally sensitive to begin with. Personally I think it's a grass is greener mentality though; and the idea that some people want to remove choice from everyone else because of the choices they made for themselves.

From my perspective and experience the men who "resent what was done to them" speak only for themselves and are relatively few. The difference is they want to remove that choice from parents . . . sounds like?

The rest of us are pretty much okay with the little feller and the grass on this side of the fence and wouldn't change a thing (either way), but we have that choice with our own children, and in some cases as an adult with our own bodies should one choose adult circumcision.

not over the top at all.

It's mostly men who are making decisions about women's bodies. This argument can be taken in a number of directions, but here is where it all boil's down to:

The government has no right to interfere in personal decisions of individuals and/or families. Period.

would be the one to decide if to circumcise her male infant. Certainly, this can be a decision between the Mom and the Dad, but in the event the Dad is NOT in the picture, which is sadly all too often the case, a single mother would need to be the one to decide on her own if the procedure is going to be done. I guess she'd HAVE to have a say, since an infant cannot decide this.

I felt I lacked the "tools" to make a "truly" informed decision.

when our son was born. My husband is circumcised. My ex was not circumcised and then later in life got an infection and had to have it done as an adult (with an infection) and was in EXTREME pain. So we decided to go ahead and have our son circumcised.

long before going into the hospital.

In the end my wife said it was up to me.

Looking back it was some pretty funny conversations. My wife talked about how she and her friends didn't like having oral sex with guys who weren't circumsized and I thought of embarrassed guys in the locker room.

Funny talking about your son getting head before he's even born. Odd conversations to remember.

and the best time to do it is when they won't ever remember it....

there's a debate?

(kidding!)

have to say here is an issue where i honestly can't find it in myself to give a flying eff, the guys will just have to fight amongst themselves

has done a bunk, then of course they will weigh in on it. They'll either approve or deny it, and it's a matter of culture and personal taste.

In the case of married spouses, then I think the daddy who will raise the kid and who the kid will want to look like has the bigger say.

Men who resent being circumcised as infants are using it to cover up other issues. Big ones.

"Men who resent being circumcised as infants are using it to cover up other issues. Big ones."

perhaps they just wish their parents had allowed them to make such an impactful decision?

or on an adult. A simple procedure with a quick recovery when performed on an infant becomes riskier with every month that passes with an equivalent increase in recovery period.

It's one thing the parents have to decide pretty quickly. Sorry to bust ya bubble.

If it is going to be done, it should be soon after birth. The longer the wait, the harder it is.

We knew a boy was coming so we had time to discuss and decide.

over my dead body. no bubble burst here.

it's a worthless procedure, completely unecessary as a routing procedure and horrifically painful for infants.

I challenge you to attend one.

not ONE medical body recommends infant circ as a routing procudure outside of medical necessity in the rarest of situations.

i am done. I will not debate this flame bait. my mind is made up.

funny here we are talking about other people's dicks. Who would have thought we'd run out of things to talk about.

I'm pro circumcision, and if mine grew back I'd lop the fucker off again. Don't want no curtains and drapes and valances and sheers over my glory.

No medical opinions required, but everyone should have their own minds on the topic, about their own weeners.

If I were the legally marryin' kind I suppose I'd have to consider my wife's input into the family decision, but jews and muslims and many other cultures around the world have done this since time immemorial, so I certainly wouldn't advocate taking the choice away from parents because a few guys with anteaters are all freaky about their weeners.

And yes I'm baiting you fleabert :hide: only because this is such a weird topic to be on "fire" in the first place. Silliness.

:rofl:

that is horrifically painful. if you are going to knowingly flamebait me, I would hope that you would read the full article below before responding. Written by a male doctor in the US.

http://www.nocirc.org/articles/fleiss1.php

snip

Circumcision is almost unheard of in Europe, South America, and non-Muslim Asia. In fact, only 10 to 15 percent of men throughout the world are circumcised, the vast majority of whom are Muslim. The neonatal circumcision rate in the western US has now fallen to 34.2 percent. This relatively diminished rate may surprise American men born during the era when nearly 90 percent of baby boys were circumcised automatically, with or without their parents' consent.

snip

Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.31 The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

edited for clarity...and to add the second snip (no pun intended)

I'm sorry you are quoting nocirc.org.

