So my wife and I are going to start working on the whole child bearing thing. We started talking about circumcision if it is a boy. Since the child won't be Jewish, I would not want him to have one. She wants him to because she thinks it looks better, and it is the social norm in our country. I explained to her that other than Israel, the United States is pretty much it. So... genital mutilation or aesthetics?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So... genital mutilation or aesthetics?
This thread will end well.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
CIRCUMCISION IS MURDER!
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
Quick search result *points above*
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I say don't do it.
When the option is to change your body for aesthetic purposes or not, I always vote for not doing it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:and it is the social norm in our country
It's getting less so all the time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So... genital mutilation or aesthetics?
Sounds like you've made up your mind.
Warning: The link is a pdf document.
The WHO seems to have an additional reason for why circumcision might be useful.
Do you call earrings auricle mutilation? If your wife has them, clearly she is far too biased to discuss circumcision.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Do you call earrings auricle mutilation?
My dad does. Actual quote (said to my mom, in my presence): "Dear, you didn't mention that while I was out of town Rivka had mutilated the baby."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Do you call earrings auricle mutilation?
My dad does. Actual quote (said to my mom, in my presence): "Dear, you didn't mention that while I was out of town Rivka had mutilated the baby."
You dad sounds like an awesome guy in an intelligent with a hint of funny sorta way.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug* Why not just let the kid grow up and make the decision? Informed consent and all that, after all, it's his to do with as he pleases.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You dad sounds like an awesome guy in an intelligent with a hint of funny sorta way.
Yeah. Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Why not wait and let your son decide when he grows up?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: *shrug* Why not just let the kid grow up and make the decision?
One reason: the risk of complications is far higher in adults than in newborns.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So... genital mutilation or aesthetics?
This thread will end well.
I saw the title and had the exact same thought.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
"I think it looks frightening when it's cut off. It's a Doberman, let it have its ears."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
rivka: What are the rates of complications for the two populations?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You asked for a reason. I gave one. You can google stats as well as I can.
Personally, I have no opinion on whether a non-Jewish male is circumcised or not. *shrug*
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
My suggestion was made, with tongue firmly in cheek, on the assumption that it is highly unlikely that the adult son would decide to have it done. It's just not the kind of status symbol that is flashed arround a lot.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
If there was a clear downside to circumcision, then pediatricians would be largely united against it. They aren't.
Letting the kid decide for himself is simply deciding that he will not be circumcised. The number of adults willing to consider cutting off part of their own penis is tiny. You could interpret this to mean that it's not the right thing to do, because they'd never do it themselves, I suppose. That's not quite how I see it.
There are minor health advantages to circumcision, and minor conveniences.
There are some functional advantages to having a foreskin.
I suspect most circumcised men who, as adults, conclude they were mutiliated and place a lot of importance on the fact are channeling their issues in a largely arbitrary way. Most circumcised men are content with the skin on their junk.
I believe it is painful to the child. I think with local anathesia the pain is a minor issue, and I don't believe it affects the child's long term well being in any way.
If a couple of parents are both leaning a certain direction, I think they should feel no guilt about others advocating for the opposite direction.
But when a couple is divided in their opinion, I suppose you have to ask yourself whether you can let this one go. By all means try to do the right thing but in my opinion this is NOT worth a persistent grudge or regret.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
rivka: I couldn't really find any credible looking estimates, I had hoped that you might have some if you knew that they were higher.
Anyways, I was just suggesting that mathematically its a fairly straightforward calculation to figure out which approach minimizes the risk of complication: (rate of complications for a newborn) vs. (rate of complications for an adult)*(probability that male decides to undergo the procedure)
I just don't have the second number.
[ February 12, 2009, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
I am circumcised and yet am disinclined to have it done to my future son.
Why? Because I want him to have the best sex he can!
And if some punk in the locker room makes fun of him about his rod's shape, my son can just tell the schmuck that when they grow up he's gunna have a lot more fun giving it to the schmuck's girlfriend than the schmuck ever did.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I can probably find you statistics on neutering puppies as opposed to older dogs, would that help?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Bring it on
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So my wife and I are going to start working on the whole child bearing thing. We started talking about circumcision if it is a boy. Since the child won't be Jewish, I would not want him to have one. She wants him to because she thinks it looks better, and it is the social norm in our country. I explained to her that other than Israel, the United States is pretty much it. So... genital mutilation or aesthetics?
I wouldn't have it done. Your wife's perception of what looks better and what the social norm is may or may not be valid now, but there's no reason to assume it will be valid when your son becomes sexually active.
I'm circumcised because my parents thought it was the norm. I'm not angry about it, but I would prefer that it had not been done.
If I ever have a son, he won't be circumcised unless there is clear scientific evidence that male circumcision confers a significant health benefit on people in developed nations.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I think if you are seriously debating it, then don't have it done. When our son was born I had recently read a study that suggested circumcision made a significant difference with regard to the transmission of STDs (I have since heard that there were methodological problems with this study). So we were pro-circumcision despite it not being something done in either side of the family. Anyway, with the fragility born of 24 hours of induction followed by a C-session, it was not fun to give the final go ahead. I remember my wife weeping, wondering if we were making a terrible mistake.
Edited to add: were we to have a re-do, we would not do it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I vote for not getting it done. It's not really nessasary. Plus it seems painful. If I had a son, no way. Unless there was some sort of medical problem, like the foreskin was too tight or something or infected. I don't think there is much of a reason to do it except for religious reasons. Plus there are risks and it is becoming less of a society norm. It's not really a WORLD norm except with Muslims, Jews, various tribes in Africa, ect.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I think if you are seriously debating it, then don't have it done. When our son was born I had recently read a study that suggested circumcision made a significant difference with regard to the transmission of STDs (I have since heard that there were methodological problems with this study). So we were pro-circumcision despite it not being something done in either side of the family. Anyway, with the fragility born of 24 hours of induction followed by a C-session, it was not fun to give the final go ahead. I remember my wife weeping, wondering if we were making a terrible mistake.
Yes circumcision significantly lowers a chance of contracting a STD.
ETA: Link Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I am Jewish (and so is my son), so there was never any question that we would follow the Jewish Law and have him circumcised. If we were not Jewish, I don't think we would have. I see no important reason why non-Jews follow the Jewish custom in this.
I am a nurse, and I've seen more penises in my time than most people do, and the uncircumcised ones are just fine.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Don't get it done! It's not a norm anymore in the U.S. I think the rate of having it done has dropped below 50% recently.
It really is ritual genital mutilation. What else would you call it? Let the kid himself decide when he's of age.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Yes circumcision significantly lowers a chance of contracting a STD.
In societies that are told that condoms are evil, that's a good argument.
