Circumcision: a straightforward question, NOT a debate

[Mrs Mungo]

They also mention (as an apparent "positive") that 90% of uncircumcised foreskins are fully retractable by age 3, which of course means that 10% are not. That's not a small deal.

 

Usually, it's a normal thing that works itself out. Generally as boys grow they slowly retract the foreskin themselves through playing with it.

 

A parent might decide the benefits are not worth the risk. But to say there are no medical benefits simply isn't true.

 

 

It may be true that there are slight medical benefits. It's also true that there is no major medical association that considers them great enough to outweigh the risks of an elective procedure.

 

Wrong again. A physician (and a parent) might very well be concerned that the child had a case of Phimosis (a condition where the foreskin was incapable of retraction). Because adhesions are not uncommon it's hard to tell if the retraction issues are Phimosis or "normal" issues of unretractability.

 

Phimosis is *very* often caused by adhesions (scar tissue) due to forced retraction as an infant.

 

If the foreskin won't retract I don't know how one employs the "retract, rinse, and replace" hygiene regimen? :confused:

If it's still attached, you don't need to. It's *attached*. You don't forcibly pry up your fingernails to clean under there, do you?

 

Much of what's referenced in this thread is highly debatable. There are all kinds of conflicting studies. Wikipedia has a ton of references on different schools of thought but also has a ton of pictures, so, I'm not going to link it. ;)

 

I am in complete support of whatever parents decide to do regarding circumcision. I hope they all research and make an educated decision and it bothers me when false info abounds on either side.

 

I agree with this.

[Spy Car]

Ummm...hello...Bill? :) I was the one who used the retract, rinse, replace solution to hygiene and I am not anti-circ!;)

 

I have one son who is circumcised and one who is not. At the time the first was done, I was 23 years old and didn't know any different. I didn't even know that people didn't circ and I certainly hadn't researched it.

 

By the time my 4 year old was born, I was 36 and had a lot more life experience. I knew that there was a trend towards not circ'ing. I researched it and my husband and I made a decision based on our research. We felt that the slim health benefits did not justify altering our son.

 

I am in complete support of whatever parents decide to do regarding circumcision. I hope they all research and make an educated decision and it bothers me when false info abounds on either side.

 

My apologies for any mischaracterization of your position on circumcision my post may have created. This method of hygiene was seconded by others, and I wasn't trying to single you out.

 

I'm no authority in the care of an unretracted "intact" penis in a teen-ager or an infant.

 

I'm sincerely sorry for any hurt feelings I may have caused you. I did not intend to distort your position, and I regret having done so.

 

Bill

[CAMom]

My apologies for any mischaracterization of your position on circumcision my post may have created. This method of hygiene was seconded by others, and I wasn't trying to single you out.

 

I'm no authority in the care of an unretracted "intact" penis in a teen-ager or an infant.

 

I'm sincerely sorry for any hurt feelings I may have caused you. I did not intend to distort your position, and I regret having done so.

 

Bill

 

No hurt feelings at all. I don't feel "personal" about this particular issue. There are things that I do feel passionate about and might get my feelings hurt over but this isn't one of them.;)

 

I just didn't want anyone to think I was anti-circ 'cause it's not true.:D

 

No worries!

[Spy Car]

It may be true that there are slight medical benefits. It's also true that there is no major medical association that considers them great enough to outweigh the risks of an elective procedure.

 

Te thing is the benefits can be "life and death" benefits, and not just *slight* benefits. There are no "guarantees" in this regard, but over a population lives will be saved among the circumcised. That is not a *slight* benefit.

 

Phimosis is *very* often caused by adhesions (scar tissue) due to forced retraction as an infant.

 

Which only shows retraction issues can lead to scaring and serious conditions like Phimosis, and that these issues and concerns are eliminated with circumcision.

 

I hope that I don't have to say it, but I would expect parents who decide not to circumcise would educate themselves on the best practices of caring for their child, and they not forcibly retract foreskin (which can lead to medical problems).

