Foo - Question for the men and/or medical pros...

I know a single mom to be who is struggling with whether to circumcize her baby boy. She doesn't have a lot of male friends and is getting conflicting opinions from everyone around her.

I told her that there's lots of guys on this forum and I would ask y'all. I hope this is not too touchy of a subject but it IS really important to her that this is handled correctly.

Thanks in advance!

I think you might be opening a can of worms --no pun intended.

I'm in favor of the procedure.

yes, yes, yes, yes. Circumcize away.

It was not done to me. Alittle bit more attention needs to be payed to cleanlines. No problems.

My bicycle seat made mine fall off.

I know a single mom to be who is struggling with whether to circumcize her baby boy. She doesn't have a lot of male friends and is getting conflicting opinions from everyone around her.

I told her that there's lots of guys on this forum and I would ask y'all. I hope this is not too touchy of a subject but it IS really important to her that this is handled correctly.

Thanks in advance!

I'm not a man, but I vote no.

First, it is an involuntary surgical procedure, performed on a person unable to give consent and unable to be informed enough to give consent. It is usually done so the child will look like "everyone" else. But not "everyone" else has (or has had this) this procedure done. Sounds unnecessary to me

Second, it is argued that it helps to maintain cleanliness. Baloney. If you can teach your kid to wash his hands, you can teach him how to keep his penis and foreskin clean. And if you can't talk to your kid about this, what are you doing having kids? Your childs doctor can tell you what else needs to be taught to your son about propper "unaltered equipment" care.

Third, it is supposed to prevent cancer. From what I have heard the cancer in question is rare and pretty much prevented by proper hygiene. This argument resembles the argument that women sometimes get when they have fibroid tumors in the uterus: while we're in there why don't we take it all out and you won't have to worry about ovarian/uterine/cervical cancer.

Fourth, some people worry that their son's penis is different then Daddy's/other boys. Just like everything else and everyone else, penises come in different shapes, forms and colors. You teach your son that, yes they can look different. I don't know about your area, but the kids around here don't even have to take showers after P.E. any more so comparison is harder now.

This judgement is up to the parent/s, though I think it should be up to the person it is being done on.

Tell the parent/s to read around and try to make an informed decision. Have them look at all the pros and cons.

And yes, I do have a son who is "different" than his father.

70% of the men are circumsized according to the US census bureau in 2000. At that kind of ration, circumsizing to make child "fit in" seems doesn't seem necessary.

I whole-heartedly agree with this
First, it is an involuntary surgical procedure, performed on a person unable to give consent and unable to be informed enough to give consent. It is usually done so the child will look like "everyone" else. But not "everyone" else has (or has had this) this procedure done. Sounds unnecessary to me

I'm with foehn. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Joe

Cut him.

Yes, most little boys know how to wash their hands. But most little boys don't do it very well or don't do it at all until you nag him to do it. The difference is that your little boy isn't likely to get a nasty infection on his tender bits if he doesn't dilligently wash his hands.

Studies on prevention of penile cancer has always been fraught with problems due to the small absolute prevalence of this disease. However, there are very good studies, both prospective and cohort, that show decreased risk of HIV infection in circumsized men. Dendritic cells receptive to HIV can be found in the mucosal surface of the glans. When men are circumcised, the mucosal tissue of the glans keratinizes and evolves into stratified squamous epithelium, which would be expected to be more resistant to sexually transmitted disease pathogens.In addition, more and more studies showing decreased cervical cancer risk to their female partners (the non keratinized uncircumsized penis harbors more HPV (Human papiloma vius) and inreases liklihood of transmission to female cervix ...HPV is the number one cause of cervical cancer.)

Otherwise, in terms of the man's health, other than the above, it really is not a problem .

see some links http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/462816

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/418902

First, it is an involuntary surgical procedure, performed on a person unable to give consent and unable to be informed enough to give consent. It is usually done so the child will look like "everyone" else. But not "everyone" else has (or has had this) this procedure done. Sounds unnecessary to me


Agreed.

It's not that common in the UK - I guess it's a cultural thing.