I prefer the inconvenience of a condom to having part of my body removed.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Speaking as a circumcised man who was raised Jewish, I would prefer not to have been circumcised, but it's not a big deal for me. I would not circumcise my son if I had one, unless there was a very good reason to do it; aesthetics is not one. Jewish law, health, yes; following the social norm, maybe, but as pointed out there is currently no social norm; aesthetics no, not even if I thought a circumcised penis to be beautiful and an uncircumcised penis ugly.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Theres an entire half hour epside of Penn & Teller who go into both sides of the issue, there seems to be clear evidence that circumcision does not carry any definent advantages or even reason outside of religious adherence to require it. I don't remember all the details but they had also quoted the WHO as well and the WHO on their show didnt provide any evidence FOR it to outweigh simply not doing it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They really started doing that to non-Jews and non-Muslims in the west to prevent masturbation anyway. Which I read somewhere. It worked about as well as corn flakes and graham crackers did.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Phimosis - read about it, but 'ware the pictures.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I *hate* with quite serious hatred that my parents just decided to CUT OFF PART OF MY BODY.
It's *selfish*. Cutting off the tip of your child's pee-pee because *you* want to, *knowing* that later in life he certainly *wouldn't* choose to have it done... well, it's selfish and wrong. And permanent.
How about a tattoo? Anyone in favor of baby tattoos?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
OK guys, has anyone finally decided to let the female of the species voice (or type) and opinion on this? So ladies, smegma or no smegma?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The other reason not to is the small but very real possibility of the job being botched. Oh, sorry son, you don't have an intact penis anymore because we thought you'd look prettier with this totally unnecessary procedure done. I just don't think I'd want even a tiny risk of having to say that to my son one day.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: CIRCUMCISION IS MURDER!
lol, again Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: The other reason not to is the small but very real possibility of the job being botched. Oh, sorry son, you don't have an intact penis anymore because we thought you'd look prettier with this totally unnecessary procedure done. I just don't think I'd want even a tiny risk of having to say that to my son one day.
As mentioned above, our decision was based on the belief that there was a significant medical reason for having the procedure done (namely that it decreased one's susceptibility to STDs). Aesthetic considerations did not enter the discussion at all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: OK guys, has anyone finally decided to let the female of the species voice (or type) and opinion on this? So ladies, smegma or no smegma?
I think that I can safely speak for ladies in general when I say that we prefer washing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wouldn't it be nice if people could phrase their objections without unnecessarily inflammatory language?
Quite a few people did -- Twinky and Mike, for instance. Too bad it's no longer the norm here.
e.g., regarding the risk of complications when the procedure is done in newborns vs. adult men, the main increase in risk is the requirement for general anesthesia (and its attendant complications) in the latter:
quote: COMPLICATIONS OF THE CIRCUMCISION PROCEDURE
The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.(32) Reports of two large series have suggested that the complication rate is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.6%.(33,34) Most of the complications that do occur are minor.(35) The most frequent complication, bleeding, is seen in ~0.1% of circumcisions. (35) It is quite rare to need transfusion after a circumcision because most bleeding episodes can be handled quite well with local measures (pressure, hemostatic agents, cautery, sutures). Infection is the second most common of the complications, but most of these infections are minor and are manifest only by some local redness and purulence. (33) There also are isolated case reports of other complications such as recurrent phimosis, wound separation, concealed penis, unsatisfactory cosmesis because of excess skin, skin bridges, urinary retention, meatitis, meatal stenosis, chordee, inclusion cysts, and retained Plastibell devices. (35) Case reports have been noted associating circumcision with such rare events as scalded skin syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, sepsis, and meningitis, as well as with major surgical problems such as urethral fistula, amputation of a portion of the glans penis, and penile necrosis. (32,35)
CIRCUMCISION AFTER THE NEWBORN PERIOD
Should circumcision become necessary after the newborn period because problems have developed, general anesthesia is often used and requires a more formal surgical procedure necessitating hemostasis and suturing of skin edges. Although the procedural complications are generally the same as those of newborn circumcision, there is the added risk attendant to general anesthesia if it is used. Additionally, there is morbidity in the form of time lost from school or work to be considered.
... (32) Niku SD, Stock JA, Kaplan GW Neonatal circumcision. Urol Clin North Am 1995; 22:57-65 [Medline] (33) Gee WF, Ansell JS Neonatal circumcision: a ten-year overview with comparison of Gomco clamp and Plastibell device. Pediatrics 1976; 58:824-827 [Abstract] (34) Harkavy KL The circumcision debate. Pediatrics 1987; 79:649-650 [Abstract/Free Full Text] (35) Kaplan GW Complications of circumcision. Urol Clin North Am. 1983; 10:543-549 [Medline] ...
I wouldn't routinely recommend circumcisions myself, although I know how to do (and have done) them as part of training. It is indeed becoming no longer the norm in the US, and outside of religious reasons, just as it is about everywhere else in the world. There is an increased push for circumcision in developing countries where access to condoms and facilities/expectations of penile hygiene are less, as noted above, but that isn't (I think) a sufficient reason to make or keep it a standard procedure in developed countries.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Wouldn't it be nice if people could phrase their objections without unnecessarily inflammatory language?
Quite a few people did -- Twinky and Mike, for instance. Too bad it's no longer the norm here.
But, Rivka, I am really quite adamant about the washing!!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I can't find it right now, but there is a website that lists circumcision rates by region, county, etc, rather than just nationally, and by year rather than overall clumpings.
In the last few years the trend in much of the area I live in has been less and less circumcisions, and more and more uncircumcised boys. So you might check into that before you decide it's the "societal norm."
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: I *hate* with quite serious hatred that my parents just decided to CUT OFF PART OF MY BODY.
It's *selfish*. Cutting off the tip of your child's pee-pee because *you* want to, *knowing* that later in life he certainly *wouldn't* choose to have it done... well, it's selfish and wrong. And permanent.
How about a tattoo? Anyone in favor of baby tattoos?
I can tell you feel strongly about it. I obviously don't have the perspective to comment on your reasons or your feelings, but I'm curious about them. I understand this is a very personal matter but since you brought it up I thought I'd ask if you'd like to explain why it bothers you.
For myself, being circumcised has not led to any problems. I think lubrication is required *very slightly* more often than it would be otherwise, but I think things are fine. I'm not sure why the lack of the foreskin bothers anyone.
Also, have you considered that there are minor health benefits to the procedure, even though they don't rise to the level that the AAP thinks routine circumcision is necessary? I think characterizing it as something that's starkly "wrong" might be a bit hasty. It has some benefits, and unless your parents came out and said "we thought it was ugly so we cut off the tip, and we don't care about any other factors" then calling it selfish might also be unfair.
I don't want to dismiss or demean your feelings on the matter but I'm having a hard time understanding them. I understand if you don't want to discuss it, though.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The other side of the argument [edit to add: before scifibum posted] is that it's easier for small boys to keep things clean without the extra skin. While I doubt it bothers him now, my husband's cousin had trouble with infections when he was little. His grandpa had to show him how to keep it clean because his dad was circumcised and really didn't know first hand how to deal with it.