I think you're taking this subject too seriously and yourself too seriously, but that's my opinion.

Ask one hundred circumsized men how painful their circumcision was (not a forum on nocirc.com). Heck, ask a thousand, or a million. Go ahead, and get back to me with some real facts about how "painful" circumcision is.

I'm not flaming you, I'm challenging you to be a more critical thinker and to broaden your sources.

Here's another one; 80 percent or more of penile skin??????? Lets do some math here. Removing skin makes the penis shorter? What????? I am just rolling on my keyboard now. I'm sorry to mock you, gently, fleabert, but this is pure crap. If you estimate the number of capillaries in a juicy hangnail you will get to fifty feet.

If I were going to play devils advocate and coach a better argument than disinformation, it would be to challenge the historical rationale (to the beginning of written history) for circumcision, with respect to those cultures and choices. It's kind of a weird fascism to have somebody tell me how painful my circumcision was, how my dick 25% shorter than it would have otherwise been (and that's probably a good thing), and that I've lost a brazillian nerve endings, nerves, veins, arteries and capillaries!

Oddly it turns out I wouldn't change a thing, except that if it grew back I'd lop it off again. I wouldn't even remotely consider telling you what I thought was "medically necessary" or not as a criteria for you to be able to make that choice about your family.

People who are doing that here are completely being culturally insensitive and out of touch with reality and history and I would say, progressive values. Don't play the "medically necessary" game, unless you've gotten tired of playing that card in the abortion debate. Oh wait a second, that's the other side's tactic. I know you're not, but my point is not flaming, it is to inspire a broader body of thinking.

we will have to agreeably disagree on this.

As a doula, I have encountered this debate more times than I care to recount. I have done the research, from more sources than just nocirc (although I find them quite reliable, since it was founded by a dr. and is made up of men and women alike). I went into my initial research with this perspective:

I had only seen circ'd in person, and only had physical experience with same (obviously), and had no clue about the appearance or performance of uncirc'd. I approached the subject much the way some here do, that I would leave it up to my male partner to make that decision since I did not have the part in question.

After a client asked me for resources to make the decision for their yet to be born kiddo- I was convinced otherwise. I am now 100% on the side of anti-circ. I think it should be up to the individual who owns the body part, not anyone else. I think it is barbaric, having seen it done to an infant. You may not remember, but if your parents had watched, they would. It's one of the saddest things I have ever seen. I feel the same way about male circumcision as I do female. They are not fully equitable physically, but my feelings are, and I feel the action is equitable.

When I presented both sides of the arguement to my client (I did not provide my new opinion to them, that wasn't my job, it was to provide unbiased information- which I did) they came to the same conclusion that i did.

I am passionate about this, let me say it again: I think it is barbaric. Plain and simple.

Ask how 100 circ'd men feel about it and you may or may not get the response you have- it depends on whether or not they have had the opportunity to evaluate the subject without their penis getting in the way- no pun intended!

A circ'd man deciding that he is angry or disappointed about their foreskin being removed without their consent usually has a huge impact on his psyche- it means him saying that his current penile status is imperfect- a rather difficult thing for any man to believe. There are a lot more than physical issues there- I understand that it would be a big deal. Being angry about something you feel you can't change, about something that is tied to 'maleness' and sexual performance and/or happiness, and possibly being angry with your parents for something they did 20-30-40- or 50 years ago is a very big deal. But men do get upset about it. Psychologially it's a big deal to confront those feelings, and I think fear of confronting those feelings has a lot to do with most men not wanting to do so. Especially if their sex life is fulfilling, which it usually is.

Why are there surgeries and implements available to regrow foreskin if no men wanted it back?

