What are everyone's views on circumcision?

Question

PLEASE RESPECT OTHERS AND WHAT THEY SAY!! I am NOT looking for trouble just want some ideas on what every ones views are.
I would like some pros and cons on circumcision! Or anything else you would like to put.
I'm expecting a little boy early December and I'm still not sure what to do. I want my hubby to be the one to make the ultimate decision but I would also like to know a little about it myself.
If you could kindly answer it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.

Answer 1

My answer is this. For your son's health and well being please have him circumcised soon after he is born.



I am the father of a circumcised son. I joined him in my late fifties, when i finally became circumcised. It is probably the best surgical procedure that I have done. I have absolutely no regrets. If my foreskin were to magically regrow, i would cut it off again. Actually i have one regret and that is that i didnt have it done earlier in life. My sex life and comfort are one hundred percent better since i was circumcised. I have no more irritations or foul fishy smell from when i had a foreskin. Millions of men in the United States are circumcised and i havent heard of many of them knocking on doors wanting their foreskin back.



The circumcision death figure in the United States is not 117 per year. The actual figure is two in the past four years and this was due to human error, not from complications from the circumcision itself.



Ten times more uncircumcised boys die from urinary tract infections and cancer of the penis.

Cancer of the penis occurs 99 percent of the time in uncircumcised men.



Circumcision is one of the best gifts a parent can give a newborn male. it is very rare to hear a boy or man complain about being circumcised. In fact, most are very happy they are clean cut and that the removal of the diseased foreskin was done at birth not as an adult when it could be a more complicated procedure.



the internet is full of a few anti-circumcision advocates who are very passionate that circumcision is child abuse. Nobody in the medical community agrees with them, and why should they. Every medical study in recent years confirms that the foreskin results in a higher chance of HIV, STDs, and HPV for the male and his partners.



I am not a nurse, but I am a Dad that has been circumcised as an adult, and i have absolutely no regrets in having my son circumcised.



http://www.gilgalsoc.org/

http://www.aboutcirc.com/

http://www.medicirc.org/

http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/index_home_new.html

http://www.circinfo.net/

http://www.circinfo.com/



You can see a great video on circumcision with no pain and all the care and dignity for the boy being circumcised



http://www.circumcisionvancouver.com/

http://www.bris.us



Circumcision is a wise decision



When it comes to turtlenecks, just say NO!



peter

Answer 2

If you wouldn't want your own genitals permanently scarred and mutilated, why would you even consider doing the same thing to a helpless male child?



If circumcision of female minors is wrong, it's equally wrong to force it on male minors.





Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax.



A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.



ERIC

Answer 3

I deeply regret having my first two boys circumcised. My third son is intact. There are no provable medical benefits to removing a healthy foreskin, and there are some risks. The incision can become infected causing serious damage, and mistakes have been made. Those incidents are more common than situations where removing the foreskin was medically beneficial, and both are rare.



The child will have reduced sensation and the head of the penis will form a special coating which causes slight numbing. It's meant to be moist and this happens to protect it from the damage of constant exposure to air, fabric etc which it wasn't designed for. Your son's future partners will also experience reduced sexual sensation.



I think that men should have the right to make this decision for themselves. I don't think that cosmetic surgery with no medical purpose should be done to a person without their consent.



Lots of good people have been told that there are medical benefits by people they trust, like doctors. Sadly there is no evidence that this is true. There is tremendous financial benefit not only to those who get paid to do the procedure but to those who use the tissue, which is taken and used for grafts and research. It's a very lucrative industry.

Answer 4

I am pro circumcision, the benefits are numerous. People who are against it are ignorant and uninformed, mostly Liberal nutcases. I have four brothers who are circumcised and they are glad my parents had the common good sense to do the right thing. As a female, I prefer the circumcised penis , especially for oral sex, who wants to do oral to a guy with a ugly foreskin in the way? Jews have practiced circumcision for thousands of years, and Jewish women have the worlds lowest cases of cervical cancer, experts believe it is because all Jewish men are circumcised. Circumcision just makes good sense.