Either decision will probably be right in the long term.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Apparently, according to Internet Science MD, circumcised males generally have an easier and more pleasurable time with sex.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I DID NOT TYPE the ABOVE, I suspect my father typed it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Cool, I became blayne's father at the ripe old age of -2
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I *hate* with quite serious hatred that my parents just decided to CUT OFF PART OF MY BODY.
It's *selfish*. Cutting off the tip of your child's pee-pee because *you* want to, *knowing* that later in life he certainly *wouldn't* choose to have it done... well, it's selfish and wrong. And permanent.
I have two sons, about six years apart. We had the first one circumcised, but not the second one.
Both times we made the decision based on what we thought would be best for our son, not what would be best for us.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
One other possible reason for the trend going away from circumcisions is the expense. Around here it's $500 out-of-pocket. I am unsure as to whether it used to be covered by more insurances than now.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So... genital mutilation or aesthetics?
Sounds like you've made up your mind.
Warning: The link is a pdf document.
The WHO seems to have an additional reason for why circumcision might be useful.
Do you call earrings auricle mutilation? If your wife has them, clearly she is far too biased to discuss circumcision.
Yeah, my mind is basically made up, but so is hers. Just wanted to see some arguments both ways. Didn't think it would go over 50 posts this quickly though!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
When we had our first son, we did not pay any extra money for the circumcision.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Yeah, my mind is basically made up, but so is hers.
Make a deal. If it's a boy, you decide if the child is circumcised. If it's a girl, she gets to decide.
Sound fair?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I told my husband that since he's a boy, he gets to decide. We had a girl, but maybe next time...
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Blayne, please log out of hatrack then.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:I understand this is a very personal matter but since you brought it up I thought I'd ask if you'd like to explain why it bothers you.
If you don't understand why being amputated against my will bothers me, I'm not sure I can explain it. It's one of the most personal violations I can think of.
Seriously, anyone in favor of circumcision (who isn't Jewish) who is also strongly against getting babies tattooed? Because to me, circumcision is worse.
The "easier to wash" argument makes me so mad. It's not that hard. Ever get engine grease under your fingernails? Do you have your fingertips cut off? It's... it's amputation, permanent.
I mean, if my parents were Jewish and thought God told them to, I'd understand. Like OSC wrote in Enchantment, it's barbaric, but if God knows it's barbaric and that's even *why* he says to do it, that's one thing.
But to look like other people? First, WHO CARES, and second, I don't know what other people look like because I don't go around looking at other guys wangs and I don't show mine off, so it's irrelevant anyway!
For cleanliness sake? All kids should be shaved them, that's cleaner. And at least hair grows back. Or you could, I don't know, wash your kids, and teach them to wash themselves.
How many people who circumcise think if they don't do it the child will grow up and say "I wish you'd had me circumcised!" They *know* that 99.9% will NOT elect to have it done... and I doubt it has to do with the discomfort of the procedure. Intact people rarely decide later on amputation.
Man, why not wait and see if any complications arise from being intact, and then do it? Preemptive amputation boggles the mind.
Some people test positive for the breast cancer gene and get preemptive double mastectomies. One, that's THEIR CHOICE, not someone forcing them. Two, that's a matter of life and death. And three, that's THEIR CHOICE.
I didn't get a choice. I'll never have a choice.
Why don't you have your appendix out? After all, you could get appendicitis. Have it cut out, just in case.
It's societal norm that drives it. All the so-called reasons are after-the-fact rationalizations. The fact that other countries don't do it at all and don't suffer problems because of it should be proof of that. Why can't you show them the evidence in favor? Why won't they think it's a good idea?
Because only people who grow up in an environment where it's normal think it's normal. Everyone else thinks it's crazy.
To sum up, to me it's a human rights issue. Cutting off a body part without consent and without a compelling (rather than theoretical and statistical) reason is wrong.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
Aesthetically, the majority of the female population, at least from the younger respect, prefer the circumcised "look".
That shouldn't, however, influence your decision.
NOR should "societal norms". In some Muslim and/or African countries, female genital mutilation [circumcision] is a societal norm. Whereas most of us would generally consider it disgusting.
You should take health into consideration, but if you train your son to take proper care of his "junk", then there should be no problem, at least when he's older.
Many young boys, circumcised or not, have health related problems with infections when they're young-so do girls for that matter. It's a case of not being old enough to know how to properly care for themselves to the best of their abilities.
I would want any son of mine to have the best sexual pleasure he could, and, barring a great health-related need for it, would probably forgo the procedure.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote: Didn't think it would go over 50 posts this quickly though!
We're a group who collectively care a lot about our penises.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Well with any luck we will have a girl, and it won't be an issue.
Sounds like the health reason argument is basically bogus. Make sure the he knows to wear a condom later in life, and wash properly.
My mom won't be happy, she still has this Jewish hope in her head, even with an Atheist son and an Agnostic daughter-in-law. But she wouldn't be a grandmother if she were not upset about something.
Just have to talk the wife into it, without a major argument. If it gets there, I'll probably just give in. An earlier poster was right, its not worth the grudge or regret.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't think the health argument is bogus, it's just not *compelling*.
Seatarsprayan, I'm sorry you feel violated. That sucks. I do think you're discounting some of the reasons people have chosen to do this, though. You might not agree with those reasons, but that doesn't make them completely invalid.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My brother has a boy and circumcised, but they didn't have a choice. I don't remember what exactly was wrong down there, but if they hadn't cut, it would have had severe consequences.
Since my brother was snipped and the first son also, with the next one, they will also snip. That way all the boys in the family look alike. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
scifibum, rather than saying "I think you're discounting some of the reasons people have chosen to do this", why don't you actually list those reasons that you think he's discounting? That way he can respond to the statement.
My husband is from India, which does not have a culture of circumcision, and also thinks of it as mutilation.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:How many people who circumcise think if they don't do it the child will grow up and say "I wish you'd had me circumcised!" They *know* that 99.9% will NOT elect to have it done... and I doubt it has to do with the discomfort of the procedure. Intact people rarely decide later on amputation.
I wish my parents had circumcised me. The risks the procedure carries to adult men are very different then the ones posed to infants. It is not remotely the same as amputation.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
This was a tough parenting decision for me, not the least of which because people seem to get so angry about it. I really wish people would be more respectful about this and stop accusing others of mutilation. In the end I had it done on my son because there seemed to be a small decrease in risk of infection and STD's and also because I don't really know anyone who is not cut. I'm not sure which one was more important. My mom is a nurse and was quite in favor of it so that swayed my decision as well.
If I had it to do over again, I don't know if I would have made the same choice, but if it is anything to your wife, I would no longer consider social norms in the equation. It seems quite clear to me that circumcision is becoming less popular in the next generation and on most of my mommy boards, it seems to be a heated 50/50.