Your attempts to confront my take on this will be fruitless, as mine are also, we appear to be set in our opinions. I'm okay with that. I just hope that you understand that my tone, approach, and passion regarding this matter are not unwarrented or just emotional- it's a professional issue for me as well. I know several doulas that will not take on clients who choose to circumcise, I am not one, but I am an advocate for keeping male infants intact until they can make that decison for themselves. It's his penis. and if a client asks my opinion, I will give it to them.

The background and history of circumcision is rooted in religion, masturbation, purtianism, control, and many other factors- and none of it matters to me today- it's a barbaric practice and I condemn it as a routine procedure on infants. Period.

I won't have to worry about it happening- I will have my baby at home so there won't be a chance it would happen without my consent, which would never be obtained anyway. If my kid wants to have it done after he finishes puberty- fine. I would support him in any way I could.

Politically- I absoulutely do not support public funds paying for routine circumcision, nor do I think insurance should pay for it. Same as for female babies. Millions of dollars that could go to prenatal care, indigent health care, preventative care, child welfare, etc... goes to lopping off a perfectly good piece of skin, mostly for how it looks (or will look).

The rate of circ in the 70's-80's was around 90-95%, it now sits at anywhere from 30-50% depending on where you live- more and more people agree that is unnecessary.

Let's just put this to bed- we like each other and I have no desire to have it divide us. I am sure there is some subject out there that you feel passionate about that I think is silly- let's leave it at that and move on- okay?

How do you miss something you never knew you had? There is another issue there, and its not the foreskin.

of the parent has to do with anything, except the male might have some personal thoughts on his experience that can be shared, but the female might have some judgment on, er, aesthetic issues. Any questions, ask a doctor, of any sex. Sheesh.

and I have found that more men care about the 'aesthetic'...well at least within our family. My uncle wanted both his sons circ'd because he was circ'd. Same with my grandparents and their sons. That was their reason for having it done. My mother-in-law told me that hubby's dad said he didn't want the boys to feel 'different' because he was circ'd. It kinda made sense, but we decided that wasn't a good enough reason to go with a circ for our son.

I don't know if it's localized or a time matter, but in my age group we were all circumcised, except one, that I remember, in all the locker rooms I was ever in. I just assumed it was regular, and at any rate, not controversial, until the last few years. I don't think I have ever heard a regret for being circumcised, besides hereing of botched operations or infections, except on DU.

"but the female might have some judgment on, er, aesthetic issues"

So YOU don't like an uncut penis therefore ALL men should be circumcised because after all, some woman somewhere someday might go "ewwww" and we would hate that! I've got an idea...some men don't like women with small breasts hmmmm I think it would be "more aesthetic" if all women were at least a C cup or larger. Well damn, let's force all women to have breast augmentations because someone else thinks it is more attractive. After all "it's a cultural norm, and everybody else has 'em."

As a circumcised at birth, gay male, I find it completely offensive that anyone thinks they have the right to make a unnecessary medical decision for someone else based on something as shallow as what YOU think looks nice.

I had a friend who actually used to dump a guy if she found out he was uncut. Then she fell in love with a guy who was uncut and found out how silly she'd been all these years!

show up at a later age. The constant exposure of the most sensitive area reduces its sensitivity. This leads to partner complaints like, "You don't find me exciting any more, do you?" or "There's someone else, isn't there?"

In an age where we have frequent bathing and wear underwear, I don't think circumcision is a good idea.

Do you have any evidence on that???

Seems to run contrary to my experience...

There is no bigger turnoff in the world than that smell from under a foreskin.

When I've left a guy it's been because of what's been happening OUTSIDE the sack, not in it.

The love cheese.

My ex-h was circumcized, and he had way more smell than the uncut men I have been with.

by frequent washing of course, but it's still going to be there.

It just makes sense that a guy with an extra warm, moist dark, covered place where urine, sweat and semen mixes is going to have more hygiene problems than a guy who doesn't have that place to begin with.

Of course the cleanest uncircumsized guy in the world is going to have less smegma than the dirtiest circumsizede guy, but all other things being equal ...

