Are your boys circ'd?

[lionfamily1999]

Both of mine are, dh was fine with it, I think they look nicer than ones intact. Sorry, but dh likes oral penetration and I the thought of it not being circ. is gross. But we know quite a few families that have younger boys that are intact.

:svengo:

I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.

Neither, stand aghast (snicker behind your hand, cough loudly and covertly remove the tears).

[Tree House Academy]

How did I know this thread would never make it as a "not a debate" thread?? LOL

 

In answer to the OPs question, yes, my son's are circumcised. I left the decision to their father when they were born... afterall, he has one of the things himself.

[Penny_P]

Yes, I did and am very happy I did. Why? Because a few years ago, my then 84 yo fil had to have one. It was not a good thing for him at his age. I then found out that it isn't that uncommon for elderly men to be circumsized. I think it is much easier as an infant. ALso, he is much less likely to spread diseases if he is sleeping around (he isn't but you never know what your child grows up to do).

 

 

As a nurse I see many elderly, confused men in the emergency room that don't clean their "intact" members properly and end up with infections. Yuck.

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Yes, I did and am very happy I did. Why? Because a few years ago, my then 84 yo fil had to have one. It was not a good thing for him at his age. I then found out that it isn't that uncommon for elderly men to be circumsized. I think it is much easier as an infant. ALso, he is much less likely to spread diseases if he is sleeping around (he isn't but you never know what your child grows up to do).

 

 

I'm not sure about the stats but the man who rents a room from us is an elderly caregiver and he says that it gets hard for them to clean/forgotten about and they get infections because of it. When I told him about this thread his reaction was so funny. Let's just say he's an advocate of circumcision. ;) Really, I know there are strong opinions and I completely respect and hope I'm being sensitive to you. I just thought I'd bring up something I had come across and hadn't thought of. I enjoy hearing both sides.

[Slartibartfast]

However, there may be an individual benefit for men at high risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection."

 

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177

 

 

 

 

• The proportion of the United States’ adolescent and adult population that has been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS is six times greater than in Germany, three times greater than in the Netherlands, and one and a half times greater than in France;

• Among teens, syphilis rates are more than 70 percent higher in the United States than in the Netherlands;

• Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported infectious disease in the United States, and U.S. adolescent rate is 28 times greater than teen rates the Netherlands;

• Chlamydia infection is more than 15 times more common among U.S. teens than Dutch teens;

 

Our HIV and STD rates are much higher than countries that do not circ routinely. If someone wants to help their child avoid AIDS, HPV or other STDs they should teach their children to use condoms. Circ will NOT protect them.

[sgilli3]

We only have 1 DS and we chose NOT to have him circumcised.

 

We just felt that that was the way he was born, so why change it? ( even though DH is done he didn't want DS done either).

 

If the next baby is a boy, he too won't be circumcised.

[keptwoman]

Yes, I did and am very happy I did. Why? Because a few years ago, my then 84 yo fil had to have one. It was not a good thing for him at his age. I then found out that it isn't that uncommon for elderly men to be circumsized. I think it is much easier as an infant. ALso, he is much less likely to spread diseases if he is sleeping around (he isn't but you never know what your child grows up to do).

I have heard this argument so many times. I'd rather my boys have the benefit of their foreskin all their lives, and there are many pleasurable benefits for both parties in the equation, and have to have it chopped off later, than have them loose it in infancy to prevent something happening in old age.

Also, I was an aged care nurse for a number of years, and I do not recall foreskin infections being an issue.

[Mrs Mungo]

I have heard this argument so many times. I'd rather my boys have the benefit of their foreskin all their lives, and there are many pleasurable benefits for both parties in the equation, and have to have it chopped off later, than have them loose it in infancy to prevent something happening in old age.

Also, I was an aged care nurse for a number of years, and I do not recall foreskin infections being an issue.

 

The difference, imo, is that caregivers in the US are not used to caring for intact penises.