Answer 5

there are no pro's to circumcision its an evil perpatrated against defenceless babies, all it does is remove up to 2/3 of the effective sensory nerves of the penis , cause terrible pain for the baby and places his life at risk, remember 120 babies die every year from circumcision across the u.s. alone ,if you need to have a pro it makes surgeons rich , the reality is no baby died from having a natural penis but many have died from being circumcised.it does not reduce the likelihood of contracting h.i.v. or any other std all that stuff is b.s. say No and save the baby from suffering life long surgical alteration and discomfort he may not have wanted.

p.s. you do not retract the foreskin of a baby when changing his nappy the foreskin is sealed down to prevent infection so leave it alone .why are people so fixated and ignorant about foreskins get a life and leave babies bodies as they are meant to be

Answer 6

Hey, congrats on becoming a soon to be parent!



I do have some advice, it's something that I think will really help you in making an informed decision.



It's a recent online video presentation that Georgetown University listed on their YouTube page, by Ryan McAllister Ph.D, who is a assistant professor who teaches there. It's called:



Child Circumcision - An Elephant in the Hospital



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSM-SkwGEf0&feature=channel_video_title



I really hope you do watch it and pass it along to anyone who is having a hard decision deciding.

Answer 7

My advise to you is DON'T DO IT!



Male genital mutilation

*is subjected to infants and children who can not give informed consent. Many resent this being done to them as adults.

*has a high risk of complications including amputation of the entire penis and death

*is a violation of human rights

*reduces sexual function and pleasure. The foreskin is a double layer of sensitive tissue. It's function is to protect the penis head and inner skin layer keeping it moist and sensitive for sexual activity. It also glides which is very pleasurable for both partners.



I did not ask to be circumcised, and am currently undergoing foreskin restoration.

Answer 8

I have a lot I want to say about this (particularly on the sexual pleasure myth) but it won't fit the word count. I'll base my answer on Juniper's relatively neutral pamphlet (I copied a link below) and make as many other comments as I can fit in.



Juniper's pamphlet extras (besides the pros and cons)



"Fewer children in the U.S. are being circumcised now ... 1979, 90% ... compared to 60% now."



The circumcision rate was lower. It is only close to 60% now because it is going up again. BTW Connor congratulations on getting pre-med and where did you source 2010 data? I thought most current released hospital data 2008?



"Over 80% of the men in the world are not circumcised."

The more common estimate of 30% of the world's population I suspect is correct.(?) In USA it is much higher.



"It protects the glans (top of the penis) against urine, feces, and other types of irritation."

The glans seems to cope with these things quite well if a child is reasonably cared for and clean.



"It protects the sensitivity of the glans."

Not in any sexual/relevant way.



Pros



1. Young babies can't talk and often suffer the pain without being able to say it hurts in a location where no inflammation is visible. Parents are most likely to get medical attention when it moves on to the point that the child is febrile. I suspect that if the baby could talk it would be treated early and they wouldn't get kidney damage in 50% of cases. For balance I note that UTIs are more common for girls but unfortunately there is nothing that can be done to prevent it.



2. "rare" = 5% to 10% of uncircumcised Americans. The theory is that it relates to the pulling back of the foreskin but I have seen it too often in people from countries where that don't teach to pull back the foreskin to believe it. Nevertheless I'll need to keep an open mind until it is properly researched and I wouldn't recommend to anyone to think they are safe just because they don't pull it back too hard etc or recommend the parents of an uncut boy force the foreskin back.



3. Correct. It is more of a vaccination then a condom.



4. The pamphlet claims that good hygiene offers equal protection against this very rare cancer. It is a theory. There are others. Nevertheless the protection against cancer of the penis has been shown using subjects from the US of A and the circumcision needs to be neonatal (you don't clean under a neonatal uncircumcised's foreskin) so I am skeptical. Bluntly taking off some overhanging skin as a newborn baby basically guarantees he won't need to get his penis chopped off later to treat penile cancer. Otherwise he'll probably be fine but he might not be.



5. This is not a medical pro. I'm not saying it is wrong but just that a parent can speculate or get anecdotal evidence just as well as a doctor.



Not mentioned - Protection against HPV, syphilis and chancroid, thrush, and inflammatory dermatoses. In women circumcision of the male partner - cervical cancer and chlamydia.



Cons



1. I think they mean one very large study found that complication rate but they were mainly minor. I have seen the misleading inclusion of "serious" or "major" in other places. It must be coming from some source document referencing the study that doctors repose confidence in but I'm not sure where.