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

There's a dermitological procedure/exercise called "tugging" that will grow new foreskin. Once I grew enough to be partly covered, extra skin started shedding off, the grey look became pink, and all those nerves (quite a few) started turning themselves on again.

For someone who claims to think logically, and only wants to talk about "science and facts", you are spreading a lot of questionable propaganda.

Want some facts? Research what active ingredient goes into anti-aging creams (hint: infant foreskins), that hospitals charge not only the cosmetics companies for, but $600 to the parents for lopping it off in the first place. Double profit. Yes, use Oil of Olay, and you are rubbing minced dicks all over your face.

big anti-circ person here...

seriously- oil of olay? got a link so i can research the products I use? I knew they were in anti-aging, but did not know which brands. Shit. I use OofO moisturizer and sunscreen. Crap.

I don't know if this is the right thing to say, but I really respect your decision to regrow, and your decison to talk about it- people don't know enough about it. Thanks.

At what age does this show up? My most recent partner was nearly 50, and sensitivity wasn't an issue. Are you talking 60's and over, cuz it could be more than sensitivity that is causing some of these "consequences."

of sensitivity, that is for sure. lol lol

dont think he would agree, and i certainly have no complaints

of something else other than circumcision...

with the least amount of fact supporting it.

Your sexual "sensitivity" is not just related to the state of your foreskin/glans. It's related to spinal aging, circulatory issues, psychology of desire, your available serum nitric oxide, diet, drug use (prescription or otherwise), and general health, not to mention anything that impacts your neurotransmitters.

A little flap of skin is the absolute very tiniest least of anything, and varies by user anyway.

It's funny how uncut guys obsesed with their own weenies think everyone should be uncut, while the other 99.9999 of the male population pretty much don't give a damn.

having a hubby that just loves the feelings and tinglings, i wondered just how true this was. i couldnt imagine that there would be a significant difference, with what he already experiences. thank you for this little reality check. and an "of course"...

circumcising me.

I know I was being a grump yesterday but you are cracking me up today!

Go get 'em tiger!

But I'll get over that soon enough, no doubt!

to mutilate their sons.

embodies the very same sort of emotional reasoning that the fundies use to withold HPV vaccinations from their daughters.

:wtf: planet are you living on?

It's not quite the same thing. Adults are the ones who decide what procedures are done, or not done, to infants. Moms and dads have equal say over any sort of procedure done to their infant, as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps circumcision SHOULD be for adults only, so that the man can "choose" for his own body. In that scenario, women can and should leave the choice making to men.

it's a rite of manhood, and culturally significant and takes place fairly young. Are we going to make rules or exceptions for religious convictions?

If so, why does religion carry more weight than any other choice? Are you really going to try to interfere with jewish culture this way? Most jewish circumcisions occur in the hospital, not by moyel by the way. Good luck with that.

And what about enforcement? Are you going to have regular penile inspections to see who the violators are? Maybe we'll put that in the Patriot Act and let the president do unauthorized penile inspections of minors.

What would the punishment be? Losing your parental rights for mutilating your child? So that some fundamentalist anti-circumcision busy body can raise your kids with proper weener values?

This is just too much. You people are worse than Gladys Kravitz - and on DU no less! This is like seeing progressives advocate wearing burkas or something.

I am one person, with my own legitimate pov. If you don't like what I have to say, you are responding to me, not to "people."

Of course, my post is responding to the OPs question about whether or not women should stay out of the circumcision debate. That suggestion was prompted, if you couldn't tell, by all the women telling the men to stay out of a woman's "choice." It wasn't a question about the cultural or religious validity of genital mutilation.

Context does mean something. My response is looking at a gender question. My answer is that NO, women should not stay out of the circumcision debate unless circumcision will be an adult choice. If people don't think circumcision should be postponed to adulthood, then women should have as much say as men in regards to what procedures will be performed on the minor they are responsible for. I'm not connecting my response to various religious practices at all.