[mommaduck]

The difference, imo, is that caregivers in the US are not used to caring for intact penises.

I'm betting that's more the issue...

[mommaduck]

:svengo:

 

Neither, stand aghast (snicker behind your hand, cough loudly and covertly remove the tears).

:lol: Really, there isn't much one can do. Maybe be slightly understanding that she may only be familiar with circ'd men (dh is circ'd and he's all I'm familiar with, but I don't let that bias me towards or against circ'd/intact...I'm sure my very different sons will enjoy all aspects of married life with the right women who will like them the way they are).

[Jennifer in MI]

I'm late to the conversation. My first was. I couldn't believe what I saw afterward. I absolutely LOST it. Seriously. I nearly had a breakdown. All the blood. I just couldn't imagine WHY I let this happen. But, I didn't know any better.

 

My next two are NOT!!! No way. No how. They are NOT dirty. They know how to keep clean, thank you very much.

[lionfamily1999]

:lol: Really, there isn't much one can do. Maybe be slightly understanding that she may only be familiar with circ'd men (dh is circ'd and he's all I'm familiar with, but I don't let that bias me towards or against circ'd/intact...I'm sure my very different sons will enjoy all aspects of married life with the right women who will like them the way they are).

:laugh: I'm a circ fan, all the males in my family are circed... I was just surprised at her reason............................... well, I was surprised that she would POST her reason ;)

[mommaduck]

:laugh: I'm a circ fan, all the males in my family are circed... I was just surprised at her reason............................... well, I was surprised that she would POST her reason ;)

:tongue_smilie::rolleyes: Yes, there is that!

[parias1126]

:laugh: I'm a circ fan, all the males in my family are circed... I was just surprised at her reason............................... well, I was surprised that she would POST her reason ;)

 

I was just thinking, "TMI"!

[Mrs Mungo]

I was just thinking, "TMI"!

 

I was thinking "Seriously? Are there guys who DON'T?!"

[Veritaserum]

I was thinking "Seriously? Are there guys who DON'T?!"

 

:lol:

[parias1126]

I was thinking "Seriously? Are there guys who DON'T?!"

 

Haha! That too! :lol:

[Mom-ninja.]

I was thinking "Seriously? Are there guys who DON'T?!"

 

 

I snorted I laughed so hard.

[Pretty in Pink]

I was thinking "Seriously? Are there guys who DON'T?!"

 

I'm choking on my saltine over here! :lol:

[lionfamily1999]

I was thinking "Seriously? Are there guys who DON'T?!"

:smilielol5:

[DianeW88]

I was thinking "Seriously? Are there guys who DON'T?!"

 

:smilielol5: I smell a poll coming up!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

JUST KIDDING!! ;)

 

Diane W.

married for 22 years

homeschooling 3 kiddos for 16 years (ds 20, dd 17, ds 9)

[Rivka]

I couldn't think of any reason to do it, so we didn't.

[Joanne]

Yes, I did and am very happy I did. Why? Because a few years ago, my then 84 yo fil had to have one. It was not a good thing for him at his age. I then found out that it isn't that uncommon for elderly men to be circumsized. I think it is much easier as an infant. ALso, he is much less likely to spread diseases if he is sleeping around (he isn't but you never know what your child grows up to do).

 

Again, this is a function of living in a culture in which circumcision is routine. It does not = the need for circ at young or old ages. It's medically normative.

 

 

 

As a nurse I see many elderly, confused men in the emergency room that don't clean their "intact" members properly and end up with infections. Yuck.

 

 

Statistically, to be honest, it's an anamoly that you'd see a lot of intact elderly men. Do you practice your nursing in an area where there are a lot of European or other ethnic men?

 

I'm familiar with the decline of hygiene and self care in elderly whose bodies and brains are changing. This is not an issue of circ or not.

[SonshineLearner]

Statistically, to be honest, it's an anamoly that you'd see a lot of intact elderly men. Do you practice your nursing in an area where there are a lot of European or other ethnic men?