My wife and I had this discussion recently, as our first child is due January 1. We looked at some of the "Don't Butcher Your Son" hype that's been given new life thanks to the internet. And we decided that we will do it, especially since my wife's grandfather had to have a cicumcision done in his 60s due to UTIs. So do it now, because if he does it later, he'll be in more pain, with a longer recovery time.

-Bill

I'm a guy I say do it, for cancer purposes even if it is 1% isn't it worth it? Even if it is 1% chance of infection why not do it? Better then havign to have it done later in life.

I admit the chances of any complications from not having it done are EXTREMELY small, but what harm does it really do?

Wow, lots of great responses! So many I will have her look at the forum herself.

Interesting to note that no one has said they wish it had, or hadn't been, done to them. Either option seems liveable.

Wow, lots of great responses! So many I will have her look at the forum herself.

Interesting to note that no one has said they wish it had, or hadn't been, done to them. Either option seems liveable.

Yep it is

That is a very good point Spexy, neither option is going to severely effect someone's life.

I'm a guy I say do it, for cancer purposes even if it is 1% isn't it worth it? Even if it is 1% chance of infection why not do it? Better then havign to have it done later in life.

I admit the chances of any complications from not having it done are EXTREMELY small, but what harm does it really do?


Did you realise that this is a medical procedure usually done in a hospital? Do you know how many very, very nasty infections you can pick up in a hospital? The risk of these hospital infections is going up all the time.

I remember just before I had my son that there was a big whirl going on about whether or not to use a local anesthetic when circumsizing. It was thought infant nervous systems were not mature enough to experience pain like adults did. . .To me it was obvious that if you pinch a baby and it screamed, that that baby was experincing pain. As a result, I thought it pretty barbaric to cut someone's forskin off without painkillers/anesthetics; I am pretty sure that most men, if required to be circumcised for medical reasons as an adult, would certainly insist on a local anesthetic. If my husband and I had even considered circumcision for our son, WE would have insisted on a local for the procedure.

Chances are that if you were circumsized many years ago as an infant, no local was used. Jeeze it makes me shiver to think of such things happining!

And try to tell me that your parents kept you constantly shaved bald because you might pick up lice somewhere? --Or that they had your testicles removed when you were an infant so that you could avoid possible testicular cancer in your possible future?

Ouch. :)

Don't do it. I remember the furor when some Africans were cutting off female children's clitorises. Is this all that different? The only reason I can see why people put up with this is that this has Biblical/Western roots.

Don't do it. I remember the furor when some Africans were cutting off female children's clitorises. Is this all that different? The only reason I can see why people put up with this is that this has Biblical/Western roots.

good response!

Oh, and they still are cutting clitorises.

Hi,
I vote against, and to be honest, I have always wondered what it would be like to be au natural.

"Don't do it. I remember the furor when some Africans were cutting off female children's clitorises. Is this all that different? The only reason I can see why people put up with this is that this has Biblical/Western roots."

I think it is a bit different. I don't think the clitoris can be likened to foreskin. Female circumcision is to prevent females from having orgasm, not for cleanliness or visual appearance. Someone else may have some better info on this.

Take your point though. Some could consider the procedures 'similarly' cruel in nature and unnecessary.

I remember the furor when some Africans were cutting off female children's clitorises. Is this all that different?

YES!!

YES!!

Bac is right. It is not female circumcision, it is female mutilation and has lots of severe aftereffects.


Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is practiced in many forms:

Sunna circumcision in which the tip of the clitoris and/or its covering (prepuce) are removed.
Clitoridectomy where the entire clitoris, the prepuce and adjacent labia are removed.
Infibulation (a.k.a. Pharaonic circumcision) which is a clitoridectomy followed by sewing up of the vulva. A small opening is left to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass. 1 A second operation is done later in life to reverse some of the damage. In some cultures, the woman is cut open by her husband on their wedding night with a double edged dagger. She may be sewn up again if her husband leaves on a long trip.