Since you brought it up, though, genital mutilation of either gender without adult consent of the party mutilated for cultural or religious purposes is not ok with me. I get to have that opinion, and I don't have the slightest clue who Gladys Kravitz is. Nor do I care. I don't consider prevention of, or consequences for, any sort of abuse "interfering."

cranky cranky I didn't read the same message that you clarified, but I'll take you at your word rather than insisting I read it wrong. I think I read your last paragraph quite clearly though.

Nobody said anything about not having an opinion, but your clarification begs my opinion about the FUCKING STUPIDITY of thinking you could possibly make a law to prevent jews or muslims from doing what they have been doing for thousands of years. Of course you don't care about consequences, you haven't even thought that far and can't be bothered; that much is evident. Go ahead think it through. Instead of the Federal Marriage Amendment, we add a Federal Circumcision Amendment to the constitution. Go for it. It's sure to be the wedge issue of the century. Yawn. It would most certainly be the single largest leap of government into religion the U.S. has EVER made, with both feet.

It's hubris, in addition to your own opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with hubris if you're right, but when I say "you people" I mean you authoritarian people who think everyone should be just like you, and have the nads to call yourself a progressive, and would even legislate your POV if the rest of the sane world would let you, and proudly proclaim you don't care about consequences.

I'm sorry if you took that personally, I was referring to the larger conversation here of kooks who are obsessed with everyone else's business but their own, and by business I mean dick.

DISCLAIMER I know I was button pushing when I said "you people", this flame thread sucks! Needs more cowbell.

I can tell you feel pretty strongly. I'm actually more ambivalent on the subject than you are, as I can see valid points from more than one "side."

It's interesting to me that you are taking the position of liberty, when the liberties you are defending are not the patients', but their parents'.

Where parental rights end and minors' rights begin is not, imo, universally agreed upon. It's still something that cultures are discussing, arguing, defending, etc.. A vital part of reaching some sort of consensus. It really doesn't matter if you are discussing medical care, cultural or religious practices, or any other facet of being human. Whenever the child's rights conflict with the parents' rights, there's going to be tension. While some segments of our society argue about when a group of cells becomes a human child with the right to life, others are arguing about when a child becomes human enough to have "human rights," "natural rights," and "civil rights." I think the topic is bigger than any particular set of "laws," and I'm not proposing any at this point. Some laws are good, some aren't, and most are both. Laws are always changing to reflect the way society evolves. Finding a balance that offers the best chance of "justice for all" is a never-ending process.

sorry - I forget that our passions are based on caring, and I appreciate your level headed reply here. I just think it's not really as big a deal as everyone makes of it; but an odd thing that so many of us can get revved about.

That's probably the fault line - I just don't think it's as catastrophic as many believe; I have my own experience to draw on here too! It's odd that so many people think of it as the end of the world, but either way most people who are or are not really don't even think much about it.

Finding a balance is the key - you are being very fair in that view. Thanks for bringing it back to civility!

-sui

She was rabidly anti-circumcision, and I've always enjoyed being circumcised and figured any son of ours would too, sparing him the pain of having it done later in life. It would've been a real problem for us, luckily for us we were completely surprised by our brand new baby girl! :)

NO, women should NOT be silent!

Mothers are usually responsible for their children's health. Any and all questions from nurses and doctors (about me or the baby) when I was in labor was directed to me, even if my husband was in the room. We decided not to have our sons circumcised after I found out how the procedure was done.

and many parents wouldn't like it one single bit. This is why hubby and I took our time in deciding and researching before having our son.

It's been a while since and the procedure may have changed some, but I don't believe all that much.

with that cognitive stuff.

It's his body, but he is a child. His parents are going to decide. Or his guardians. Or the foster home physician. If the child is lucky, somebody is caring enough to think about it, so sure, have at it.

Man should stay out Abortion issue!

I'm a woman so this is all speculation... But I was wondering if future "locker room shower" incidents could really cause a child to feel weird about being "different". But it was so creepy when changing my nephew and having to apply vaseline in those first few weeks.....

Hey, I love these threads. It's like being served softballs. No, wait...that's hardba...oh, never mind.