 

I'm familiar with the decline of hygiene and self care in elderly whose bodies and brains are changing. This is not an issue of circ or not.

 

Well, on the first one... anyone who is at least 85 or older... and not religiously required to have one... there's a good chance that they would not be circ'd...

 

But... on the second... we agree!! It's harder to be fastidious about cleaning as you get older. I had to bring to the attention of the Director of the nursing home... that the elderly lady I had been visiting needed her nails clean.... Very obviously..... she really needed a hand scrub!! Poor lady... just couldn't tell... Perhaps if they ripped her nails off... it'd be easier to keep them clean.

;)

[Carpe Diem]

One son and he is not circ'd. His Dad is circ'd but he didn't feel that his son needed to look like him nor did he find any compelling 'medical' reason. It will sound odd but my dh's statement made feel even greater respect for my dh.

[mommaduck]

I'll be honest, I don't get the whole "so he looks like dad" bit. Honestly, they aren't going to be standing around comparing. Also, kids don't always look just like their parents in various ways. A mama may be small chested and her daughter big chested. There are brunettes and strawberry blondes in our family. I'd think that how one's p3ni$ looks would be the least of one's concerns. "oh, but it looks so much cuter/cleaner/neater circ'd" :confused: Seriously? It looked "messy" before? As someone with two boys circ'd two different ways and one intact, I can't say that there is anything cuter, cleaner, neater or anything else of one over the other. They are what they are.

[sparrow]

In our case, we chose to build our family through international adoption vs. biologically. Ds came to us as an infant and I asked dh if he had strong feelings about circumcision. Dh said, "We aren't going to look alike in many other ways. I don't think it's going to matter if our penises don't look alike either." I love my man:001_wub:.

[lionfamily1999]

:smilielol5: I smell a poll coming up!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

JUST KIDDING!! ;)

 

Diane W.

married for 22 years

homeschooling 3 kiddos for 16 years (ds 20, dd 17, ds 9)

:laugh: word choice!

I'll be honest, I don't get the whole "so he looks like dad" bit. Honestly, they aren't going to be standing around comparing. Also, kids don't always look just like their parents in various ways. A mama may be small chested and her daughter big chested. There are brunettes and strawberry blondes in our family. I'd think that how one's p3ni$ looks would be the least of one's concerns. "oh, but it looks so much cuter/cleaner/neater circ'd" :confused: Seriously? It looked "messy" before? As someone with two boys circ'd two different ways and one intact, I can't say that there is anything cuter, cleaner, neater or anything else of one over the other. They are what they are.

:lol: I have to agree a little here. I have seen dh's penis, we're on pretty intimate terms, but I have to say.......................... I never really graded it on a score of looks.

[~Tara~]

5 boys thus far, none circ'd.

[Snowfall]

The religious exemption form doesn't work the same for college as it does for PS?

 

It does for public colleges. Private colleges, just like private grade or high schools, can choose not to accept the religious exemption. Most accept it, but some do not. All accept medical exemptions.

[kesmom]

I don't get the "leaving the decision to Dh" train of thought either. If we were considering surgery (elective at that!) on our daughter's reproductive organs I doubt my Dh would just go with whatever I wanted. Both parents should be informed and involved in health decisions.

[Snowfall]

I always find it interesting to come across these stories. When reading all the intact stuff and trying to make an informed decision, I noticed that often this stuff is really, really downplayed. Our four boys are circumcised mostly due to hubs preference. I gave them tylenol before and 24 hrs after and nursed them right after and then whenever they wanted. All is well. No regrets.

 

Meatal stenosis is also really downplayed, even though it's very common and happens almost exclusively to circumcised boys - about 10% of them, in fact. (The exception is congenital meatal stenosis, which some boys are born with and which doesn't take years to become apparent.) The problem is that it takes several YEARS to become apparent, and parents aren't told it's a circumcision complication, so they never know. They just figure it's a problem with their little boy's "pee hole" as my husband's friend recently put it, when he informed my husband that his son's doctor told him he'd need to have his fixed soon, since it was too narrow. His son's ped didn't tell him this was a circ complication.