2. Correct. Same story as vaccination except pain relief is possible (and recommended) and it is a one off when they are at their youngest. You don't get the same feeling of holding down and torturing your kid every couple of months that you get with vaccination.



3. Correct. Anti-circumcision organisations have very actively and successfully lobbied insurance companies. Some scientists doing relevant research have criticised this problem because groups in the USA who are most likely to catch HIV and least likely to be circumcised can't afford to have the protection. However until more medical organisations move forward from their neutral stance this public health problem will probably remain.



4. "You must decide quickly...after ... 2 months old, ... require a general anesthesia..."



General anesthesia adds an extra layer of risk which in rare cases can be death. However I note also that this applies whether you change your mind or whether the baby gets to age 2 and needs to be circumcised for medical reasons so the safety of neonatal circumcision compared to older babies could also be listed as a pro for neonatal circumcision.



Miscellaneous



I want to comment on a few misleading comments here but am precluded from doing so due to the word count. For example:



"-The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis at birth, so to have it removed it has to be ripped off, like if you ripped your fingernail off."



It is stuck on but ripping someone's fingernail would be torture while separating the foreskin from the glans appears to me to be like taking off a band-aid. I don't believe that the fingernail analogy is a good one.

Answer 9

I think parents who don't circumcise or vaccinate are doing something irresponsible but I respect their choice. It is their choice and I figure that if they make the wrong one it isn't malicious - just due to all the misinformation out there and they are doing their best. The fact that the anti-circ bunch argue that it should be put off to 18 shows their lack of confidence in their own propaganda about the lack of medical benefits etc. They know people are wising up to them. Parents have a duty to make medical decisions for their babies.



I don't believe babies are dying from crying with pain due to the low rate of anaesthetic use like Ysobella claims but my personal view is that a local should be used.



There aren't any cons except for the con job anti-circumcision websites and their minions swarming around trying to misinform parents. The risk is lowest for babies at 0.2% to 0.6% and almost all are minor complications and we are discussing babies. It isn't high risk later on but the risk goes way up proportionally.



It is unlikely that your son will have a problem with it considering most people in the country are circumcised, most people think it looks better and the rates of baby circumcisions are back in the majority. What type of misfit would get hung up on the loss of some skin anyway? If your partner and you are psychologically healthy and you don't intend to abuse him or anything then he will be happy he was circumcised. Weak kids even get teased if they aren't.



Some say it is mutilation. I disagree. I am glad not to have an anteater between my legs anymore. That said you kind of get used to it and don't appreciate that side of things till it is gone. Plus all surveys I have seen found women think it looks better. Mutilation is just more of the rhetoric they use to compensate for the facts being against them. It gets described in the most amazing rhetoric given it is a quick simple medical procedure just removing some skin that is already hanging loose.



The comparisons with FGM are bunk. Sex is better without the extra skin.



It is your choice but since you have asked my view I say do it for your son's sake.

Answer 10

I think it should be the individual's decision.

Answer 11

I'm expecting a boy in October. My family's pediatrician said that the medical benefits are slight and not worthy of recommending the procedure. He also said there's NO difference in hygiene as long as you teach your son to wash properly. My source is the exact handout that he gave me and I think it is relatively unbiased. We will not be circumcising because, frankly, if the medical benefits aren't enough for my pediatrician to recommend it then they aren't enough to warrant DH's and my consent for the procedure. (Also perhaps of note my pediatrician is VERY pro-vaccination so it isn't like he's some hippy doctor or anything.)



I personally think that outside of religion it is a completely unnecessary cosmetic procedure. Even if you don't believe that the foreskin has any purpose, it's like removing a boy's nipples or earlobes. Sure, it may not hurt anything, but.... why do it?

- To look like Daddy? A son looks different from his father in lots of ways. You wouldn't give a newborn a tattoo or nose job to make him look like his father, so why cut his penis? And seriously, how many fathers and sons whip it out and compare it?

- To avoid being made fun of in the locker room? The current rate of circumcision in the US is no more than 60%. (And according to some reports, as low as 33%) So there will be a lot of intact boys in the locker room compared to when we were in school. Also, it takes more than a glance to realize something is different and a good hard look to realize that "something" is an intact penis. The kid staring at someone else's junk is the one with the problem, NOT the kid with a foreskin.