If I did have it to do over and I did decide to circumcise, I would not have it done with a brand new baby at the hospital. I would ask for an in-office procedure from the doctor. The reason: After my son's procedure he slept for 12 hours straight (from noon to midnight) and I couldn't get him to eat for anything. He was a very sleepy baby for days and it ended up taking 6 days for my milk to come in. I don't know how much of that was due to the procedure, but there are enough things going on in your baby's first week of life besides adding that to the mix.
So there's an indecisive answer for you, but it's the best I have.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:... That shouldn't, however, influence your decision.
NOR should "societal norms".
I disagree. It's certainly something that I considered.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: scifibum, rather than saying "I think you're discounting some of the reasons people have chosen to do this", why don't you actually list those reasons that you think he's discounting? That way he can respond to the statement.
My husband is from India, which does not have a culture of circumcision, and also thinks of it as mutilation.
To answer your question, Jhai, because those reasons have already been listed, more than once, and I didn't want to repeat myself/others just to be argumentative. Many threads on this board continue for pages after everyone has explained their reasoning and are just repeating previous posts.
I didn't have anything new or different to add. I was just observing that Seatarsprayan seems to place little value on things that had higher value to others. (Marginal health benefit, easier hygiene, looking similar to family members, etc.) In an indirect way I was asking him to reconsider the light in which he casts all non-religious decisions to circumcise, but I don't want to harp on it.
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
Approximately how many Calories are there in the removed foreskin?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I see. I just know I find it very frustrating when people make non-specific criticisms of my argument. If you had said "all of the non-religious decisions to circumcise", then Seatarsprayan would know exactly what you were objecting to in his argument/statement. He can then choose to counter or not counter that statement as he wishes.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Thanks for the feedback, Jhai. On reflection it wasn't a very useful post in the first place. I didn't add to the debate; I was posting the self evident. And it's not really my place to judge the value of someone else's excised body part, so the proper response from me should have been "thanks for explaining."
Thanks for explaining, Seatarsprayan.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
LOL...all right, I have the best reason to circumcise your baby right here: foreskin wrinkle cream. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
next year the fda approves virgin's blood as a skin rejuvenatory.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My brother has a boy and circumcised, but they didn't have a choice. I don't remember what exactly was wrong down there, but if they hadn't cut, it would have had severe consequences.
Since my brother was snipped and the first son also, with the next one, they will also snip. That way all the boys in the family look alike. That makes a lot of sense to me.
I have never thought this was a valid reason for my family, though I can see some people deciding for that reason.
My brother was not and my dad was. I remember during potty training them having a conversation in which my brother asked about it. My dad told him that this was just a cosmetic difference, like my dad had brown eyes and my brother blue, or some people had dark skin and some light, it was just another way that people could be different, and that just like other ways people looked different, didn't matter. My brother totally accepted that, no issues.
We have decided that if we have sons we will not circumsize them. This memory helped make up KPC's mind on that count. So did the fact that I have very strong feelings against it, while he had not thought too much about it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: After my son's procedure he slept for 12 hours straight (from noon to midnight) and I couldn't get him to eat for anything. He was a very sleepy baby for days and it ended up taking 6 days for my milk to come in.
Pshht! That's nothing. After my son's circumcision, he couldn't walk right for a year!
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:You might not agree with those reasons, but that doesn't make them completely invalid.
Oh, sure it does. :-)
Just so everyone knows, I'm not making any attempt at objectivity here. Since it's so intensely personal and outrageous to me, I'm just venting. No one will ever possibly convince me it was okay for my parents to have done this, unless you can dig up compelling medical proof, as in the case of scholarette's nephew, above.
I really totally don't get the societal norm thing AT ALL. At least for me, the penis is a *private* part of the body. I don't generally talk about or show it to people, so why would I give un ano de la rata about what other people do or don't do, as far as feeling included in a group?
I definitely don't *want* to be in any group that makes someone feel less included because of the shape of their penis!
Juxtapose, did you get circumcised later, or just wish you were? And why?
I know there are many people like you, that were left intact but wish it had been done. But you're in the vast minority.
It's great that there are circumcised people that don't care and don't feel mutilated. There are a lot of people that do, however.
Are the medical/social considerations so compelling that they override the child's human autonomy over the integrity of his body, AND the ramifications of having him be pissed off for the rest of his adult life and resenting you for taking away his choice?
It's not like I hate my parents. And it's not like I dwell on it or anything. But just because I'm used to it doesn't make it okay. People get used to being in prison you know. They don't wake up after five years in the joint and say "Oh, smeg! I'm in prison! This sucks!" They're used to it. But it's still gotta be rubbish, right?
So I'm used to being fashionably mutilated against my will. But it's still rubbish, and every once in a while I think of my parents as selfish bastards.
So take that into consideration when having your child snipped.
This is forever. They're only a baby for a few years, a child for a few more. They grow up fast.
And for parents whose child later says "I wish my parents had done it," just respond honestly, "I didn't know you wanted it done. You didn't tell me." How are parents supposed to know what their child will have wanted when they're grown? The default should be to not permanently part of their sexual organ.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:My brother has a boy and circumcised, but they didn't have a choice. I don't remember what exactly was wrong down there, but if they hadn't cut, it would have had severe consequences.
One of my sons had minor hypospadius, which essentially means that the urethra isn't quite plumbed right. At about six months of age they performed surgery to correct this which requiring the use of his foreskin to build up other structure, making circumcision a non-choice. We had our second son circumcised primarily to match the rest of the crew, though we had some misgivings about it.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I have two sons, and the first one we circumcised, mainly becaause it was the societal norm and my DH had been circed.I regretted it immediately though, and felt immense guilt that I had put my baby through that kind of pain for anything less than *absolute neccessity*. When the second boy came along I told DH we were absolutley NOT doing that agin, although he was concerned the boys would eventually be upset we had made different choices for them.Now they're (almost) 12 and 6, and they have never asked about it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
One of my friend's sons had hypospadius. That was how they learned he was a hemophiliac. If it hadn't been for the medical necessity, they probably would have felt pretty bad about circumcising. And then son #2 also had the same problem, but thankfully was not a bleeder. The funniest thing is watching her kids play. Whenever the youngest bumps his head, her first response is great thanks it wasn't the hemolphiliac.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: In the end I had it done on my son because there seemed to be a small decrease in risk of infection and STD's
I'm pretty sure it cuts the risk of std's by 60%+
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
There's at least a small reduction among rates of HIV among circumcised men. As for other diseases, I'll leave that to others' Google-Fu.
It's not an issue I really feel a need to get incensed about one way or another. It seems to me that there's fairly valid reasons for going either way.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Seems to cut risk of hiv by 44%, and other STDs by 71%
Or maybe I'm reading it wrong....