 

One reason the things you believe are downplayed are not discussed a lot is because they tend to happen only in America. We have the highest rate of "medical" circumcisions in the world. The reason? Because parents and doctors won't just LEAVE IT ALONE. They retract the foreskin before it's retractable on its own. Nurses at the hospital retract it 5 minutes after the baby's born, RIPPING it back to view the meatus and make sure there's an opening, which is totally unnecessary - leave the kid alone. You'll know within a few hours if he's able to pee or not. These things cause scarring, pain, adhesions, and infections, which then lead to a "medically necessary" circumcision, that wouldn't have been necessary if everyone had kept their hands off the boy's foreskin to begin with. Obviously, there are times when a boy really will have legitimate problems, even when no one ever retracts him, but the majority of problems in America can be traced to mishandling (as in handling) of the foreskin, which should be left alone until it's retractable on its own, which might not be until puberty for some boys.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Snowfall

[lionfamily1999]

I don't get the "leaving the decision to Dh" train of thought either. If we were considering surgery (elective at that!) on our daughter's reproductive organs I doubt my Dh would just go with whatever I wanted. Both parents should be informed and involved in health decisions.

My dh would. I wonder if that's just two different outlooks (yours and mine). Dh would not want to make decisions regarding dd's reproductive organs, because he's not a woman and he assumes that he doesn't truly understand how those things work for women (more on an emotional side than physical).

 

Perhaps that's the particular disconnect. Here, I assume that dh better understands those things for our boys and he assumes the same for dd and myself.

The reason? Because parents and doctors won't just LEAVE IT ALONE. They retract the foreskin before it's retractable on its own. Nurses at the hospital retract it 5 minutes after the baby's born, RIPPING it back to view the meatus and make sure there's an opening, which is totally unnecessary - leave the kid alone. You'll know within a few hours if he's able to pee or not. These things cause scarring, pain, adhesions, and infections, which then lead to a "medically necessary" circumcision, that wouldn't have been necessary if everyone had kept their hands off the boy's foreskin to begin with. Obviously, there are times when a boy really will have legitimate problems, even when no one ever retracts him, but the majority of problems in America can be traced to mishandling (as in handling) of the foreskin, which should be left alone until it's retractable on its own, which might not be until puberty for some boys.

That is really disturbing. I "handled" the boys to put the vaseline on there after the circ and there was the diaper changes and the baths, but I never manipulated them (iykwIm). Is there that much more handling of parts when they're uncut? I know there shouldn't be (ironically, I feel like an expert of the uncirced peni :lol: just from the bazillion circ threads on here), but is there really that much handling/manipulating going on?

 

It's strange, but the women I knew who did not circ their sons, didn't do so because they didn't know how or where or when to get it done (iow, ignorance). It wasn't out of research or concern or all the reasons given for not doing it. I guess, then, it makes sense that so many little boys have to go through circ later. Their parents just didn't know what to do with it.

[Laura Corin]

 

That is really disturbing. I "handled" the boys to put the vaseline on there after the circ and there was the diaper changes and the baths, but I never manipulated them (iykwIm). Is there that much more handling of parts when they're uncut? I know there shouldn't be (ironically, I feel like an expert of the uncirced peni :lol: just from the bazillion circ threads on here), but is there really that much handling/manipulating going on?

 

 

You are right that there shouldn't be much handling going on - you wash the outside until the foreskin retracts naturally, and only then wash under the foreskin.

 

My understanding (not an issue in the UK) is that there are parents and health professionals who don't understand this, so intervene in the natural self-cleansing and slow retraction process, thus causing infection and adhesion problems.