- Because girls like it better? Again, with the dropping circumcision rate in the US (which is the only major nation who still routinely circumcises btw), it's unlikely that the girls your son will date will have a preference. And IMHO any shallow floozy who doesn't want anything to do with my son because he has a foreskin doesn't deserve him anyway. Besides, they all look the same hard.



That's my two cents, but I respectfully urge you and your husband to both do your research and talk with a pediatrician before making the decision and good luck with whatever you choose.

Answer 12

My view is that it should not be performed on an infant. It is an irreversible procedure that removes a natural and important part of the penis.



Your son will be born perfect so why take the risk and cut off a healthy bodypart? Let him decide when he's older if he wants to be circumcised or not, although its unlikely he will because like most guys he won't have any problems with his foreskin!



Here are a few websites with some more info if you want to learn more.

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

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/285540/circumcision_rates_fall_in_the_united.html

http://www.noharmm.org/mothering.htm

Answer 13

How about since it's your son's penis, you let him make the ultimate decision?



There are no pros to mutilating your genitals. I was circumcised for 17 years before I restored my foreskin and to this day I still can't think of a single good thing it brings. So the pros are nothing. Now the cans are:

-Greatly reduces penile sensitivity

-Sex is much less enjoyable

-Because you have less sensitivity it's harder to tell how close you are until orgasm so it makes orgasms much harder to control

-Orgasms get shorter and duller with lost sensitivity

-You always need lube for masturbtaion (think about that, would you like to lose your ability to self lubricate?) because the skin is tight

-The sensation of tight skin and every stimulation having extra friction is anoying. I love the feeling of the skin gliding. Especially with masturbation it's nice to have the skin slide back and fourth over the head.

-Sex is harder because again you have lost your penises self lubrication. Thrusting is easier and more rhythmic when you have that extra lube from the skin

-Manual stimulation is much harder, now that I have restored my partner again never needs to worry about fumbling around with lube.

-When you lose all that sensitivity you end up needing rough, hard, and fast stimulation to get any enjoyment out of it. My partner doesn't always like rough sex, so now that I have more sensitivity it's much nicer that we match more.





Circumcision has no medical benefits. It's not cleaner nor is it easier to clean (A foreskin is freaking easy to clean and keep clean, way easier than a vagina). The procedure does a lot of damage to the penis which causes drastic sensitivity and function loss. More and more parents are realizing this which is why less than 40% of infant males were circumcised in 2010. It's not a common procedure anymore.

There is no reason other than severe medical reasons why this procedure should be forced on an unconsenting minor. If it's not your body you have no right to alter it.



-Connor

Answer 14

I've got a foreskin and I'm keeping it. I don't know why anyone would want to skin a penis.

Answer 15

DENI, here you are again providing false information from a circumfetish site.

Circumcision is not recommended by any health organisation in the world due to the fact that there are no proven benefits and many risks.

-Around 224 babies die every year from circumcision due to burst lungs from screaming, blood loss and heart failure.

-Only 4% of boys are given appropriate anesthesia to help numb the horrific pain because the anesthetic itself is so dangerous to give to a newborn it can kill them.

-The foreskin contains 20,000 nerve ending, compare that to the clitoris that only contains 8,000. Removing the foreskin dulls sensation and was first widely used by Dr John H Kellogg's to stop boys masturbating.

-The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis at birth, so to have it removed it has to be ripped off, like if you ripped your fingernail off.

-The myths to do with cleanliness are not true, all you do is wipe the foreskin with water, like you would to clean your finger. You do NOT retract to clean beneath the foreskin until it happens naturally between the ages of 5-8.

-One of the foreskins functions is to protect from infection, the chance of a baby boy getting a UTI is around 1% so it is highly unlikely and is easily treated with antibiotics, just like how you would treat a female with a UTI

-The chance of a male getting penile cancer is so tiny that they have more chance of getting breast cancer. does that mean we should remove their breast buds at birth? No, of course not. If a male is circumcised and gets penile cancer the penis will be either partially or fully amputated. If a male is intact and gets penile cancer, they will be circumcised.