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This was a tough parenting decision for me, not the least of which because people seem to get so angry about it. I really wish people would be more respectful about this and stop accusing others of mutilation. In the end I had it done on my son because there seemed to be a small decrease in risk of infection and STD's and also because I don't really know anyone who is not cut. I'm not sure which one was more important. My mom is a nurse and was quite in favor of it so that swayed my decision as well. .
There are a lot of people who practice female circumcision who are probably offended by calling it mutilation as well, but that doesn't change that it is the mutilation of another person's body.
Personally if I ever have a son I will not have him circumcised. If it is a procedure that he wants, he can have it when he is old enough to make the decision on his own.
I don't like the STD argument because to me, (and I realize that by making this argument, no one is actually saying this) it is almost like encouraging unprotected sex. The only way to really prevent getting an STD is to have safe sex, or no sex at all. The studies quoted above were also performed in Africa, among groups who (from what I could tell reading the article) were not practicing safe sex, and were of heterosexual males, not a combination of homosexual and heterosexual men. It did not tell us what other risk factors the subject might have had either. It did not tell us if the men were sleeping with sexual partners who definitively had an STD or HIV. How would you determine this information anyway? Presumably by self-reporting, which means that we would be relying solely on the word of the participants that they were having unprotected sex with someone who had either HIV or an STD.
So for me personally, the STD argument is still up in the air. If you google circumcision and STDs you can get many articles that refute the studies "proving" circumcision reduces the risk of HIV and other STDs, and in this day and age we should be promoting safe sex anyway. And if my (hypothetical) son were to decide that he wanted the lower risk of HIV and STDs he could have the procedure performed later when he could make the decision himself.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
When I had my son, I wanted to circumcise him because it was "normal". All of my family was (dad, five brothers, cousins, etc) and it was weird to me when guys weren't.
But, my son's father wasn't and was dead set against doing it. I decided that a father probably was the better decision maker in this case. After all, he had more applicable experience in the area! I still feel that this is a decision that, if agreement cannot be reached, should be left to the father.
Unfortunately, in my situation, my son's father did not stick around. Now my son is the only boy he knows who isn't circumcised. He definitely knows something is different. It also seems to cause him to not pee strait (it comes out of the tip at an angle) though as he's getting older it's either getting better or he's learned to compensate for it.
If I had it to do over again, I would circumcise him because it would have saved me lots of worry about things over the last few years,and who knows how much of it in years to come. That being said, I am aware that I could have it done now, but I'm not deciding to circumcise at this time. The problems I can imagine facing are not enough for me to justify putting my son through the kind of pain he'd feel now with such a procedure.
I don't think there is a standard right or wrong answer for everyone. I think it depends alot on individual circumstances. Do you live in an area where people heavily lean more one way or another? Is it important to the father? Does your family have a history of infection or complications? What type of sexual values do you intend to teach? There are really too many factors in deciding for there to be a standard "right" answer.
In the end, however, remember this. Even if it is more uncomfortable and complicated, a circumcision CAN always be done at a later date. It is impossible, however, to reverse one.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Lots of mention of pain on this thread. Is it not possible to apply anesthesia?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sala: Lots of mention of pain on this thread. Is it not possible to apply anesthesia?
In the case of children or adults getting circumcised I was under the impression that the pain lasts much longer than the few hours that anesthesia provides relief for.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
andi330- in this kind of study what you do is look at risk factors and probability. On average, people engaging in certain behaviors have X percent chance of getting a disease. The specific chance for any individual may be larger or smaller, but in the large group, your averages work out. The problem I heard with one of these studies is that the circumcised males tended to be one religion and that changes risk factors and must be controlled for. Though I think someone repeated the study with the appropriate controls.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
We never had boys, so we didn't have to make the decision. If we did have boys, we would have circumcised them.
My dad had to have it done as an adult and he did not enjoy the experience. If I could potentially forgo that, by having it done when the baby is a few days old and will never remember it, then I was all for it.
Good luck with your decision though. If you are putting this much thought into it, then it must not be an easy decision for you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
This is not some useless piece of skin we are talking about, it is the most sensitive part of the penis. Why not start chopping off girls' clitorises, while you're at it? They're so unsightly! And all the other families are doing it!
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
I have read a few times in this thread that "most females" like the circumcised look better.
Where did you get this information? Did all the women get together and have a "what we like penises to look like discussion"?
By the way, we men hate your blue hat.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I wouldn't circumcise a son for the same reason I didn't pierce my daughter's ears: just because they don't remember the pain doesn't mean they don't experience the pain, and the benefits to deliberately inflicting any amount of pain on my infant during a procedure to permanently alter its body would have to be much, much more clear-cut for me to have it done. That means I'll have them immunized because I believe the benefits are clear (though still under some debate), but won't poke holes in them or cut bits off, because I believe the benefits are questionable. Neither of my daughter's grandmothers are all that thrilled.
Of course with circumcision, even if I wanted to, my European husband wouldn't allow it as he considers it a freakish American practice to circumcise non-Jewish boys. So in our house it's a non-issue really.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: I have read a few times in this thread that "most females" like the circumcised look better.
More to the point, why would this even matter? Men generally prefer larger breasts, but I don't see people advocating women getting implants on this account. And sheesh, what sort of castrating bitch makes decisions based on whether a man is circumcised or not, and who would want to have anything to do with such a one?
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I find myself agreeing with King of Men's last two posts, if not his phrasing.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I see his point but do not necessarily agree with him. I'm missing that piece of skin and have no issue with sensitivity. Of course, I do not have any basis for comparison.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I, ahem, have to wonder where this data on what women prefer comes from. Was there a large study I was unaware of?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: I have read a few times in this thread that "most females" like the circumcised look better.
You can trivially disprove that by the simple fact that the majority of women live in countries where the rate of the practice is pretty much noise.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
We had our son circumcised because I was nineteen when I had him and easily influenced by what I saw as the social norm. Like Romanylass, I immediately regretted it and would not do it again. In a way, religion plays a small part in this for me. As I got older, I began to see Christians being circumcised as a lack of faith. (If anyone is bored or curious, you can read the book of Acts to get where I'm coming from.)
But the biggest problem is that my son wasn't circumcised in the hospital. For some reason that I never quite understood, the pediatrician never did it. I was even kept in the hospital an extra day because the ped "forgot" and would be back the next morning to do it. He never did.
So I had to take him to a doctor's office to have it done, and let me tell you, it made a big difference for me. I could actually hear him screaming from in the hall outside of the door. They said it was because he didn't want to be held down, and that may be true, but I can't imagine that having an injection in his penis was much fun, either. The point is, when it's done in the hospital, you can kind of forget/ignore how "barbaric" it is. If I were Jewish, I'm sure I'd do it with no serious misgivings, feeling that God knows best. But since I wasn't directly ordered to do it by God, I feel like a jerk for even going down that road. It was horrible.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
All I know is that circumcised men miss out on the pure awesomeness of making a urine bubble by pinching off the tip of the foreskin. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Oh, and as far as what women "prefer", I'd say it's the dude's job to make sure that by the time you get to penis-reveal stage, she's too hot and bothered to care one way or the other.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: All I know is that circumcised men miss out on the pure awesomeness of making a urine bubble by pinching off the tip of the foreskin.