 

Laura

[catz]

It's strange, but the women I knew who did not circ their sons, didn't do so because they didn't know how or where or when to get it done (iow, ignorance). It wasn't out of research or concern or all the reasons given for not doing it. I guess, then, it makes sense that so many little boys have to go through circ later. Their parents just didn't know what to do with it.

 

Really? That's funny, because they people I know who chose NOT to circ, are the ones who did extensive research. Where as the people I know who did circ tend to say "well, his father is or everyone does it". I had to explicitly explain to 3 people in the hospital why we were not doing it. I could see it being a problem if you don't just leave it alone.

 

My DH is not, my son is not. My DH's father and 2 brothers (and 2 nephews) are not. No problems. I don't see the point in having elective surgery of any kind. Surgery ALWAYS carries risk. I did have a nephew with a botched and infected circumcision, who had to go back and have it fixed at 6 months. And honestly, it doesn't look good to this day.

Edited September 15, 2010 by kck

[lionfamily1999]

You are right that there shouldn't be much handling going on - you wash the outside until the foreskin retracts naturally, and only then wash under the foreskin.

 

My understanding (not an issue in the UK) is that there are parents and health professionals who don't understand this, so intervene in the natural self-cleansing and slow retraction process, thus causing infection and adhesion problems.

 

Laura

How ironic then, that the women I know (irl) who have uncirced sons were just ignorant of the whole process and it seems that their sons would have been better served had their parents gotten them circed.

 

My poor boys would've probably been grossly tortured by their parents' ignorance on the subject too. Another reason I'm glad the boys were circed, if only to protect them from Mom and Dad's well meaning, but painful, ignorance on the whole thing.

Really? That's funny, because they people I know who chose NOT to circ, are the ones who did extensive research. Where as the people I know who did circ tend to say "well, his father is or everyone does it". I had to explicitly explain to 3 people in the hospital why we were not doing it. I could see it being a problem if you don't just leave it alone.

The women I know who did not have their sons circed didn't so much CHOOSE not to, as they didn't know anything about it. Their husbands didn't know much about it either. These aren't the brightest bulbs in the box and one woman actually asked me what I did to make my son's penis look like that (this was back when older ds was in diapers). She didn't know you had to have anything done....... I guess she thought it just changed?

My DH is not, my son is not. My DH's father and 2 brothers (and 2 nephews) are not. No problems. I don't see the point in having elective surgery of any kind. Surgery ALWAYS carries risk. I did have a nephew with a botched and infected circumcision, who had to go back and have it fixed at 6 months. And honestly, it doesn't look good to this day.

? I'm with MamaDuck on this one. I really can't imagine a penis beauty contest, rather, I can't imagine a winner.

 

 

 

 

ETA, with both of my boys and all the little boys whose mothers I know, none of us were ever approached at the hospital about circ. I requested it, on my own, with both boys. That's the way it works as far as I know. I was never pressured and no one ever came to me and said, "Do you want us to circ them now?" That's why the women I know did not have their sons circed. It wasn't from research, it was a total ignorance of any of it. Which, imo, explains why so many poor little guys have to go get it done later. Their moms were oblivious and manhandled the poor things.

Edited September 15, 2010 by lionfamily1999

[mommaduck]

Another reason I'm glad the boys were circed, if only to protect them from Mom and Dad's well meaning, but painful, ignorance on the whole thing.

 

Which, imo, explains why so many poor little guys have to go get it done later. Their moms were oblivious and manhandled the poor things.

Better than automatically choosing circ would be for the hospital staff to have INFORMED and EDUCATED the parents on the procedure...the pros and cons of BOTH circing and not circing. Unfortunately, most of the staff is probably ignorant as well. This is a problem in the medical community. They are only educated in what they deal with regularly, not in what they should know due to the area of expertise (in this case, maternity ward SHOULD understand both circ'd and intact care).

 

You also don't have to get circ'd later because of improper care. When my oldest was "partially circ'd" and retracted, he did deal with infections off and on till he became an older child. We eventually learned what to and not to do. We did treat him with keeping him clean and applying bactroban or some such other ointment when necessary. The issues resolved themselves when he got old enough for it to start retracting on it's own.