I'm cut, and even if I DID resent it, what the hell would be the point? Am I gonna sue somebody? Is there a foreskin reconstruction technique available?

I'm reminded of the sage advice of Grampy O'Atman...

Life is like a penis; when it's hard you get fucked. When it's soft you can't beat it.

:rofl:

Love that!

There are websites dedicated to it and also websites dedicated to adults who've been recently circumsized after wanting it done their whole lives.

It seems most people are happy the way they are whether they were circed or not, and there are some who are unhappy on both sides.

I'm really biting my tongue here...ahem...

I can't imagine having enough spare time to worry about something like that.

Somebody did sue his doctor, and he won.

There are numerous foreskin restoration procedures, techniques.:hi:

:D


Pity more people can't choose from that young if they want a crippled cucumber or life or not...

Circumcised is like Superman without ever being Clark Kent. It's like the flag that's never furled.

Uncircumcised is ugly. Circumcised is ugly but cool, like Mick Jagger.





Maybe I've said too much.

Although the Mick Jagger part freaks me out.

But now that you mention it, my scrotum looks a lot like Keith Richards.

I strongly disagree.

Uncircumsized is like playing peekaboo, but sexier.

some are peekaboos, some look like african anteaters, and some of them are hardly there, and others you have to pull back the valances and the drapes and the curtains and the sheers and miniblinds before you get to see russel the one eyed muscle even when erect.

(assumes crash position, prepares to be deleted) :rofl:

Personally all other things being equal in a sexual partner I much prefer cut, if I were forced to decide, but really don't care much either way in reality.

Circumcised is Bob Weir. Uncircumcised is Jerry Garcia.

Circumcised is Cable. Uncircumcised is a satellite dish.

Circumcised is Whole Foods. Uncircumcised is Trader Joe's.

Circumcised is Los Angeles. Uncircumcised is San Francisco.

Circumcised is Rush Limbaugh greedily licking the empty plastic remains of his oxycontin containers. Uncircumcised is Bill O'Reilly sneaking into a falafel joint with a trenchcoat on.



...And you know what all that tells us, don't you?

That my analogies suck! :hippie:

I think he resorbed it.

long ago. Could it have been Geraldo?

Anyway, I think it was Prince William was just born and the host asked the British woman whether she knew if the prince was to be circumsized?

I don't even remember if the answer was yes or no. Yes I think, but anyway, the woman had the line of the day when she said she thought it needed to be done for sure as it changed a ...

"sausage into a blossom."

You go girl.

Don't have one, don't know what to do with one!

look like his daddy' or there is some cultural imperative to it. I do not believe the medical evidence has shifted enough to warrant circumcision, but I have more respect for people who at least are basing their decision on recent studies than those who just buy into anecdotal tales of infections.

Medically, from the research I did, there is a higher rate of complication from the procedure itself than from any later problems of being uncircumcized.

As far as society goes, circumcision is becoming less and less routine in this country. Rates vary from the low 80 percentile in the conservative midwest to the low 30 percentile on the west coast and metropolitan areas. Most European men are not circumcized, other than for religious reasons. In fact, we are the ONLY country that still has a relatively high rate of the procedure for other than religious reasons. It came into vogue in the Puritan times as a way to prevent little boys from masturbating, which was believed to lead to mental illness.

There are MILLIONS of nerve cells in the foreskin. Just because a man says he likes his penis just fine circumcized doesn't mean he might not have had a completely different outlook if he'd been able to try it both ways. In interviews with men who were circumcized later in life, some compared it to what the feeling might have been if they'd been wearing TWO condoms while still uncut. That's a lot of sensation to lose, and I don't think it's quite fair to deny a boy his full sexual experience at adulthood simply because daddy wanted them to look alike, or Aunt Mary's cousin's son got an infection. The stats simply don't back that up.

As far as HIV goes, that has yet to be settled, though most studies I have seen have been picked apart by others for scientific methods. It may just come to pass that they are right, but the evidence is less than compelling right now.