Shens!
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I don't know if there was ever an official study done, but it IS something women discretely giggle at over wine. (At least that's what my experience has been.) I'm not entirely sure why. Perhaps it's for the same reason that 14-year-old boys find tampons hilarious. Anyway, in all of those discussions, almost everyone I have ever talked to preferred the circumcised look. Heck, I guess I do myself if it really comes down to it. However, I think that even if there was such a survey (presumably in the US), what does it really prove? I know where I grew up, every male I knew was circumcised. The only uncircumcised penis I'd ever seen was on my baby brother because I was there at his delivery. It looked down right freakish to me - I remember thinking it looked like a pinky toe! Obviously, if your vision of "norm" is circumcised, it will take a while to decide that uncircumcised might be aesthetically appealing as well.
Even so, does it really matter? I mean, I'm not terribly experienced in this area, but I didn't think that body part was meant to be as visually stimulating as it was meant to be functional. If it functions well, does it matter how it looks?
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Perhaps it's for the same reason that 14-year-old boys find tampons hilarious.
Nope, always funny.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Anyway, in all of those discussions, almost everyone I have ever talked to preferred the circumcised look.
yeap.
quote:If it functions well, does it matter how it looks?
yeah sorta. same reason why a bunch of girls get vaginoplasty.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Shens!
Is that some new meme way to say BS? You doubt?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: All I know is that circumcised men miss out on the pure awesomeness of making a urine bubble by pinching off the tip of the foreskin.
That's just gross.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Not just gross; messy too.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:I don't know if there was ever an official study done, but it IS something women discretely giggle at over wine.
Since I have no use for women that act that way, I really wouldn't care what they thought. If I had a son, I'd not want him to end up with a woman like that.
But then I view sexual activity as not something to be chatted about with friends. There's a reason it's called "being intimate" with someone after all.
Society pressures all of us in so many ways. Can't we keep a few things private? It has nothing to do with shame, despite the Big Lie Straw Man that any sort of body modesty is shame based. Yet pressure from the public on what is one of the most private things causes us to amputate and mutilate infant boys. It's barbaric.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would think it possible to discuss likes and dislikes without getting into specific people and who has what. Fair's fair, it's not as though men don't discuss what shapes they like best. In my experience, though, such discussions are rather theoretical.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: I don't know if there was ever an official study done, but it IS something women discretely giggle at over wine.
People in Jr. High shouldn't be drinking wine.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have had enough experience with both kinds to realize that each one is different anyway and each has their own quirks and charms. Foreskin is only one factor and isn't a big deal either way.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:I don't know if there was ever an official study done, but it IS something women discretely giggle at over wine.
Since I have no use for women that act that way, I really wouldn't care what they thought. If I had a son, I'd not want him to end up with a woman like that.
But then I view sexual activity as not something to be chatted about with friends. There's a reason it's called "being intimate" with someone after all.
Society pressures all of us in so many ways. Can't we keep a few things private? It has nothing to do with shame, despite the Big Lie Straw Man that any sort of body modesty is shame based. Yet pressure from the public on what is one of the most private things causes us to amputate and mutilate infant boys. It's barbaric.
I disagree entirely. I think it shouldn't be quite so taboo to discuss sex and sexuality. In the few cases when I've been able to open up with close friends I've learned things that have greatly benefited both me and my husband.
Posted by Mercury (Member # 11822) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: I know there are many people like you, that were left intact but wish it had been done. But you're in the vast minority.
It's great that there are circumcised people that don't care and don't feel mutilated. There are a lot of people that do, however.
You may be right that people who wish they were circumcised are in the minority. But I believe you are also in the vast minority. As a circumcised man, I just can't understand your outrage.
FGM is mutilation. Physical abuse to the point of permanent scarring is mutilation. What was done to us is nothing by comparison, and I don't think we have a right to put it at that level. It isn't about being fashionable. It's about health, and I personally don't see why a tiny piece of skin is worth the risk.
Not that I have a problem with parents not circumcising their child. It is their choice. For me though, I'm glad my parents did it. If I have a son, he will be circumcised.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:I don't know if there was ever an official study done, but it IS something women discretely giggle at over wine.
Since I have no use for women that act that way, I really wouldn't care what they thought. If I had a son, I'd not want him to end up with a woman like that.
You don't want your hypothetical son to end up with women that are open enough to discuss their sexuality with friends?
quote:Can't we keep a few things private?
Yes. Should we be forced to?
quote:Yet pressure from the public on what is one of the most private things causes us to amputate and mutilate infant boys. It's barbaric.
by gum it just wouldn't be a circumcision thread without it.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Just for the record, what I was talking about wasn't women talking (or giggling) about specific sexual experiences. I just meant talking about the SUBJECT of circumcision. Most women (in my experience) have an opinion on which they think LOOKS better, though in all honesty I'm not sure how much of it is based on actual experience - and very few were crude enough to give any explicit details on anything more than mere looking.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
If my potential future spouse thought I would look better with parts of me chopped off, I think rather than chop parts of me off, I'd look harder for a potential future spouse.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I think it's pretty ugly both ways.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Just for the record, what I was talking about wasn't women talking (or giggling) about specific sexual experiences. I just meant talking about the SUBJECT of circumcision. Most women (in my experience) have an opinion on which they think LOOKS better, though in all honesty I'm not sure how much of it is based on actual experience - and very few were crude enough to give any explicit details on anything more than mere looking.
This is my general experience as well. Few specifics, mostly generalized comments, and a very short-lived conversation.
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote: I don't know if there was ever an official study done, but it IS something women discretely giggle at over wine.
People in Jr. High shouldn't be drinking wine.
In my opinion, girls in Jr. High (aka Middle School these days) shouldn't be talking about boys that way anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: If my potential future spouse thought I would look better with parts of me chopped off, I think rather than chop parts of me off, I'd look harder for a potential future spouse.
And yet girls and guys pierce and puncture many parts of their bodies in an effort to look attractive.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes; but would you marry (or date) someone who demanded that your nipples be pierced before they would consider it? Or even just that you wear some makeup? There is a difference between "I'm doing this to look good for X" and "X makes me do this or he/she won't date me."
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Also, piercing is far less extreme than amputation.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: If my potential future spouse thought I would look better with parts of me chopped off, I think rather than chop parts of me off, I'd look harder for a potential future spouse.
And yet girls and guys pierce and puncture many parts of their bodies in an effort to look attractive.
But they do it for themselves, because they want it due to subtle cultural socialization that has made a piercing seem attractive. There's a big difference between that and being outright told to mutilate your body.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: If my potential future spouse thought I would look better with parts of me chopped off, I think rather than chop parts of me off, I'd look harder for a potential future spouse.