 

As for beauty contests, yep, there really shouldn't be any :001_rolleyes: I mean, we don't sit around discussing whose booKs are prettier or what we should/shouldn't have done to them. Most likely, our husbands don't even care...they only care that they ARE booKs and that they are there. There's a webpage full of photos of women's stomachs and another full of women's breasts from around the world. All to show that we come in all shapes, sizes, etc and that there is no "standard of beauty"...the whole media industry LIES. We are as we are. Same with p3ni$es. Seriously, we may call something nice, but only because that may ONLY be what our frame of reference is...therefore a preference. But it doesn't mean that something else is "messy" or "ugly". We really shouldn't demean anyone in any direction.

 

I wish my original OB had explained his reasons (beyond the flimsy "he'll be protected from STD's"...my comment back was that the only protection against that was to keep his pants on). But we make our decisions the best we know at that time. Education is key. IMHO. Many of us do things differently as we get older.

[mycalling]

I'm excited for the next generation. Circumcision in the US has dropped dramatically and it's not something that most intact men choose to do to their sons and many circ'd men (and moms) are now choosing to not do to their sons. The future looks good on the continued lowering of the circ rate.

 

That's why the women I know did not have their sons circed. It wasn't from research, it was a total ignorance of any of it. Which, imo, explains why so many poor little guys have to go get it done later. Their moms were oblivious and manhandled the poor things.

Maybe it's the area you live in. Some areas in the US seem more ignorant on intact penises. I find it odd that none of their peds ever once mentioned anything about the care of their sons, which again points to a regional ignorance.

My poor boys would've probably been grossly tortured by their parents' ignorance on the subject too. Another reason I'm glad the boys were circed, if only to protect them from Mom and Dad's well meaning, but painful, ignorance on the whole thing.

I think what it comes down to is education, not any benefit of circumcision in preventing others who might change your boy's diaper from harming his foreskin. That's a new justification for surgical amputation I hadn't previously heard of.

[Spy Car]

Better than automatically choosing circ would be for the hospital staff to have INFORMED and EDUCATED the parents on the procedure...the pros and cons of BOTH circing and not circing.

 

Parents should make informed and educated decisions. Unfortunately in this internet era a well-meaning parent seeking information is going to run into a preponderance of anti-circumcision websites that completely distort the reality of the procedure, and engage in unreasoned fear-mongering rather than discussing the risks vs rewards in a dispassionate manner.

 

I respect that a parent might reasonably come down on either side of the decision, but the anti-cir sites mostly operate in loo-loo land and spread reprehensible nonsense about circumcision rather than informing and educating about risk and reward.

 

A properly done circumcision is a simple non-traumatic procedure. Parents contemplating a circumcision should do a little research about what it takes to do the procedue humanely and speak with the doctor before hand to insure the physician uses methods that eliminate pain and minimized the potential for complications. And if not satisfied with the answers they ought to seek another doctor, or pass on the procedure.

 

Our physician used a topical anesthetic, followed by tiny injections of a local anesthetic, and used a clamp to get a nice clean cut line. There were no tears, or even a wince--much less screaming bloody murder ( as anti-cir websites would have one believe). It was trauma free.

 

As for beauty contests, yep, there really shouldn't be any :001_rolleyes: I mean, we don't sit around discussing whose booKs are prettier or what we should/shouldn't have done to them. Most likely, our husbands don't even care...they only care that they ARE booKs and that they are there.

 

Seriously? Maybe I've lived in Los Angeles too long :lol:

 

Bill

[lamamaloca]

How ironic then, that the women I know (irl) who have uncirced sons were just ignorant of the whole process and it seems that their sons would have been better served had their parents gotten them circed.