-Over 80% of the population is intact and they have no problems with it.

-Routine Infant Circumcision causes problems for men in the future like erectile dysfunction, painful erections, scarring and bleeding.

-Some people believe circumcision can help prevent the spread of HIV, however the case studies that were done in Africa were stopped halfway through due to inconclusive results and many of the women involved already had HIV. Recent studies have shown that in North Eastern and Coast provinces, where 97 per cent of males were circumcised, there has been an increase in HIV prevalence.

-America is the only nation to continue circumcising on such a wide scale and they are the biggest consumers of viagra and have the highest HIV rates among 1st world countries.

-Circumcision is a huge money maker which is why it still happens. Doctors sell the foreskins on and make a huge profit.



Please leave your son intact! You won't regret it.



http://www.circumstitions.com

http://lisarussell.suite101.com/human-baby-foreskins-in-cosmetics-a199033 (where the foreskin is sold to)

http://www.norm.org/lost.html (what is lost from circumcision)

Answer 16

The health benefits, the appearance, conformity, all reasons to circumcise.

Answer 17

There is tons of information about circumcision on the Internet.



My own views are similar to those expressed by Penn & Teller in the following video. I highly recommend you watch it. You will learn a lot about circumcision.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLGcqPE7xu0

Answer 18

We had my son circumcised. That's not to say that I'm all for it, but I'm not all against it either. I do wish I'd done more research before we had my son, and gotten all the facts on it. I'm not upset that we did it, but, if I'd known everything I know now, my decision may or may not have been different. Even if we had done it, I definitely would have demanded to be in there with him, and I would've made darn sure that they anesthetized his equipment, and waited for it to kick in...



As for the pros/cons, there are different arguments: pro circ's will say it prevents STDs.. anti circ's will say there's no proof to that. pros will say that it's cleaner... anti's will say that you should just teach him to clean properly, etc etc.. if done for religious reasons, what if your child doesn't want to follow that religion when he's older?



ultimately, i believe that it should be a personal and well thought decision between both you and your spouse, and whatever you end up doing is your decision... (even though it's baby's penis and not yours, you are responsible for him, and it is your responsibility to do what YOU believe is the best thing to do considering all circumstances.



i had my son circumcised partially because my husband is, and partially because of my religious beliefs (as far as i believe, God wouldn't have told us to do it if there weren't good reason.. also, he wouldn't tell us to do it if it was harmful (not taking into account botched circs....))



thankfully, my son's circumcision was done right. there were no complications, and it's not messed up like some end up being. if you opt for it, make sure you get a doc who knows what they're doing.



i would also suggest being there when it's done. i've heard so many stories, and seen so many videos where they just start snipping, without anesthetics, or they do the local, and don't give it time to take effect. this will put baby in shock. i doubt that it will cause any permanent emotional trauma... but at the same time, you don't want your baby to have to go through that pain. also, if you're going to have it done, do it within the first few weeks. otherwise, it will have to be an actual surgery, where baby is put completely under - with way more risks.



Some hard facts:



-Yes, there can be mistakes and complications... as with any other procedure, death is a possibility, but rare. the American Academy of Family Physicians estimates 1 per 500,000



-It is not a "terrible mutilation" like female circumcision... males, they only remove the foreskin. with females, they remove the inner and outer labia as well as the clitoris.. this is done in 3rd world countries to completely remove sexual pleasure.



-it's very unlikely that it decreases sexual pleasure... i've spoken to 3 guys who were circ'd as adults, and they said that the pleasure was not diminished. people say it removes the nerve endings and removes pleasure... to me that doesn't make sense. the nerve is still there, and if they cut, it will just have a different end-point... make sense?

Answer 19

I respect those who circumcise and those who do not. It's a personal decision for every family.

Answer 20

You obviously are already aware that it can be an emotive topic.



Parents can choose to circumcise and vaccinate and generally look after their kids because that is what parents do. They look after their kids including medically. However not all parents choose to do either or both of the preventative health measures and some parents are religiously obliged to circumcise or do it due to the appearance or ease of keeping clean. The risks are even lower than the comparable procedure vaccination. The AAP advise that the large studies have found a 0.2% to 0.6% complication rate with most being minor. Later circumcisions have a complication rate of about 2%.



