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.
lj
yes, yes, yes, yes. Circumcize away.
It was not done to me. Alittle bit more attention needs to be payed to cleanlines. No problems.
"Its not what you take when you leave, Its what you leave when you go."So, if you're in the car, waiting impatiently. . . get over it - you're not that special.
Some country and western song
My bicycle seat made mine fall off.
I'm not a man, but I vote no.Originally Posted by spexy
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 thisFirst, 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
http://www.cyclistsroadmap.com/eng/ - Cyclists' road map. Checkout which roads are good for cycling and rate roads in your area.
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.
Cyclists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lube but your chains!
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
Last edited by cbhungry; 11-03-03 at 10:01 AM.
Ride forever, work whenever.
XX power
Eat more mud, mountain bike 'till you die!
http://www.pnhp.org/
Agreed.
It's not that common in the UK - I guess it's a cultural thing.
Currently riding an MTB with a split personality - commuting, touring, riding for the sake of riding, on or off road :)
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.
Yep it is
That is a very good point Spexy, neither option is going to severely effect someone's life.
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.
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.
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
Ride forever, work whenever.
XX power
Eat more mud, mountain bike 'till you die!
http://www.pnhp.org/
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.
http://www.cyclistsroadmap.com/eng/ - Cyclists' road map. Checkout which roads are good for cycling and rate roads in your area.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