 

My poor boys would've probably been grossly tortured by their parents' ignorance on the subject too. Another reason I'm glad the boys were circed, if only to protect them from Mom and Dad's well meaning, but painful, ignorance on the whole thing.

 

How hard is it to know, "Leave the thing alone until the child can retract it himself. Just clean the penis like you would any other body part."? I agree that there is a lot of ignorance on the subject, but it isn't complicated or difficult to understand.

[mommaduck]

Seriously? Maybe I've lived in Los Angeles too long :lol:

 

Bill

Probably. LA doesn't represent most of this country much less the world ;)

 

Anti-circ sites...really, no more fear mongering than I've heard from pro circ over the years. As stated, my boys are three different ways...a partial (with no anethesia and my child near comatose for several days and screaming in his sleep), a clean circ, and intact.

 

The places I've been, have had calm, rational discussion. I also watched several videos of routine circ's.

[lamamaloca]

Parents should make informed and educated decisions. Unfortunately in this internet era a well-meaning parent seeking information is going to run into a preponderance of anti-circumcision websites that completely distort the reality of the procedure, and engage in unreasoned fear-mongering rather than discussing the risks vs rewards in a dispassionate manner.

 

I'm pretty anti-circ, but I agree with you here. I think there are people on both sides that make exaggerated claims, such as those who advise circ often inflate the number of problems that can occur and the likelihood that the child will "need" to have it done later, while those opposed to circ make it sound like the circed child is likely to experience significant problems or that his life will be ruined. I do think the medical risk and benefits pretty much even out, and to me I would need the benefits to definitely outweigh the risks before I'd opt to remove a functional body part. In my opinion, that's not the case for circ, but I understand how someone can weigh the facts differently. It is hard to find something that lists things fairly. Here are two pages I share with friends contemplating the issue:

http://www.cps.ca/caringforkids/pregnancybabies/Circumcision.htm

The Circumcision Decision, by Elizabeth Pantley

As someone who chose to circumcise, what do you think of the balance in these articles?

[mycalling]

My issue with the fear mongering done by pro-circ people/sites is that their "facts" and "statistics" are based on US experiences. There is an entirely different educated experience in Europe and most of the world.

 

The fact that these sites and people don't acknowledge education to be the biggest preventative, not needless surgery, worries me. $$

[Spy Car]

I'm pretty anti-circ, but I agree with you here. I think there are people on both sides that make exaggerated claims.....

 

As someone who chose to circumcise, what do you think of the balance in these articles?

 

Let's look at the first one:

 

http://www.cps.ca/caringforkids/preg...rcumcision.htm

 

It is to be commended for avoiding inflammatory language, but I don't think it is balanced in presenting the full picture on risks vs rewards.

 

To start, the article says:

 

"Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic†procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."

 

I don't think anyone disputes that (except perhaps in very rare instances) that circumcision is an optional procedure. The question is not whether it is medically "necessary", but rather if the benefits are greater than the risks.

 

When they discuss the "risks" of not circumcising there are serious problems in the reporting.

 

When it comes to Urinary Tract infections (UTIs) in infants reliable and repeated studies show that between 86% to 95% of UTIs (given an equal sample size) occur in uncircumcised infant boys. The article ignores this fact. They do note that 7 in 1000 uncircumcised children under a year old need to be hospitalized every year for UTIs vs 1 who is circumcised. While a 700% chance of needing hospitalization is significant on its own, the statistic underplays just how much more pervasive UTIs are among uncircumcised boys and men.

 

They also ignore the benefits of lifelong genital hygiene that come with circumcision.

 

They ignore the reduced risks of contracting many STDs including HPV and HIV that comes with circumcision. And nothing about what spreading diseases to partners can do.

 

They suggest many doctors no longer perform circumcisions without mentioning many doctors (including gynecologists) no longer do things such as delivering babies because the risk of being sued is so high--not because they necessarily think babies shouldn't be born.