Circumcision provides a lifetime of protection for a male and once he becomes sexually active it also protects his sexual partner from cervical cancer (these issues are explained in depth at the website at the bottom of my response) and improves his sexual pleasure. As regards the last point you might be interested in the latest research as anti-circumcision groups often try to scare mothers to be by claiming that merely removing an ugly flap of skin will turn their son into a sexual cripple when he grows up.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/surgical-vaccine-helping-stop-hiv/story-e6frg6so-1226098865549



The neonatal period is the best time to circumcise as it costs the least, has the lowest risk, gives the best cosmetic result, has an incredibly quick recovery period (my son looked like he had been done for years after a week), doesn't require stitching, is the most convenient eg. don't have to go without sex for weeks, mobility not restricted when you can't walk, no time off work or school, and enables the most potential medical benefits.



The foreskin forms very early in the fetus but noone knows whether it has an embryonic function or was to protect the glans before the advent of clothes. But we do know that now it is just an ugly liability that should be removed shortly after birth.



Currently only 30% of the men in the world are circumcised. (However in the 70s only 5% of the world's children were vaccinated so hopefully the current trend of increase will be equally dramatic). It is believed that even though almost all adult men in the US are circumcised the rate may have dropped as low as 30% in recent years. But due to various factors including the research increasingly removing any doubt about associated potential health benefits it is increasing. This has been noticed in US which is now back up to 56%+ and Australia. Medical organisations in the 70s condemned it because they assumed it had no value instead of waiting to find out what research would reveal. This lead to a steady decline for decades. By contrast the World Health Organisation now pushes it to protect the health of Africans and since the 70s the American Academy of Pediatrics have moved to a neutral policy but are one of a number of medical organisations reviewing their policy as a result of the research supporting the idea of medical benefits. Recently the Cochrane Collaboration ceased claiming that circumcision did not protect against HIV as they realised that the research showing protection was too strong to ignore.



Circumcision activists are going crazy to try to stop the increasing circumcision rate with propaganda and new laws because their traditional argument that it has no medical benefit is rapidly becoming visibly untenable. They now also tend to try to convince people that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure (although they used to make fun of Kellog and use his views to parody anyone who talked about the benefits of circumcision).



I adopt the American Academy of Pediatric's suggestion that because it can be an emotive issue you should be careful of unsubstantiated information. I would include YA in that risk. A medical research Professor with vast expertise in the area has a website including references to a vast amount of scientific research. It is an excellent source of information on the topic. The url is below.

Answer 21

There aren't any pros - infection rates in Western countries with and without high rates of cosmetic circumcision are exactly the same.



Cons are the risks of an operation, and loss of feeling due to nerve damage from a piece of the body which should have been protected being continually rubbed on underwear.

Answer 22

Personally, I will not have my sons circumcised. It's a personal decision for them and just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean that I will have to. It's all your decision, but I say let him choose.



Good luck!

Answer 23

My son is circumsized, as is his father. I also chose to leave the decision upto dad, and when I asked him, he automatically said yes, no questions asked.



It is proven to be cleaner and decrease the odds of urinary infections as well as STDs.

I personally from a women's POV, think it looks better also.



Some cons are that some men say they have decreased sense of feeling during intercourse. (I guess that could only be determined if a man had a circ later in life and was able to experience both options).



I don't understand why some people get so bent out of shape over the topic. I honestly don't care whether you choose to have your child circ'd or not. It's mainly just a personal decision. Very few things to base it on, it's mainly about appearance with the exception of religions that make it into a religious ceremony

Answer 24

I did not circumcise my son I also left the choice up to my husband and since he isn't he chose for our son to not be as well. The best is to talk to your pediatrician about it. With hygiene today there are really not cleanliness reasons to get it done. And I read the answers before me if you decide to not make sure when cleaning his diaper DO NOT pull back the forskin it can cause infection and terrible pain for your baby. As he gets older it will pull back on it's own and yes when he is a few years old you will need to teach him to pull back and Mack sure it's clean but not until it naturally pulls back

Answer 25

My view is it's not your place. Too many people have to live their lives with mutilated genitals that they never asked for. It's sad. I checked out one of those foreskin restoration forums before..... seriously. Why do that to your son? Tons of men are restoring their foreskin just to recover some sensitivity n' stuff. It's sad people have to go that far.