And yet girls and guys pierce and puncture many parts of their bodies in an effort to look attractive.
But they do it for themselves, because they want it due to subtle cultural socialization that has made a piercing seem attractive. There's a big difference between that and being outright told to mutilate your body.
Yes I'm sure every single young girl who has had their ears pierced by their parents was completely in a position to decide for themselves if they wanted it.
Also there used to be a "subtle cultural" opinion that circumcised penises looked attractive. It isn't as strong as piercings but nonetheless I believe has existed.
When I was a baby I had an extra piece of cartilage on my ear and my parents had it removed because it looked different was that also "mutilation?"
I think at this age and this could just be a mental construct that I'd want to be circumcised. I would much rather have gotten it done right after birth than now as it incapacitates you for quite some time as an adult.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Yes I'm sure every single young girl who has had their ears pierced by their parents was completely in a position to decide for themselves if they wanted it.
*shrug* Maybe they should have waited until she was ready to decide.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
My girls get to decide whether they want to have their ears pierced when they are eight years old.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
At least if you change your mind about a piercing, you can remove the earring or other metal parts and let the hole close back up over time. It leaves a small scar, not a missing body part, you know? There's a difference.
I'm not particularly in favor of parents having their kids pierced before the kid is old enough to decide. But it's a lot less bad than parents cutting off parts of their kids' bodies.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: It leaves a small scar, not a missing body part, you know?
Hyperbolic much?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The use of the word mutilation is itself highly inflammatory.
OED defines mutilation as
quote:The act or process of disabling or maiming a person by wounding a limb or organ.
I think it serious hyperbole to claim that circumcision is disabling or maiming. There is no conclusive evidence that circumcision decreases sexual pleasure and certainly none that it decreases function. Circumcision is certainly an unnecessary medical procedure and I can see reasons why people would find it undesirable -- but calling it "mutilation" is really over the top.
Couldn't we settle on a civil noninflammatory term like "alteration" that does not automatically label those who disagree as evil?
For decades in the US, circumcision was recommended by most physicians for health reasons and was widely accepted as the social norm. The medical opinions have changed and social norms in the US are changing too, but that doesn't change the past. Even if you think circumcision is undesirable, it seems unfair to condemn parents who chose to do what doctors recommended and everyone else did because decades later we question the validity of that medical opinion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Couldn't we settle on a civil noninflammatory term like "alteration" that does not automatically label those who disagree as evil?
I second that request.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:At least if you change your mind about a piercing, you can remove the earring or other metal parts and let the hole close back up over time. It leaves a small scar, not a missing body part, you know? There's a difference.
Not unless you change your mind before the piercing has fully healed. I had my ears pierced when I was a teenager. I don't regret it but earing bother my ears so I haven't worn earrings on a regular basis for at least 25 years and my holes have not closed back up. I do occasionally wear them when I'm getting really dressed up for something formal but that happens very rarely. I'm sure I haven't worn earrings in over a year now and the holes are still there.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: It leaves a small scar, not a missing body part, you know?
Hyperbolic much?
What do you call the foreskin if it's not a body part?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I watched a circumcision during my pediatrics rotation and I found it horrible to watch. I am pretty sure they used a glucose dropper and no anesthesia. It was also well known among the residents that this very quick procedure was worth money to the hospital ($400+ as mentioned by someone else earlier). There are several methods of circumcision including the gomco clamp (here is how it is used), disposable clamp, and free form. Drawings of penises included above but no photographs.
Of course there are a lot of procedures that could easily fall under the category "barbaric" or "gross" of which I felt this was one. Others included drilling into bones, skin grafting, liver biopsy at the bedside, and wound care in the vascular surgery dept.
I wouldn't choose it to be done. I think the medical benefits are miniscule compared to the seriousness of the procedure.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: It leaves a small scar, not a missing body part, you know?
Hyperbolic much?
What do you call the foreskin if it's not a body part?
A flap of skin.
A body part is an arm. At least an ear.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm sure you'd feel the same way if someone chopped off your labia minora, likewise a flap of skin.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler:
I wouldn't choose it to be done. I think the medical benefits are miniscule compared to the seriousness of the procedure.
What's your measure for how serious a procedure is?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Complications, drawbacks, and reversibility are some.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'm sure you'd feel the same way if someone chopped off your labia minora, likewise a flap of skin.
That it's not a body part? Yes.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
rivka, I'm not against religious circumcision, just to make it clear.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
So, "parents cutting off parts of their kids' bodies" is wrong, but its okay if they think its what God wants?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Body parts are clearly things one would store in here. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: So, "parents cutting off parts of their kids' bodies" is wrong, but its okay if they think its what God wants?
That's surprising to you? Many religions view killing as wrong, unless god says it's okay. Why would circumcision be different?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
It's mutilation, clear and simple. It's only accepted because people think it's normal...just like female genital mutilation is accepted in certain parts of the world because, hey, it's what everyone does!
[ March 14, 2009, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Clive Candy ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Body parts are clearly things one would store in here.
:: laugh ::
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: rivka, I'm not against religious circumcision, just to make it clear.
How do you justify this? If we were talking about female circumcision or the amputation of a finger conducted in accordance with a religion, I assume that you would condemn them?
Presumably the key issue is that, for the vast majority of boys circumcised, there is no degradation in quality of life. And this is true whether the circumcision is done for religious reasons or not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
How do you know?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: How do you know?
Fair enough. ... there is no known degradation in quality of life.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Body parts are clearly things one would store in here.
:: laugh ::
I don't get it. Mine has a hole in the bottom.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:SUBJECTS AND METHODS The study included 373 sexually active men, of whom 255 were circumcised and 118 were not. Of the 255 circumcised men, 138 had been sexually active before circumcision, and all were circumcised at >20 years of age. As the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory does not specifically address the quality of sex life, questions were added to compare sexual and masturbatory pleasure before and after circumcision.
RESULTS There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. Self-reported effects on a small sample. And an atypical one at that, since not many people are circumsized as adults.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
This looks interesting. I can't view the link, so will hold off commenting until I read at least a bit more of the paper.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: rivka, I'm not against religious circumcision, just to make it clear.
Well, then that makes all the deliberately inflammatory language just peachy!
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
quote: King of Men Member Member # 6684
posted March 13, 2009 06:55 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rivka:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tatiana: It leaves a small scar, not a missing body part, you know? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you call the foreskin if it's not a body part?
Hyperbole to me is getting punched in the mouth so hard that the teeth get rammed down your throat making it necessary to sit on your food to eat it. But what do I know about subtle hyperbole? Then that might be an oxymoron.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
I apologize, the subject is foreskins and one should try and stick to the subject so here goes. Has anyone ever wondered what they do with those fresh little baby foreskins? Perhaps they go for human stem cell research. I can just see a scientist saying “pass me another foreskin.” But again they probably say “pass me another placenta.” I am sure that foreskins are really useful for those who run around naked in the brush as long as they pull it back and wash it once in a while. Then in that society when a young man is ready to go out on a date his mom might ask him "Did you pull it back and wash under your foreskin?"