 

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

The reduction in the rates males contracting HIV is not disputed. From your Google search:

 

"Trials in Africa, where there are several countries with severe AIDS and HIV epidemics, have shown that male circumcision reduced HIV infection risk by 50 per cent in heterosexual men who were at high risk of infection from women with HIV."

 

There is a suggestion that women are not protected by male partners (who have HIV) being circumcised.

 

Anti-circers argue that the far less than complete elimination of risk afforded by circumcision will cause men not to use condoms, thinking they are "protected" completely. I'd rather give a child an education and the risk-reduction.

 

Bill

 

It most certainly is disputed, it isn't even logical. According to that study's findings the US should have a lower AIDS rate. We have a high STD rate when compared to other countries.

 

http://www.icgi.org/aids/

 

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/663870/-/uneiet/-/

 

As thousands of young men in Nyanza Province troop to health centres to be circumcised in hopes of fending off HIV, new studies show it might be too early to claim victory. Although circumcision has been touted as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection, recent findings show an increase in HIV infection in regions where most males are circumcised.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Sis

[Spy Car]

No hurt feelings at all. I don't feel "personal" about this particular issue. There are things that I do feel passionate about and might get my feelings hurt over but this isn't one of them.;)

 

I'm glad :001_smile:

 

I just didn't want anyone to think I was anti-circ 'cause it's not true.:D

 

Duly noted.

 

No worries!

 

I'm relieved. I'd say I'd "retract" the comment, but...:lol:

 

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

Te thing is the benefits can be "life and death" benefits, and not just *slight* benefits. There are no "guarantees" in this regard, but over a population lives will be saved among the circumcised. That is not a *slight* benefit.

 

And the risks can be "life and death" as well.

 

No medical organization has stated that the benefits outweigh the risks. Zero.

 

 

Which only shows retraction issues can lead to scaring and serious conditions like Phimosis, and that these issues and concerns are eliminated with circumcision.

 

I hope that I don't have to say it, but I would expect parents who decide not to circumcise would educate themselves on the best practices of caring for their child, and they not forcibly retract foreskin (which can lead to medical problems).

 

Bill

In many situations it is doctors that are doing the retraction, many don't know how to care for an intact penis. Edited January 13, 2010 by Sis

[Mrs Mungo]

Te thing is the benefits can be "life and death" benefits, and not just *slight* benefits. There are no "guarantees" in this regard, but over a population lives will be saved among the circumcised. That is not a *slight* benefit.

 

Again, this is like saying male breast tissue should be removed in order to avoid male breast cancer. That breast tissue serves no function and the risk of male breast cancer is higher than the risk of penile cancer. There are all sorts of body parts would could safely remove to possibly avoid problems in them but why would you?

 

Which only shows retraction issues can lead to scaring and serious conditions like Phimosis, and that these issues and concerns are eliminated with circumcision.

 

I hope that I don't have to say it, but I would expect parents who decide not to circumcise would educate themselves on the best practices of caring for their child, and they not forcibly retract foreskin (which can lead to medical problems).

 

I wish all parents and doctors were as educated as they should be. I YELLED at one GP when he tried to retract my son's foreskin. Many *doctors* do not know better.

[Spy Car]

It most certainly is disputed, it isn't even logical. According to that study's findings the US should have a lower AIDS rate.

 

http://www.icgi.org/aids/

 

How is it not logical. The foreskin is comprised of mucous membranes. And mucous membranes are the best entry point for viruses to enter the body. This is basic science.

 

No one is suggesting circumcision is a "preventative" in eliminating the risk of HIV infection, such a thing would be irresponsible. Safe® sex practices such as condom use, abstinence, and/or mutual monogamy are more effective means of reducing the chances of contracting HIV.

 

But condoms sometimes break. If an accident happens and a young person "dodges a bullet" that they might not have, were they not circumcised, it is not a *slight* thing.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Again, this is like saying male breast tissue should be removed in order to avoid male breast cancer. That breast tissue serves no function and the risk of male breast cancer is higher than the risk of penile cancer. There are all sorts of body parts would could safely remove to possibly avoid problems in them but why would you?

 

Where did you get the idea that male breast tissue serves no function?