Leave your son alone, let him decide what to do with his body. If he wants to get circd, well, at least it was his choice, and that's fine.



Is it just me or did someone come in with multi accounts? I swear I had like 9 thumbs up and like 2 thumbs down. Get a life loser.

Answer 26

To save myself some time, I am cutting and pasting my answer from an earlier question today:



Congratulations and good for you for looking into this!



I was a pediatric ICU nurse and used to believe that circumcision was the right thing to do. I grew up believing all the myths I heard and didn't know anyone who wasn't circumcised. When I was pregnant a friend of mine who is also a nurse and assisted with countless newborn circs told me how barbaric the procedure is and that it's nothing more than cosmetic surgery on a newborn. I started researching and couldn't believe what I was reading. It is so sad to me that there is so much ignorance among Americans and medical professionals in the US on this subject. We are outraged to hear about girls in other cultures being circumcised yet have completely normalized cutting off a part of a newborn boy's penis. Do you know the history of circumcision in the US for non-religious reasons? It is extremely disturbing.



Circumcision is NOT more sanitary. This is a myth. The foreskin of a newborn is tightly adhered to the head of the penis at birth and will remain this way for many years...sometimes until puberty or later. There is no special care required...you NEVER forcibly retract the foreskin and just wipe it like a finger...only clean what is seen. Now, imagine a newly circumcised penis...the adhered skin has to be ripped from the head of the penis before being cut off at the doctor's discretion (and many time it's a resident performing the procedure!). IF the procedure goes smoothly, you than have a raw and painful wound sitting in a diaper filled with urine and feces for at least a week until it heals. You also have to worry about the skin reattaching causing penile adhesions. Which seems more sanitary? Once the foreskin does retract, it only needs to be pulled back and rinsed with water. You need to remember that almost 85% of the world's men are not circumcised so we'd certainly hear about it if being left intact caused such serious problems.



As far as looking like dad...just think about this a bit more... What do you think your son will notice when he sees dad naked? He will see pubic hair as a difference and that's probably it. By the time things are actually looking similar, they will not be comparing penises! We cannot perform cosmetic surgery on other parts of our baby's bodies so they will look more like mom and dad so why should this be any different? Your son's penis will not be on display very often (or at least I assume) so circumcision for the sake of conformity and for looks alone is especially disturbing to me. Lastly, if the difference ever does come up, it's a very simple conversation, "when daddy was born they thought it was good to cut off a part of a baby's penis, but we know better now so we didn't do that to you." He will probably thank you!!



No health organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision because the potential (possible, not actual) benefits do NOT outweigh the risks. Recently there is a lot of talk of circumcision reducing the transmission of HIV and STIs. This is kind of a joke to me because all you have to do is look at the US to realize it can't make that much of a difference. We have the highest circumcision rates and highest HIV and STI rates compared to other developed nations. Your newborn will not be having sex...when he gets older and does research and thinks that circumcision is better protection than using a condom, he can make the decision for himself.



I could go on and on (I am passionate about this because of how ignorant I used to be on the subject) but I will just give you some links and you can do research. I feel very strongly that if you do an adequate amount of research and critical thinking on this, you will keep your son intact.



http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/01/basic-care-of-intact-child.html

http://doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/research-circumcision.html#videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ZECchLIHo (This is a circumcised dad talking about having a circumcised and intact son)

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/pregnancy-childbirth/whether-or-not-circumcise

http://www.drmomma.org/2009/06/circumcision-information-for.html (info for circumcised fathers making the decision)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGnpdO4iKQ0 (child circumcision: the elephant in the hospital)



Here is some other recent info about how infant foreskin is sold and used in high-end cosmetics and for plastic surgery. It's a billion dollar industry and a bit disturbing:



http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-07-18/opinion/29785917_1_circumcision-ban-plastic-surgery-collagen

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/146761/human_foreskins_are_big_business_for.html?cat=69



EDIT: Beware of someone using circinfo as their source!! Look up the word "circumfetish"...

Answer 27

Circumcision is mutilation.



Approximately 117 infant boys die from circumcision in the US every year.