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Oshki, This is funny stuff to me, and I'm not referring to an uncomfortable because we're talking about foreskin and circumcision funny.
I don't view the process of removing foreskin from the penis as amputation, though I understand why some might, since it's the physical removal of a portion of the body- then again so is trimming finger and toe nails, or cutting of one's hair.
I think of circumcision as a means of improvement, or as a solution to some problems. This discussion is often religion heavy, since if I'm correct it was first practiced within religious cultures. The Jewish people have specialists, and ceremonies, and Catholics have even had their movments with circumcision, though no fancy ceremonies. I understand one religious reason for starting circumcision was the belief having the foreskin caused arrousal and impure actions or thoughts. Religion gurus, If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Now speaking Medically (no, I'm not a doctor), the foreskin can harbor certain bacteria and disease, therefore its removal would alleviate the necessity for extra attention to that area in the shower, and possible infections.
For that reason, and that reason mostly, my wife and I decided to have our son circumcised (just like his daddy- the other reason).
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: rivka, I'm not against religious circumcision, just to make it clear.
Well, then that makes all the deliberately inflammatory language just peachy!
One person's clear communication is apparently another person's inflammatory language.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I have heard, and this is anecdotal at best, that circumcisions performed on newborns in the hospital are considerably more painful and inexpertly done — more barbaric if you like — than those performed at a bris. Wouldn't surprise me at all.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered:
I understand one religious reason for starting circumcision was the belief having the foreskin caused arrousal and impure actions or thoughts. Religion gurus, If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Definitely not the Jewish reason. But it is why many Christians in the United States began doing it in the 1800s and forward.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
By the way, the debate in my house is over, thanks to British television. We were watching The Girls Guide to 21st Century Sex, a very educational series that was broadcast in the UK. After seeing all the foreskin in the UK, my wife no longer fears it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered:
I understand one religious reason for starting circumcision was the belief having the foreskin caused arrousal and impure actions or thoughts. Religion gurus, If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Definitely not the Jewish reason. But it is why many Christians in the United States began doing it in the 1800s and forward.
I stated pages ago that they started doing it mainstreamly, if that is the right word to prevent masturbation. But it works as well as graham crackers and cereal.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
This is rather off subject, but does anyone know exactly why they thought that would work? I mean, if a forskin is not required for sex, then how would it prevent masturbation?
Obviously, various religions (including Christianity) have done absolutely ridiculous things in the past. They don't always have logical reasons for them. However, usually there is at least a "pretend" reason for them - such as "Witches float - throw her into the pond". What possible evidence could there be that circumcision prevented masturbation??
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Originally posted by Stephan, Definitely not the Jewish reason. But it is why many Christians in the United States began doing it in the 1800s and forward. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't saying anything as for the reasons why the Jewish community decided to turn circumcision into the ceremony it has become. I actually have no idea, and am interested - in case there are any Jewish people in this forum who know.
As for the masturbation- I don't know why someone thought the removal of the foreskin would control or stop masturbation. Maybe uncircumcised guys are masturbating fools. Is anyone in this forum uncircumcised who is also addicted to masturbation that might know the answer to this question?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, removing the most sensitive part of the penis probably does reduce masturbation. There's always going to be one or two men who could go either way - masturbate, or read the Bible - and who would have decided the other way if they had their foreskin. Whether the effect is measurably large is a different question.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Actually, removing the most sensitive part of the penis probably does reduce masturbation. There's always going to be one or two men who could go either way - masturbate, or read the Bible - and who would have decided the other way if they had their foreskin. Whether the effect is measurably large is a different question.
The foreskin is the most sensitive part? I was under the impression that the flap itself is not very sensitive while the head is the most sensitive part. Of course I don't have a flap myself to compare but do you have any sort of link regarding this?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, it's the most sensitive part of mine, anyway. The head may be the most sensitive part of circumsized men's, in the same way that the breasts are the most erogenous zone of circumsized women.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: What possible evidence could there be that circumcision prevented masturbation??
The earlier study hints at a possible mechanism.
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: ... Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.
So no foreskin protecting the head, makes it less sensitive, decreases pleasure, and reduces sex drive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: Do you have a link to that study? I am curious as to how soon after circumcision the respondents took the survey.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:The effect of circumcision on masturbation is interesting, as preventing masturbation was one of the main original reasons often cited for the popularity of circumcision in America. The frequency of masturbation seems to have decreased only slightly after circumcision, but there was a striking difference in the pleasure of masturbation, with 48% reporting less pleasure from masturbation after circumcision, in contrast to 8% who reported more pleasure. We think that this is one of the most important findings of the present study. This is consistent with more men finding masturbation more difficult after circumcision, possibly because of the loss of the foreskin.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I can't speak for those in the study, but if I had it done as an adult I probably would have a lower sex drive as well.
I think they need to compare masturbation frequency with those who had it done as babies.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
masturbated as babies? I'm joking, but there are always going to be reasons not to accept the data for any of these studies due to the unlikely possibility of a randomized controlled trial. There are too many confounding factors in comparing masturbation frequency in two populations that chose to get or not get a circumcision.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Circumcision is practiced shortly after birth, so those who have been circumcized don't know any different. I bet if you ask 100 males who had been circumcized at birth if they enjoy sex and masturbation (if they masturbate at all), that 100 males would say "yes," and possibly all in unison. Now go back to those 100 males and ask them if they enjoy sex better NOW that they are circumcised or when they were uncircumcised. Of course, they don't know the difference because they were circumcized as babies, and I'm sure they are quite happy with their sex lives, or quite sufficiently pleasured during sex and/or masturbation.
Those who were circumcized as adults have more variables to associate to the study, in fact so many that getting actual reliable results would be difficult if not impossible. All males have psychology. They might have had a perfectly fine circumcision, but can't get over the idea their penis was opperated on. Perhaps some in the above study have allowed their partner's opinions to affect their own either subconsciously or consciously. I'm just saying, too many variables to factor.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There is a frenulum where the foreskin has a particular attachment to the head and a particular mucosal ridge rich with sensory cells that can get snipped during circumcision, moreso with some methods than others. I was trained to avoid that to preserve as much sensation as possible.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: There is a frenulum where the foreskin has a particular attachment to the head and a particular mucosal ridge rich with sensory cells that can get snipped during circumcision, moreso with some methods than others. I was trained to avoid that to preserve as much sensation as possible.
Ah Claudia, preserver of male orgasms, if only those whom you saved could thank you. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I did my best.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
I hope whomever performed my circumcision did so with as much care and accuracy as you with your patients. Of course, I don't know any different and seem to do alright for myself, but I hope the procedure was done right.
Claudia, are you a surgeon then? What's your specialty?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)