 

Penile cancer is very rare. No one suggested that because only uncircumcised men get this rare cancer, that it is reason alone for circumcision. It is just one of the many benefits that are significant for those who avoid preventable deaths from a variety of conditions.

 

I wish all parents and doctors were as educated as they should be. I YELLED at one GP when he tried to retract my son's foreskin. Many *doctors* do not know better.

 

There are also uninformed doctors who don't know how to do a proper circumcision. These are causes for concern. Parents need to be vigilant either way.

 

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

How is it not logical. The foreskin is comprised of mucous membranes. And mucous membranes are the best entry point for viruses to enter the body. This is basic science.

 

No one is suggesting circumcision is a "preventative" in eliminating the risk of HIV infection, such a thing would be irresponsible. Safe® sex practices such as condom use, abstinence, and/or mutual monogamy are more effective means of reducing the chances of contracting HIV.

 

But condoms sometimes break. If an accident happens and a young person "dodges a bullet" that they might not have, were they not circumcised, it is not a *slight* thing.

 

Bill

 

No one denies that safe sex is the best preventative.

 

However the study also did not take into account that at that time, the circumcised men were likely circumcised because of religion.

 

The religious were less likely (not unlikely, but less) to be engaging in promiscuous sex thus less likely to contract the disease.

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html

 

The result was not statistically significant, but the Findings section states, "The trial was stopped early because of futility." Futility? The study may not have been "futile" if, with a larger sample size and properly completed, it had showed that circumcised men were more likely to transmit HIV/AIDS to their female partners, would it? An unanticipated result is still a result, specially if there is pre-existing data supporting it, like this Johns Hopkins study suggesting that women are indeed more likely to get HIV/AIDS from a circumcised male partner.

 

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2960998-3/abstract

Edited January 13, 2010 by Sis

[Lovedtodeath]

So you go 15 years (or so) without washing?

 

Without washing? no. Without douching... yes. You don't clean out internal organs.

 

WOW! No I didn't say any such thing. I said that in poorer countries, the people who get circumcised are the ones who are more likely to have access to education regarding safe sex practices. The poorer people don't have access to tools and resources to perform circumcision or be educated about safe sex.

 

Right, they are going in as an adult to have a procedure on a sex organ that is meant to help in the area of STD's and infections, so it makes sense that more information would be made available to him.

 

 

Well, all, Sputterduck included, I learned a lot. Fascinating. I also found out how well everyone communicated after the mods stepped in (go mods and good job to those who continued the conversation). I also wasted a lot of time. I have two males in my household who are already circed and I can't have any more children... so why did I read all of this? IDK.:001_huh:

[tofuscramble]

Right, they are going in as an adult to have a procedure on a sex organ that is meant to help in the area of STD's and infections, so it makes sense that more information would be made available to him.

 

 

No, (wow, there is so much word twisting in this thread) I'm actually referring to families and people who have it done to their children at birth. These same people also generally have better living conditions, better medical care AND better education. Of course there is going to be a lower rate of STD's among these people.

[Slartibartfast]

 

Well, all, Sputterduck included, I learned a lot. Fascinating. I also found out how well everyone communicated after the mods stepped in (go mods and good job to those who continued the conversation). I also wasted a lot of time. I have two males in my household who are already circed and I can't have any more children... so why did I read all of this? IDK.:001_huh:

 

One day your son will come up to you and ask...:lol:

 

I think that is a good reason. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

Where did you get the idea that male breast tissue serves no function?

 

What function does it serve? It has less function than the foreskin, certainly.

 

Penile cancer is very rare. No one suggested that because only uncircumcised men get this rare cancer, that it is reason alone for circumcision. It is just one of the many benefits that are significant for those who avoid preventable deaths from a variety of conditions.

 

Bill, I think you are invested in this debate in a way that I am not. I am not arguing that you made a poor choice for your son. I think I made a good decision for my son, especially based on our own circumstances (living in a country where circumcision was rare).

 

My only points are these: 1. preventable deaths could be avoided by all sorts of things, that doesn't necessarily make them all good ideas and 2. I agree with Sis that no major medical association agrees with you that the benefits outweigh the risks, therefore, it is perfectly logical and reasonable for others to see things this way as well.