Uncircumsized penises require NO special care. You should never retract the foreskin of a baby! The penis should be washed and cleaned like a finger until the foreskin separates and the child is able to clean it themselves, usually by age 9.



Edit: Deni calls foreskins "ugly" twice in her post. Personally, I find natural penises look plenty attractive, as do I suspect most other people who like penises. It sounds like she has a bit of a circumcision kink- great for her, but not an excuse for her to encourage the mutilation of children.

Answer 28

Circumcision is healthier in my eyes. When you change the diapers, and not circumcised, you have to pull the skin back every time and make sure you clean it really good because of infections. the skin can also grow over the tip and enclose the tip. Very painful for the child when skin is reopened if this happens. If you get your son circumcised, I recommend doing it when born so he will not remember it. If you do not decide to do this then he might want to do it at a later time when he is grown and then it is a pretty painful surgery. Hope this helps

Answer 29

All of the purported health benefits of circumcision are disputed and far from proven, despite what Deni would have you believe. If circumcision were proven as an effective prophylaxis for some major health concern (as vaccines have been proven to do), then you can be sure there would be some medical academy out there recommending circumcision. As it stands, not one medical academy in the world does. The Royal Dutch Medical Association states that it is a violation of the child's human rights (http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm).



I have to agree. All persons, regardless of age, are entitled to autonomy over their own bodies. Circumcising a child violates that most basic of rights. After all, what freedom do you have if you do not have the freedom to your own body? This right can of course be abridged in special circumstances. If I am unable to provide consent for an operation necessary to save my life, it can be done without my consent under the assumption that I wish to live in order to continue to exercise my right to make future autonomous decisions. In the case of circumcision, however, there is rarely (if ever) an immediate need to amputate part of a boy's genitals. Why not postpone the decision and allow the boy to decide if he would like to be circumcised as an adult? Anesthesia is always used on adult circumcisions (unlike neonatal circumcision, when it is rarely ever used: www.medscape.com/viewarticle/491035) and the risk of complication is significantly lower.



As one of the most popular arguments to justify circumcision is HIV, I would like to draw attention to the three heavily flawed randomized controlled trials from Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa. In these trials, men were split into a circumcised experimental group and an uncircumcised control group. The researchers started the clock when the experimental group was circumcised. However, they told the control group to begin having sex with HIV-positive partners immediately while preventing the experimental group from having sex for six weeks. They took no consideration for the increased timeframe in which the uncircumcised men could contract HIV, thus harming any validation of their hypothesis that the data could provide. What's more, they stopped the clock early on the study once the rates of HIV transmission to circumcised men began to reach that of the control group. We can hardly claim that circumcision will reduce the risk of HIV when the trials testing this hypothesis were so heavily biased. It should be noted that none of the population surveys, the sort of experiment necessary to tell whether the results of the RTCs were valid, could find a causative or even correlative link between circumcision and HIV; in a majority of vulnerable populations, circumcised men had an increased risk of HIV (http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf). As it is is easier for a man to transmit HIV to a woman than for a woman to a man, preventive measures for the heterosexual transmission of HIV should be first and foremost designed to protect women; however, the only data on the subject shows that circumcision increases a man's ability to transmit HIV to his female partners (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/09/us-circumcision-gay-idUSTRE6283Z820100309).



Far from a vestigial flap of flesh, the foreskin contains roughly 20,000 nerve endings, making it the most pleasure-sensitive part of the man's body. This is not denied by proponents of circumcision, but it is argued that the removal of that many nerve endings has no negative sexual effect. The only comprehensive sensitivity study finds that "circumcision ablates the most sensitive part of the penis" (http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf). Even worse, two recent studies show that circumcised men have a higher risk of premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14979200 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21492404).



If a man wishes to be circumcised, then he should be allowed to make that choice. To amputate a healthy body part from a non-consenting infant, however, is clearly a violation of his right to bodily autonomy. Even if the allegations of circumcision benefits are proven to be true, there is no reason that the decision could not be postponed until the owner of the penis can make an informed decision for himself.

Answer 30

I believe it is disgusting, unnatural, weird and selfish to alter another human body without their express approval or desire to do so. I'm sure you wouldn't want your genitals mutilated either, as is practiced in other cultures.

Answer 31

Snip the tip