I studied this while working in a urology department, and NONE of our doctors circumcized their sons. All I ask after I debate someone on it is that they actually research the decision as much as they would buying a new car, rather than treating it as a norm.

"There are MILLIONS of nerve cells in the foreskin. Just because a man says he likes his penis just fine circumcized doesn't mean he might not have had a completely different outlook if he'd been able to try it both ways."

But I can't. I got what I got. I don't complain, none of my partner's have complained directly to me. What the hell is gained by fretting about it. Sex is still fun! I can't recall ever getting laid and sitting back afterwards saying "That would have been good if I'd only had a foreskin!" Another great saying Grampy O'Atman said -- "Sex is like a pizza...when it's good, it's great. When it's bad, it's still pretty good!" Grampy O'Atman was a wise, wise man.

"As far as HIV goes, that has yet to be settled,...

Exactly. You can hardly cement an argument by stating "We don't know yet."

All I ask after I debate someone on it is that they actually research the decision as much as they would buying a new car, rather than treating it as a norm.

I'd take an Audi TT over having half my pecker lopped off any day! But I was young then.

most guys I know (including myself) have given approx 5 min of thought to this issue. Being circumsized in NOT a big deal. There is PLENTY of sensation down there. Men who bemoan their circumcision, IMHO, have other issues regarding their penis.

in summary:

"I studied this while working in a urology department, and NONE of our doctors circumcized their sons. All I ask after I debate someone on it is that they actually research the decision as much as they would buying a new car, rather than treating it as a norm."

It's my duty as my son's mother to protect him, and that includes protecting him against a procedure I believe unnecessary. Fortunately, my husband and I agree, and my son is uncircumcised.

First of all, I don't think its a huge deal. As a circumcised man. Either way, chances are nothing of great consequence will become of the decision.
Naturally...I prefer my way. I'm not a father and don't know if I ever will be. However, I'd like my son to be like me, if I ever had one.
Why would I female be too concerned about it if I'm not? Maybe parents feel more passionate about it than I do.
I can, however, think of one valid reason to take the female partner's opinion into account: religious upbringing.
Luckily, I'm the way I am and would like my son to be, and my girlfriend is Jewish so if we ever make it that far...I doubt we'll have any quarrel. :)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!111

GOOD ONE!

Look at all these replies........................!


btw: who dya think gives birth to those babies? :think:

Does the relation to the other thread hold in all of the arguments?

:hi:

"Should men stay out of the abortion debate?" thread.

and raise you an anteater.

As for who gives birth to those thar babies, you'll have to ask my wife.

My husband and I had a huge argument about this subject. You see he was not circumcised when he was an infant. Consequently, because he was not taught proper hygiene, he had to be circumcised when he was 12 and it was very painful. You would think he would have wanted it done, but NO he did not. I am a nurse and I insisted that we get it done. I said to him, you will never forget the pain, but he will never remember it. Anyways, this went back and forth and when he was born, I signed the papers and had it done against his wishes. His only retort was that he would not change his diaper until it was completely healed. It never was an issue again and when son number two was born, I did the same thing. I am glad I did it. I have seen elderly men have to be circumcised and I did not want my children to go through that. It has been 15 years since that argument and the boys are fine and the marriage is going to be 20 years strong in June.

for custody of your child. He may not of been taught hygiene, but that is no excuse an UNNECESSARY MEDICAL procedure to be done. Should we have the teeth pulled from people all together BEFORE they get tooth decay?

Let me tell you my story, I was circumsized, unlike many, but probably not that rare, I developed, over time, scabs that lasted until I was almost a teenager, my foreskin, you see, wasn't completely removed, and when it became white and crusty later in life, it started flaking, and let me tell you, nothing compares to THAT pain. I was a child, a pre-pubescent boy who dreaded the ride on the schoolbus because a fucking stiffy was agony all by itself, in addition, it also was a secret to keep from both my parents, until I finally broke down and told them, and they sent me to the doctor, who was able to properly treat it. The only thing to be grateful for is that I at least don't have ED, yet, but the pain will be with me for the rest of my life. Your attitude simply DISGUSTS and appalls me. :puke:

Its not like I could comfortably talk about having hard ons that hurt when I was Pre-Pubescent, what boy brags about that?