 

There are also uninformed doctors who don't know how to do a proper circumcision. These are causes for concern. Parents need to be vigilant either way.

 

Parents should be informed and vigilant on all sorts of decisions, it's true.

[Slartibartfast]

Bill, I think you are invested in this debate in a way that I am not. I am not arguing that you made a poor choice for your son. I think I made a good decision for my son, especially based on our own circumstances (living in a country where circumcision was rare).

 

My only points are these: 1. preventable deaths could be avoided by all sorts of things, that doesn't necessarily make them all good ideas and 2. I agree with Sis that no major medical association agrees with you that the benefits outweigh the risks, therefore, it is perfectly logical and reasonable for others to see things this way as well.

 

 

Yeah I don't think anyone is trying to say that anyone made a poor choice for their child. It might seem like it but I wouldn't judge someone. :(

 

It is up to the parent to make that decision. If they want to just say "NOYDB why I circed" then that is their prerogative.

 

I am just trying to give the facts.

[Spy Car]

Bill, I think you are invested in this debate in a way that I am not. I am not arguing that you made a poor choice for your son. I think I made a good decision for my son, especially based on our own circumstances (living in a country where circumcision was rare).

 

I'm not arguing that you made a poor choice either. Our having a physician who I was convinced (and have become more convinced) was an expert with great experience, who performed the procedure in a "model" way using topical, and then local anesthetics, and used a "Mogen Clamp" (which pretty much eliminates complications) did factor into my risk/reward analysis.

 

Were I living in a situation where I didn't have a physician I absolutely trusted would perform a safe and humane procedure, I wouldn't have proceeded.

 

Parents have to make the best decisions they can for their children's welfare.

 

My objection was circumcision being equated with genital mutilation. Posts asserting such contemptible nonsense started the whole long discussion. There are risks and rewards with everything in life, and people will come down on various sides the presented the same set of facts.

 

My only points are these: 1. preventable deaths could be avoided by all sorts of things, that doesn't necessarily make them all good ideas and 2. I agree with Sis that no major medical association agrees with you that the benefits outweigh the risks, therefore, it is perfectly logical and reasonable for others to see things this way as well.

 

I never criticized the reasoning of people who have made an informed decision that differs from my own. Under our circumstances I'm very content with the decision my wife and I made for our son. I hope, in time, he is grateful for the decision we made, as I'm grateful to my parents.

 

I'd also hope parents and their children who don't circumcise are content with the decisions they've made. Reasonable people can differ.

 

Bill

[stripe]

Is it possible we could end this now? Is this really helpful for the OP? Can't you start a new thread about foreskin love or whatever? Never mind. I know better than to say that.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm not arguing that you made a poor choice either. Our having a physician who I was convinced (and have become more convinced) was an expert with great experience, who performed the procedure in a "model" way using topical, and then local anesthetics, and used a "Mogen Clamp" (which pretty much eliminates complications) did factor into my risk/reward analysis.

 

That is great that they took such care with anesthesia. :) I am glad to hear Drs are doing that. :) When my dd was born it was still common in my area for Drs not to use anything.

 

Heck they even used to perform heart surgery on babies without anesthesia because they "couldn't feel pain."

 

 

My objection was circumcision being equated with genital mutilation. Posts asserting such contemptible nonsense started the whole long discussion. There are risks and rewards with everything in life, and people will come down on various sides the presented the same set of facts.

 

 

 

I agree that it does not compare with female circumcision. :(

[Spy Car]

That is great that they took such care with anesthesia. :) I am glad to hear Drs are doing that. :) When my dd was born it was still common in my area for Drs not to use anything.

 

My wife's gynecologist/obstetrician (may he be blessed with a long and happy life) is the most amazing practitioner I've ever met. The way he handled my son's delivery and his care for my wife was simply amazing! Because of his gentle techniques (which include pausing delivery from time to time to do gentle manual retractions) he has never performed an episiotomy on a woman and his patients don't tear.

 

We were in good [scratch that, "great"] hands for both procedures.