Because of poverty and lack of medical facilities, the procedure is frequently done under less than hygienic conditions, and often without anesthetic by other than medically trained personnel. Anesthesia is rarely used. Razor blades, knives or scissors are usually the instruments used. The In the rural Mossi areas of Burkina Faso, group female circumcisions are scheduled every three years in many villages. Girls aged from 5 to 8 are assembled by their mothers into groups of up to 20. The circumcision "uses a knife-like instrument, the barga, reserved specifically for this purpose; after each operation she simply wipes the knife on a piece of cloth, sometimes rinsing it in water first." 2 In some areas of Africa, FGM is delayed until two months before a woman gives birth. This practice is based on the belief that the baby will die if she/he comes into contact with their mother's clitoris during birth. We are unaware of any medical evidence to support this belief.

Side effects of the operation can include: hemorrhage, shock, painful scars, keloid formation, labial adherences, clitoral cysts, chronic urinary infection, and chronic pelvic infections. Later in life, it can cause kidney stones, sterility, sexual dysfunction, depression, and various gynecological and obstetric problems

Wow, lots of great responses! So many I will have her look at the forum herself.

Interesting to note that no one has said they wish it had, or hadn't been, done to them. Either option seems liveable.

I know of one guy who wishes he hadn't been. He says he feel kind of violated because it was done without his conscent (because he was an infant, obviously). As for me, I don't really care either way.

I don't know the numbers but I would bet appendicitis and tonsalitis cause
many more problems than not being circumcised so why don't we take
out a babies appendix and tonsils in the hospital while we are at it. If this
wasn't something that has been performed for thousands of years no one
would suggest today that we start doing it. There would be a huge out cry.
Before I get the responses I know you can't compare the surgery to take out
an appendix to that of a circumcision. I was just making a point.

It see it as a cultural thing only. If she is worried about him fitting in here in
America then do it. If not then don't. I doubt I would have my son circumcised
but since I don't have a son I couldn't even tell you what I would do for sure.

Did you realise that this is a medical procedure usually done in a hospital? Do you know how many very, very nasty infections you can pick up in a hospital? The risk of these hospital infections is going up all the time.



Good God! foehn's right! Never go to the hospital. Those places are full of sick people!

(Remind me to offer my opinion next time there's a thread on ovarian cysts since I'll be just as qualified to post.)

GENITAL MUTILATION - how barbaric!!!

Cut it off....Whats the point of having it?...I find it nice not having to move skin around when I use the restroom like some of my friends

i'd say go for it. firstly due to my religious beliefs, secondly due to my personal opinion.

First, it is an involuntary surgical procedure, performed on a person unable to give consent and unable to be informed enough to give consent. It is usually done so the child will look like "everyone" else. But not "everyone" else has (or has had this) this procedure done. Sounds unnecessary to me
islamically, it's obligatory for newborn boys to be circumcised on the 7th day. i also know that other religions practice this as part of their religious beliefs. because of this, i wouldn't say that saying that circumcision is something usually done so that the child will look like everyone else is a very accurate thing to say.

Did you realise that this is a medical procedure usually done in a hospital? Do you know how many very, very nasty infections you can pick up in a hospital? The risk of these hospital infections is going up all the time.
if the lady chooses to have her son circumcised she doesn’t have to have it done in a hospital. in fact, if she does decide to have it done, my advice would be to have it done by a jewish moyle (sp?). most of my friends who've had sons, including my brother, took their sons to a moyle to get circumcised for the simple fact that it's what they do for a living. no impersonal doctors just performing some “surgical procedure”, no germ infested hospitals to worry about catching an infection in, no scary weird looking instruments used for the procedure – when my wife and i attended our prenatal classes, they showed us some pictures of the tools they use in hospitals as well as some pictures of penises just after the surgery was performed (the midwife conducting the classes was against circumcision)... the pictures were kind of gruesome and didn't look pleasant at all.