 

They twist the statistics on penile cancer, an admittedly rare disease, to make it seem more rare than it actually is. The proper way to report this statistic is a life-time risk, and it is much 9 to 10 times higher among uncircumcised males.

 

So while thankfully refrains from posting torture videos, I still don't think it gives parent the full picture. They ignore too much and twist too many statistics.

 

Bill(who has not yet read article 2)

[Ravin]

There will be no circ'ing of any future children of mine. DH's opinion differed, but I made it clear I wasn't flexible on the issue.

 

One thing your daughter may want to consider, OP, is that most insurance plans, including medicaid, don't cover it. So unless they want to spend several hundred dollars out of pocket...

 

That would decide me right there if I didn't care either way.

[mommaduck]

 

When it comes to Urinary Tract infections (UTIs) in infants reliable and repeated studies show that between 86% to 95% of UTIs (given an equal sample size) occur in uncircumcised infant boys.

I believe this to be an extremely bloated statistic.

[Spy Car]

I believe this to be an extremely bloated statistic.

 

Based on what? Even the article on the linked (moderate) anti-circumcision website showed 87.5% of the UTIs serious enough to require hospitalization in the first year of life (when weighted for population) were in uncircumcised male infants.

 

There are many scientific medical studies that point to the same conclusions for UTIs generally.

 

Bill

[ktgrok]

The studies I've seen about HIV were in Africa and didn't control for cultural differences between groups. Also, if given a choice between genital alteration or using a condom, it seems silly to advise the surgery.

 

The cleanliness issue is just not true. Period.

 

Let's look at the first one:

 

http://www.cps.ca/caringforkids/preg...rcumcision.htm

 

It is to be commended for avoiding inflammatory language, but I don't think it is balanced in presenting the full picture on risks vs rewards.

 

To start, the article says:

 

"Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic†procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."

 

I don't think anyone disputes that (except perhaps in very rare instances) that circumcision is an optional procedure. The question is not whether it is medically "necessary", but rather if the benefits are greater than the risks.

 

When they discuss the "risks" of not circumcising there are serious problems in the reporting.

 

When it comes to Urinary Tract infections (UTIs) in infants reliable and repeated studies show that between 86% to 95% of UTIs (given an equal sample size) occur in uncircumcised infant boys. The article ignores this fact. They do note that 7 in 1000 uncircumcised children under a year old need to be hospitalized every year for UTIs vs 1 who is circumcised. While a 700% chance of needing hospitalization is significant on its own, the statistic underplays just how much more pervasive UTIs are among uncircumcised boys and men.

 

They also ignore the benefits of lifelong genital hygiene that come with circumcision.

 

They ignore the reduced risks of contracting many STDs including HPV and HIV that comes with circumcision. And nothing about what spreading diseases to partners can do.

 

They suggest many doctors no longer perform circumcisions without mentioning many doctors (including gynecologists) no longer do things such as delivering babies because the risk of being sued is so high--not because they necessarily think babies shouldn't be born.

 

They twist the statistics on penile cancer, an admittedly rare disease, to make it seem more rare than it actually is. The proper way to report this statistic is a life-time risk, and it is much 9 to 10 times higher among uncircumcised males.

 

So while thankfully refrains from posting torture videos, I still don't think it gives parent the full picture. They ignore too much and twist too many statistics.

 

Bill(who has not yet read article 2)

[mommaduck]

Based on what? Even the article on the linked (moderate) anti-circumcision website showed 87.5% of the UTIs serious enough to require hospitalization in the first year of life (when weighted for population) were in uncircumcised male infants.

 

There are many scientific medical studies that point to the same conclusions for UTIs generally.

 

Bill

My apologies, I misread it to say that 86%-95% of intact infants get UTI's.

[keptwoman]

But 85% of a small number is still a small number, just like 9-10x higher than miniscule odds of penile cancer is still miniscule.

And I get regular UTIs, have done since I was a little girl, no one suggested I be circed. Girls odds of UTIs are hugely higher than boys but we arent suggesting routine female circ.