 

1Heck they even used to perform heart surgery on babies without anesthesia because they "couldn't feel pain."

 

Terrible.

 

I agree that it does not compare with female circumcision. :(

 

I'd only object to the euphemism of "female circumcision" being used to describe genital mutilation. That's, of course, where I came in. And perhaps it's where I should exit ;)

 

Bill (who would rather talk about math :tongue_smilie:)

[tofuscramble]

Can't you start a new thread about foreskin love or whatever?

 

Or hate? LOL! Its these kind of comments, that keep threads like this going, way to contribute. ;)

[zootle]

All three of my boys were circumcised. It ranged from less than 24hrs to 1.5 weeks due to prematurity issues. None of the boys had any problems as a result of the procedure and I never really noticed any discomfort. My husbanc is c-cised so I would probably have it done again if I had another boy.

Cindy

[Sputterduck]

So you go 15 years (or so) without washing?

 

 

Spycar, it's *adhered* to the glans. Would you believe that I have gone 29 years without washing between my nails and the flesh they are adhered to? Shocking isn't it? You can't wash between the foreskin and the glans it's adhered to. Not without ripping it off and possibly causing some bleeding and tearing... (which is why it's stupid to do so)

[Slartibartfast]

My wife's gynecologist/obstetrician (may he be blessed with a long and happy life) is the most amazing practitioner I've ever met. The way he handled my son's delivery and his care for my wife was simply amazing! Because of his gentle techniques (which include pausing delivery from time to time to do gentle manual retractions) he has never performed an episiotomy on a woman and his patients don't tear.

 

We were in good [scratch that, "great"] hands for both procedures.

Wow, her OB sounds amazing!

 

 

Y'all should fill out the http://www.thebirthsurvey.com/

[Spy Car]

Spycar, it's *adhered* to the glans. Would you believe that I have gone 29 years without washing between my nails and the flesh they are adhered to? Shocking isn't it? You can't wash between the foreskin and the glans it's adhered to. Not without ripping it off and possibly causing some bleeding and tearing... (which is why it's stupid to do so)

 

Accept the foreskin is only partially adhered, correct? So there are gateways for all sorts of bacterial and viruses to enter into warm-moist pockets of mucous membrane where they can reproduce and infect the body.

 

Every time I try to get out, they drag me back in :D

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Wow, her OB sounds amazing!

 

To be honest I get teary-eyed when I think of how patient and humane this doctor was with my wife's delivery (and the circumcision).

 

I wish every woman had this sort of care. They deserve it!

 

Bill

[dtb1999]

Yes. From what I understand (no first-hand knowledge, thank goodness :D)

Bill

 

 

Good grief, you say it like it would be the worst thing in the world to have to come in contact with an intact penis. :001_huh:

[Sputterduck]

Accept the foreskin is only partially adhered, correct? So there are gateways for all sorts of bacterial and viruses to enter into warm-moist pockets of mucous membrane where they can reproduce and infect the body.

 

Every time I try to get out, they drag me back in :D

 

Bill

 

At birth it's totally adhered. My son's appeared to be totally adhered until very shortly before he pulled it back for the first time, at 5 years old.

[Slartibartfast]

Good grief, you say it like it would be the worst thing in the world to have to come in contact with an intact penis. :001_huh:

 

Since he is a heterosexual man he would probably word it that way regardless of the foreskin status. :lol:

[Sputterduck]

Spycar, if I ever have another child, I want your wife's OB!

[Slartibartfast]

So there are gateways for all sorts of bacterial and viruses to enter into warm-moist pockets of mucous membrane where they can reproduce and infect the body.

 

 

So is the vulva. *shrug*

[Melissa in Australia]

My objection was circumcision being equated with genital mutilation. Posts asserting such contemptible nonsense started the whole long discussion. There are risks and rewards with everything in life, and people will come down on various sides the presented the same set of facts.

 

 

 

Il

 

 

I really don't see any difference. both male and female curcimsision is changing the appearance of the genitals= genital mutilation.

I am sure in countries like Sudan where they practice female circumcision, they raise the same arguments to support continuing the practice, they want girls to look like their mother, protects against UTI etc. etc,

[keptwoman]

Phimosis is *very* often caused by adhesions (scar tissue) due to forced retraction as an infant.

