Can we talk about a subject that ONLY pertains to baby boys?

[LynnG in Arizona]

We circ'ed our son. DH is in the medical field and has seen many older boys/young men who had to have the procedure done because of a problem. Needless to say, it wasn't fun under those circumstances.

[Pensguys]

We did not circ our two boys. My dh is not, my dad wasn't, my brother is, my dh's older brother and dad were not, but his younger brother is. My dh has two older boys (now grown) and he said he wish he were more informed about this when his older boys were born because he would not have done that to them.

[lovemyboys]

Years ago, while I wasn't a mom, and I was still working, I was in an organization that was very production-focused. Very little small talk during the day, it was all about work work work. I was the only woman in our work team. And then I got pregnant with a boy....

 

The circumcision question came up at home. DH is, in fact all the males on my side of the family are too, except for the new generation, where no one is. A lot of the men on my team were fathers, so I hesitantly asked them (via email, and I left the premises right after I sent that email! :lol:) whether their son were circ. or not... I honestly was shaking when I wrote that email! To my surprise, everyone on my team answered me (with a reply all, so the whole team was part of the discussion!). And all of them told me their *own* state!!! Those of European descent were not, those of American were, and for the Canadian-born, it depended on their age. Then they started a discussion as to whether they were more sensitive or less, down there...

 

Now, all this via email, from one cubicle to another. Yet we never spoke about it ! And somewhere, at Microsoft, in the email archives, there is this lengthy discussion about circumcision! :lol:

 

What was their conclusion [discussion at end of paragraph 2]? Inquiring minds want to know!:bigear:

[anewday]

We circ'd.

 

Honestly, our reasoning is that if it was good enough for the Israelites, it's good enough for our son. ;) So I guess you could consider that a "religious reason", though we don't at all feel it is a command or that intact is "less spiritual" at ALL. We just believe that what God commanded as a sign and seal did not have negative physical consequences to it - rather, the opposite.

 

Just our opinion. :)

[ereks mom]

..would be oh, so much worse later rather than sooner.

 

The story goes that my own father was born at home and was not circumcised for several years. He was admitted to the hospital to undergo circumcision, and at some point before the surgery, when he was left alone in his hospital room, he quietly slipped outside and ran away down the street!

 

A college friend of dh's was not circumcised until age 13, when it became medically necessary (phimosis). He said it was horrible and he would've preferred having it done as an infant so that at least he wouldn't remember it!

[kokotg]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/e36 2 kinds of cancer folks one of which is rarely seen in circumcised males.

 

well, penile cancer is rarely seen in anyone, really. There are about 280 deaths a year in the US from penile cancer. There are about 390 a year from appendicitis. Unlike foreskins, there aren't really any arguments whatsoever to be made for the necessity or usefulness of the appendix, so it seems to me that it makes more sense to routinely remove appendixes. Appendectomies (on unruptured appendixes) and circumcisions have similar complication rates as well. Given how many hundreds of boys one would need to circumsize to prevent a single case of penile cancer, it doesn't make sense to me as a reason to do it. Anymore than routine appendectomies or mastectomies would. Of course, if my boys view things differently when they are older and think circumcision is a good idea, they can make that choice for themselves. The reverse is not true.

[Colleen in SEVA]

Do you or don't you circumcise your boys?

 

I left this decision up to DH and at first he said yes becaue he had been. Then when I showed him phots online of the procedure, and he read both sides of the issue, he said we would NOT circ (and he was a little disappointed that his parents had done that to him). We agreed that it was our son's choice, so if they ever decide they want it done, we will honor their wish.

 

FWIW... Among the people I know with kids born within the last 7 years, it seems to be about 50/50. So the arguement of "looking different in the locker room" won't be the case any longer. Plus, who is focusing on that in locker rooms? :)

 

Side note... When my grandmother saw my oldest in the bath when he was a baby, she had no idea what was wrong with "it". When her 5 boys were born in the 1950s, circumcision was done as standard procedure and she said she wasn't even asked if she wanted it done or not. Then again, these were the days when she didn't even know what gender the baby was until the she woke up the following day and they brought the baby in to her room for a 30 minute visit. :eek:

 

Another side note... A close friend of DH's had to have the procedure RE-done as a young adult because it wasn't done properly the first time, and there wasn't enough skin (or something like that) to allow proper "functioning" for "adult use" of it. Talk about traumatic! Could you imagine your 15 yo son coming to you with THAT problem? :(

[Danestress]

.

[elizabeth]

"well, penile cancer is rarely seen in anyone, really. There are about 280 deaths a year in the US from penile cancer. " Very good point, however, in terms of UTI, some STD and HIV it has been shown to be helpful in preventing these diseases to be circumcised. Perhaps it is also a hygeine/education component.