Female circumcision is to prevent females from having orgasm, not for cleanliness or visual appearance.
not in all circumstances. islamically, female circumcision is a recommended practice (and not obligatory as some people have said – not on this board, just generally speaking) where only the “hood” surrounding the clitoris is cut and not the clitoris itself... from what i've read it's more for visual appearance than anything else i can think of (i'll have to read up on it again to be sure about everything). they're supposed to cut the hood around the clitoris sparingly and not excessively - cutting less is better than cutting more. if i have time when i get home from work i'll post a quote from one of the islamic books i have that discusses issues pertaining to newborns. it has a short section on female circumcision.

about people wishing they had/hadn't had it done, i personally have one friend whose parents didn't have him circumsized when he was born, but then later decided to get it done himself. although he was was only 13 and not 60 (like the guy mentioned above), and the recovery time was probably shorter, it still did hurt a lot... and it's something he's going to remember probably for the rest of his life, whereas someone who was circumsized when they was born (like myself), probably won't remember a thing.

i was able to check check that islamic book i mentioned concerning issues pertaining to newborns... i have a correction to make from my earlier post:

islamically, it's obligatory for newborn boys to be circumcised on the 7th day.
according to the book, it’s recommended to circumcise newborn boys on the 7th day, however it is permissible to do so before that and after that. circumcision becomes obligatory at the attainment of puberty.

as for female circumcision, here’s that quote i said i’d post if i had time:

description
female circumcision is largely similar to male circumcision, but is applied to the clitoris instead of the penis. just like the foreskin surrounding the glans, the clitoris is surrounded by a small hood connected to two flaps of skin called the “labia minora”.

female circumcision involves removing part or all of the clitoral hood and the labia minora.

excessive circumcision
pharaonic circumcision in the nile valley is as old as recorded history, and continues to be practiced in sudan, egypt, and other african countries. because of its clearly brutal and destructive nature, it is often called “female genital mutilation”.

pharaonic circumcision involves excision of the clitoris, the labia minora and the inner, fleshy layers of the labia majora. the remaining outer edges of the labia majora are then brought together so that when the wound has healed they are fused so as to leave only a pinhole-sized opening. urination and menstruation must thereafter be accomplished through this remaining pinhole-sized apeture.
then the author quotes some islamic texts regarding the issue of female circumcision (one of which is a command from Prophet Muhammad to trim slightly and not excessively)... then goes on to say:

from the above, we see that female circumcision is voluntary. it is recommended for women with excessive labia growth, which is more common among women in warm climates.source: “our precious sprouts: islamic regulations for newborns”, author: muhammad al-jibaly. published by: al-kitaab & as-sunnah publishing.

Males who are circumcised as infants do not remember the procedure and are not traumatized by it.

Looking like everyone else is not a very valid consideration, to my thinking, since most young males worry that their penis is too small, bent funny, whatever.

Religious requirements are one thing. If your religion requires male circumcision, call the moyle and have it done.

Health concerns are another thing. Statiscally the benefits of circumcision are small.

If I had a son, I would probably have him circumcised for this reason: I have known two males who needed to be circumcised later in life...one at age 6, the other in his 30s. In both cases, it was fairly traumatic. Yeah, two males out of all the men and boys I've known is statistically small, but for those two statistics didn't mean much.

Rasheed, i have no problems with the prepuce removal or the hood of the clitoris removed but I have seen the horrific problems with the more extensive clitoral excisions and the labial closures in terms of horrific scarring and painful and unorgasmic intercourses. However, it looks like if the little girls are having these extreme forms of circumcision done, it is not voluntary (they are not old enough to make that decision for themselves) and may be contrary to Islamic law. I don't like how many of the extreme mutilations remove all the joy and pleasure for these women.

Yikes! As a guy I would say do it just because it makes life that much easier. You can tell your son to wash his hands, but that doesn't mean he does it. I'm not resentful that it was done without my consent, I'm just glad I don't remember having the procedure done period! I couldn't imagine a 60 year old guy going through that. He's lucky he didn't have a heart attack.

Yikes! As a guy I would say do it just because it makes life that much easier. You can tell your son to wash his hands, but that doesn't mean he does it. I'm not resentful that it was done without my consent, I'm just glad I don't remember having the procedure done period! I couldn't imagine a 60 year old guy going through that. He's lucky he didn't have a heart attack.