Yes and virtually unheard of in countries where most men are intact and people know not to forceably retract. The thing I find saddest about this whole debate is the untruths being perpetuated by people ignorant of the basic function of a normal, intact penis.

 

 

So is the vulva. *shrug*

Yes, and the labia is responsible for many UTIs, girls get them far more commonly than men. They are just as serious in girls, I don't know why people who advocate for circ for this reason are not also calling for the removal of the labia, it serves no function after all, and it also makes and retains smegma like stuff (don't know what it's called LOL) It seems that if people remove their sons foreskin for this reason, they should also consider what they are putting their daughters through by leaving them intact.

 

The reality is, as someone else said, that circumcision is a cultural construct. It really has nothing to do with anything medical, except that dubious medical reasons are given as a reason for continuation and explaination of a cultural practice.

[Slartibartfast]

 

Yes, and the labia is responsible for many UTIs, girls get them far more commonly than men. They are just as serious in girls, I don't know why people who advocate for circ for this reason are not also calling for the removal of the labia, it serves no function after all, and it also makes and retains smegma like stuff (don't know what it's called LOL) It seems that if people remove their sons foreskin for this reason, they should also consider what they are putting their daughters through by leaving them intact.

 

 

Exactly, bacteria and smegma can be good things. Too much of a good thing is often a bad thing.

[stripe]

Or hate? LOL! Its these kind of comments, that keep threads like this going, way to contribute. ;)

Likewise!

 

I contributed much, much more when the conversation was "on track." :)

 

Spy Car : The idea of a doctor "pausing" delivery makes me a bit scared, though.

[Spy Car]

Likewise!

 

I contributed much, much more when the conversation was "on track." :)

 

Spy Car : The idea of a doctor "pausing" delivery makes me a bit scared, though.

 

By pause, I mean a few seconds where he has the woman (in this case my wife) stop pushing so he can manually (and gently) pull back folds that might other-wise tear. It's a good thing.

 

Bill

[tofuscramble]

Likewise!

 

I contributed much, much more when the conversation was "on track." :)

 

 

Some might argue that it IS on track. This is exactly how I would expect any circumcision thread to go. :)

[Ginevra]

Originally Posted by Joanne

This is an example of what I am talking about and what I experienced from staunch "no circ" types in regard to the male perspective.

 

And watching kids tease other kids *is* a traumatic experience. Have you ever been teased for your genitalia specifically or watched other people get teased for theirs? THAT is exactly what my xh (and thousands of others) are lovingly trying to protect their boys from. In this culture, circ is still very normative.

 

And the glasses/braces comparison is a red herring to the point I'm making.

What doesn't make sense to me is that circumcising their child at this point is more likely to put them in the minority. So if teasing really is the issue, they won't do it!

 

I don't know if anyone refuted this point; this has gone on far too long already. BUT, one thing I remember I was told (a.k.a. "harped on") by my hypnobirthing instructor was some stat like "68% of all boys born now are left intact." But my view about this is: for what demographic? In what country/area of the country? This is NOT an accurrate statistic for *my* demographic. Caucasian males in my area of the country are more likely to be circumcized than not. This is not the entire basis of my choice to circumcize, but I think it's a valid point to consider.

[nmoira]

Good grief, you say it like it would be the worst thing in the world to have to come in contact with an intact penis. :001_huh:

:iagree:

 

Bill's position seems to be easily summed up as, "It's icky." One can weigh relative prophylactic benefits of circumcision against not circumcising in a somewhat rational way, but there's no combating the "ick" factor.

[Slartibartfast]

Some might argue that it IS on track. This is exactly how I would expect any circumcision thread to go. :)

 

Precisely :lol:

[momtothreeboys]

My firstborn was done at 12 days old. He had spent time in the nicu and they wouldn't do it until he had recovered. It was horrible. To this day I won't ever forget his screams. In fact he spent two night in the hospital recovering from the circumcision. He struggled to breathe for hours and his heart rate was doing funky patterns. It was the scariest thing I had witnessed in my life at that point. And to top it off there was complications that have resulted in 3 surgeries since to fix. We are scheduled for another one later this year.