:eyes:

Her husband was NOT taught proper hygiene so he HAD to get his done, but his sons' are a different matter entirely, why not, you know, actually TEACH them something? She went against her HUSBAND'S wishes on this, if it were me, I would have been livid, and the marriage over, but given my experience, could you blame me?

:eyes:

I do blame you because of the judgment you're passing on her for a decision she made as a parent. I also think you're allowing your personal experience, which is nowhere near the same, to cloud your judgment.

Your shoes are not her shoes...or even her husband's or son's.

that I have a bigger problem with, they should have reached a consensus of some sort, instead she went behind his back, that doesn't bode well for her moral character.

Maybe I'm misreading again, but I didn't see that anywhere in her post.

Also, they're still married. I think that says they made peace with the decsion. Still easy to judge people you don't personally know, isn't it?

I misread it myself, she did it over his objections, still doesn't say much for her moral character though, or he simply gave in. I view it as on the same level as if, let's say the dad took his 3 year old daughter out and got her a tatoo that said "Daddy's little Girl", even after his wife said no. It just shouldn't be done, and really doesn't make for a healthy relationship.

You don't agree with her decision and you don't think this made for a healthy relationship. That's fine.

But, this still is a private personal family matter the government has no place in.

Let's see, both kids were subjected to a procedure that is not easily reversible, against their will and against another parent's wishes, in addition, neither is done for valid medical reasons. Really, what is the difference? Also, if you noticed, I didn't say anything about the government intervening, I'm mainly offended by people's flippant attitude over a procedure that SHOULD be regarded as a serious medical procedure, with all the serious repercussions that come with it. Callousness of the highest order, including your rolling of the eyes.

:)

Seriously, I do understand your concerns and I don't see either one the same at all. For one thing, in most states, tattooing a 3 year old is illegal.

I'm more bothered by the fact that some people are quick to judge from outside. It's too easy to do and what winds up happening is an unfair rush to judgment. I'm also bothered by anyone who thinks someone should have charges filed against them for doing what they deemed best for their child.

Also, keep this in mind. This medical procedure probably wasn't taken lightly. Physicians have an obligation to explain the negatives and other possible outcomes.

I think it's safe we can agree to disagree on this. :)

At least, that is all you brought to the table. Then again, in some state I don't think its illegal, no real cutoff date, and I've seen children as young as toddlers(2-6 years) old that have earrings. To be honest, I view all of these, from Circumcision to piercings as the same thing: Violations of a minor's body without their permission, or even having them be the age of consent, in that case a violation, plain and simple. The ONLY excuse for intervening into a child's body without their permission is for medical necessity only, no more, no less. Also, on you comment about parents not being charged, Christian Scientists are routinely thrown in jail for doing what they think is in their child's best interest. Just a thought.

My oldest daughter had her ears pierced at 2 years old. By age five she wanted two more holes and we said no. The middle was five. Wanted to be like her sister. We were okay with that, too. When it comes to that, I see it as more cultural rather than medical.

I didn't, and still don't, view that as some kind of violation.

Keep in mind something else. Many parents still believe that circumcision is a procedure to be done for medical reasons. I saw plenty of parents at hospitals who opted for it because they feel it is better and safer. I assisted many times in circumcisions. I know exactly what is involved which is why I don't believe any parent should take it lightly. Ultimately, it is their choice.

When it comes to religion such as Jehovah's Witnesses, that's an entirely different matter, IMO. They don't believe another person's blood products should be introduced into the human body. This is more serious life and death situation which doesn't compare to circumcision at all.

Jesus Christ, I can't believe it, hell, my sister had to BEG my parents to even let her have her ears pierced, and that was at the age of 12, what the HELL possessed you to do that to a child?

where've you been?

You haven't noticed six month and year old babies with pierced ears? It's accepted and done all the time all over the place.