Either way, male or female I cringe! When I had my son, I was asked later that day if we planned or wanted to have him circumsized. The way they put it gave me the impression that of course I was going to have it done, and that they needed to know to schedule the procedure. Everyone else does it, how about you--a cultural assumption.

And as for comparing circumcision to an appendectomy, well, you can have very severe consequences from any surgical procedure, and I feel the less you have to open your body up to the outside, the better. Granted, there is less "risk" from the cutting of a little skin (circumcision) than there is in opening the abdominal wall, but there is risk in both procedures. You could die of a thorn prick, highly unlikely, but still possible.

--and I wonder about all these men no remembering it. . .maybe that's some men are so "penis-centric"--they're worried subconciously about someone cutting some more off! Yikes! (this is a JOKE! ;) )

I bet that 60 year old guy got real good local anesthetic and good pain care afterwards!

This was done to me when I was 8 or 9 years old. No trauma or big deal. Yes, I had local anesthetic, I remember pre- and post-operation scenes from the hospital, and I remember a couple of days of soreness. This was no religious thing, nor was there any acute medical reason to do it. The family doctor for some reason recommended it.

As it is usually done at a young age, few of us guys can really compare their lives before and after the operation. I know I have no way of telling whether my life would be better or different. The risks both ways seem to be small, especially as risks related to the procedure itself are difficult to evaluate.

For me: I certainly do not blame my parents for having it done.

--J

As an intact male, I say don't do it. We are born with it, and unless the glans enlarging with age causes tightness, there is no GOOD reason for removal, other than cultural pressure.

With regard to medical risk re HIV, is that not what condoms are for?


You can't do an effective turtle impression if you are circumsised :D

Well,

I say dont do it.

In the US maybe 70% of people have it done, but why? Mainly because the victorians thougth it would prevent ************ which saps the precious boldily fluids and leads to blindness. Evenrything since then seems to be an excuse to perpetuate this tradition. Currently pediatricians have gone from recommending the procedure to saying it is not recommended (http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm).

Elsewhere than the US, rarely anyone has it done except for religious reasons. It seems rather cruel to cut off a perfectly good body part because someday it might make it harder to get a STD or something.

IMHO, it is a natural part of the body that god intended a man to have, 80% of the men on the planet have it with no ill effects, and the child cannot consent to having this done. I have read reports from men that had it done later in life that it makes sex much less pleasurable when the type of skin on the glans changes (as CB said keratinizes.)

Let your child choose for himself when he is old enough, the victorian age died off long ago, too long ago to perpetuate their bad science in the name of discarded moral constructs.

take care,

Jester

I have 3 sons, we opted to not do so, on our physicians advice, this is not like bobbing a Dobermans tail and ears.
I was, and was done so without my parents consent. It was common practice here to do so, immediately following delivery.
As for no responses as to preferring that they were or werent, honestly, I do wish that they had left my Schwantz alone!!

I was circumsized when I was 4 years old. Don't know why my mother waited so long.
It turned out that the doctor did a poor job and it didn't heal correctly. I lived with it until I was 50 years old when my wife convinced me to have it "re-done". :eek:

Just make sure the doctor does it right and it heals correctly.

I lived with it until I was 50 years old when my wife convinced me to have it "re-done". :eek:

ouch!!!

Males who are circumcised as infants do not remember the procedure and are not traumatized by it.

Looking like everyone else is not a very valid consideration, to my thinking, since most young males worry that their penis is too small, bent funny, whatever.

Religious requirements are one thing. If your religion requires male circumcision, call the moyle and have it done.

Health concerns are another thing. Statiscally the benefits of circumcision are small.

If I had a son, I would probably have him circumcised for this reason: I have known two males who needed to be circumcised later in life...one at age 6, the other in his 30s. In both cases, it was fairly traumatic. Yeah, two males out of all the men and boys I've known is statistically small, but for those two statistics didn't mean much.