When my twin boys were born less than two years later I refused to have the circumcision done at first. In the end dh insisted it had to be done. I waited until they were home from the nicu and used the ped. urologist that has been working on my oldest's problems. I can't say it was a pleasant experience and the screams from the twins are still stuck in my mind that my oldest. I have told dh I'll leave the country and hide before I'd ever allow another circumcision to be done on a baby of mine and I will do everything in my power to keep him away from that baby.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I really don't see any difference. both male and female curcimsision is changing the appearance of the genitals= genital mutilation.

I am sure in countries like Sudan where they practice female circumcision, they raise the same arguments to support continuing the practice, they want girls to look like their mother, protects against UTI etc. etc,

 

There is a huge difference. FGM is the equivalent to cutting of a man's penis whereas male circumcision is the removal of some of some skin. IMHO FGM is barbaric and should be outlawed.

[Slartibartfast]

IMHO FGM is barbaric and should be outlawed.

 

It is outlawed in a lot of places.

[Lovedtodeath]

No, (wow, there is so much word twisting in this thread) I'm actually referring to families and people who have it done to their children at birth. These same people also generally have better living conditions, better medical care AND better education. Of course there is going to be a lower rate of STD's among these people.

I apologize, that was sincerely what I thought you meant.

 

I think you are wrong. I know people who don't know how to prevent pregnancy and don't know what protein is, and they had their babies circed.

[Lovedtodeath]

:iagree:

 

Bill's position seems to be easily summed up as, "It's icky." One can weigh relative prophylactic benefits of circumcision against not circumcising in a somewhat rational way, but there's no combating the "ick" factor.

Dh's position is "It's icky." as well. I find it interesting that the foreskin produces secretions. I have gotten the impression that men are thought of as cleaner than women because of their lack of secretions.

[Laura Corin]

:iagree:

 

Bill's position seems to be easily summed up as, "It's icky." One can weigh relative prophylactic benefits of circumcision against not circumcising in a somewhat rational way, but there's no combating the "ick" factor.

 

About circ vs. incirc. The conclusion is that circ have more personality. So is it 'ick' or 'just lacking in personality.'

 

Laura

[justamouse]

I didn't read this whole thread, but wanted to say that I didn't circ my first son, he had retraction issues, infection upon infection which was agonizing and ended up getting circ-ed at 11. I cannot even begin to tell you how awful it was. After that ALL of my boys got circed right away.

[Sputterduck]

My firstborn was done at 12 days old. He had spent time in the nicu and they wouldn't do it until he had recovered. It was horrible. To this day I won't ever forget his screams. In fact he spent two night in the hospital recovering from the circumcision. He struggled to breathe for hours and his heart rate was doing funky patterns. It was the scariest thing I had witnessed in my life at that point. And to top it off there was complications that have resulted in 3 surgeries since to fix. We are scheduled for another one later this year.

When my twin boys were born less than two years later I refused to have the circumcision done at first. In the end dh insisted it had to be done. I waited until they were home from the nicu and used the ped. urologist that has been working on my oldest's problems. I can't say it was a pleasant experience and the screams from the twins are still stuck in my mind that my oldest. I have told dh I'll leave the country and hide before I'd ever allow another circumcision to be done on a baby of mine and I will do everything in my power to keep him away from that baby.

:grouphug:

[Laura Corin]

I didn't read this whole thread, but wanted to say that I didn't circ my first son, he had retraction issues, infection upon infection which was agonizing and ended up getting circ-ed at 11. I cannot even begin to tell you how awful it was. After that ALL of my boys got circed right away.

 

Did you try to retract it? It's just not necessary, but many doctors insist that it is. Retracting prematurely can lead to adhesion/infection.

 

I'm glad you found a solution for your family,

 

Laura

[justamouse]

Did you try to retract it? It's just not necessary, but many doctors insist that it is. Retracting prematurely can lead to adhesion/infection.

 

I'm glad you found a solution for your family,

 

Laura

 

I never touched it.