RG,

I agree with you almost 100%, but, you neglected to mention why the two males needed to be circumcised later in life. Since nobody opts to have this procedure done later in life unless dictated by health reason I think your fourth point is incorrect. It’s always better being able to go to the restroom, shaking the thing and go as opposed to pulling skin back, worrying about whether there is any remaining urine, did you wash it right during your shower, etc., etc. all of which lead to not being clean and health problems down the road. Another point not even mentioned is that a circumcised penis is not as sensitive as an un-circumcised penis thereby leading to better sex since you don’t climax 30 seconds into the act. Sorry to be so graphic folks, but some people (who don’t even have penises) just don’t get.

I'd say, "don't do it". If the reasoning is to look like everyone else, there are a significant # of people NOT circumsing their sons. So, it'll be less of an issue these days.

Secondly, I speak from personal experience. I'm not! Hasn't negatively affected me in ANY way. The only time I wished I'd had was in middle school PE class when we had to "dress out" and then shower. A discussion with my parents as to "why am I different down there" was all I needed and actually gave me a bit more self esteem when I was older.

Thirdly, have you ever seen a botched cicumcision? My wife's cousin wished he never cicumcised their son due to the infection and now lopsided after-affect. Trying to make their son "Look like everyone else" had serious negative results. All this for a non-necessary procedure.

My parents explained to me, that the basis for cicumcision is based on religious rituals. We are not of the faith that believes in these rituals, so why do it?

Also, my parents are Spanish (Dad from Argentina, Mom from Spain). It's definately a cultural thing. Very few boys in Latin cultures are cicumcised. And have not been for many generations. You don't see any problems in these cultures as a result do you? Americans do, I don't know why. Maybe it's the whole "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality so prevalent in this society. Maybe NOT cicumcising the boy is a first step in teaching him to not be part of this mentality.

Lastly, I did NOT cicumcise my son. He's learned to wash it every night during his bath. (He's 3.5 years old). It's no different than teaching him to wash his hands after going "potty" or brushing his teeth every night before bed. We don't even need to say anything to him anymore, it's become an automatic response.

The reasons my wife and I did not; I mentioned above and also so he didn't look different than Daddy. If no Daddy is in the picture, then that's not an issue for your friend.

Hope this helps!

L8R

Also, my parents are Spanish (Dad from Argentina, Mom from Spain). It's definately a cultural thing. Very few boys in Latin cultures are cicumcised. And have not been for many generations.
this maybe true in more recent times, but i’m pretty sure back when the majority spain/portugal was ruled and inhabited by muslims, they were circumcising their boys due to islamic beliefs and obligations. it’s interesting though, how some things change over time.

This proceedure was done to me when I was an infant and I don't feel the least bit violated, or like I'm missing something. I, as a male, do have a question for Spexy and Foehn; Which state would you prefer in your SO?

This proceedure was done to me when I was an infant and I don't feel the least bit violated, or like I'm missing something. I, as a male, do have a question for Spexy and Foehn; Which state would you prefer in your SO?

I prefer my mate to be happy. He did actually tell me (when we were discussing our son's possible circumcision) that he wishes it had not been done to him. . .

As for experience, I've only had experience with one type (she said carefully. . .).
:)

This proceedure was done to me when I was an infant and I don't feel the least bit violated, or like I'm missing something. I, as a male, do have a question for Spexy and Foehn; Which state would you prefer in your SO?

Florida?

Oh, geez. I'd like to plead the 5th in this case but since I'm the one who started the !#@#$ thread...

It really doesn't matter to me. Truth is, in this country the defrocked phallus has been romanticized more and so most American women 'expect' to see a circumcised penis. BUT, I can't imagine it being a deal breaker either way, as many women are attracted to men as a whole not just the block and tackle.

the block and tackle.

LOL, never heard that one before. Apologies to both you and Foehn if I was getting too personal.

Florida?



Arrrgh! Good comeback! :D

I guess for some it'd be like choosing Han Solo or Chewbaca one's better looking but the other may be better equipped? But what the heck do I know.

Hey Spexy I'm in FL :D

I guess for some it'd be like choosing Han Solo or Chewbaca one's better looking but the other may be better equipped?

My burning questions are: How do we know who is better equipped? And do you have some inside info in this matter?

Sorry, but I had to ask. . .