[Sahamamama]

my 2 cents on this comes from my sister. Her husband was born overseas, in a country where the parents usually do not have their baby boys circumcised, so he never was. My sister and her husband were both virgins (COMPLETELY!) on their wedding night, and from what she told me later, her husband's anatomy was a shock to her. Over the years, she has made comments (privately to me) about not really "liking it." Sigh.

 

When Nephew 1 was born he was completely circumcised. I say it this way because when Nephew 2 was born, his circumcision didn't really turn out well, it didn't go all the way around, neatly, and my sister for years (when he was little) was bothered by this. She says she has one of every kind in the house, one not at all, one completely, and one half-way. Sigh.

 

My husband works in the OR and says that men (from teenagers all the way up to elderly men) come in all the time for circumcisions -- repeated infections is the main reason. Also, he says that some men "become Jewish." Getting circumcised at an older age (than birth) is rather common, he says, but for obvious reasons, you don't hear much about it.

[Scarlett]

my 2 cents on this comes from my sister. Her husband was born overseas, in a country where the parents usually do not have their baby boys circumcised, so he never was. My sister and her husband were both virgins (COMPLETELY!) on their wedding night, and from what she told me later, her husband's anatomy was a shock to her. Over the years, she has made comments (privately to me) about not really "liking it." Sigh.

 

This just....confuses me. :confused: She was a virgin, so what is she comparing it to?

 

FWIW, my best friend's dh' (her second husband) is not cir'd and she just shrugs at the difference...meaning....not much to even discuss.

[StaceyinLA]

I have to post because this has recently been a topic of conversation at our house.

 

I have 3 dds and one ds (who is intact). He is now 13. I made the decision solely on my own not to circ him because his father left me while I was pregnant for him. I was having a homebirth and there was no way I was going to take him anywhere to be cut on at any time. I wanted his coming into the world to be a loving, peaceful experience; not one filled with pain and trauma.

 

For the record, most hospitals do NOT routinely use anesthetic of any kind and it is barbaric! I liken it to female circ because it DOES reduce the pleasure experienced by men as well if you will read up on it (without the protection of the foreskin, over time the head of the penis becomes tough and calloused from exposure to clothing, etc). In addition, cutting on those babies and stripping their glans is no less painful for them than what is done to the girls - sorry. In addition, it is NOT medically necessary - the AAP no longer supports routine infant circ and hasn't for years. And I don't buy the, "but they don't remember," argument because that is a moot point. Most women wouldn't remember the pain of childbirth either but very few actually do it without drugs. And of course, how many men do you know who would lay their penises on a slab to be cut on? Sorry folks - it's just not right!

 

But anyway, off my soapbox and back to my unique perspective story.

 

Recently, ds mentioned to me that some of his friends had picked on him about his penis and the fact that it was different. Of course, the size thing was an issue as well so it really isn't gonna matter either way cuz they are never ALL gonna look the same no matter what.

 

Anyway, I explained to him about circ and why I chose not to do it to him, which he seemed to very much appreciate. I told him, though, that he was old enough to make an informed choice and we would research things and let him make his own decision to stay as he is or get circ'd.

 

We did some research on the internet and we also saw his doctor and discussed it with him (btw, he has 4 dds but told me he wouldn't circ if he had a son). When it was all over, he told me he was glad he was the way he was and that he didn't want to change anything.

 

Taking care of an intact penis is not that difficult. As babies you NEVER pull the skin back. In fact, you should never forcibly do it at all. Ds's foreskin still doesn't retract all the way but the dr says it will during puberty. As of now, all he has to do is pull back what he can and rinse the area with water during his bath - just not a big deal.

 

I have known several folks who have been permanently damaged due to bad circs. They are not perfect by any stretch. They are not 100% safe, and they are CERTAINLY not painless!

[TammyinTN]

We didn't have our son circ...honestly..I just couldn't do it. The thought of it made me sick. I'm such a baby!

[Reya]

Do you or don't you circumcise your boys? If you do is it for religious reasons or medical? We have not had any of our boys circumcised. Nothing religious...just didn't see a need. For some reason, after Jesse was born, I started thinking about the subject again and wondered if we are doing the right thing. Is there any compelling medical reason to have a boy circumcised? What about the social aspect? I mean, what about when the boy grows up and gets married and, well, becomes "active"? Would it work any differently? Don't laugh at me...I'm really concerned about this. What if his wife is freaked out by it? I'm probably just being overly paranoid, but I had to ask. Do you or don't you and why? Don't want to create any big arguments or anything...I was just curious.

 

We aren't Jewish or Muslim, so there is no religious reason to circumcise.

 

There is no medical reason for routine circumcision except in areas where the HIV rate is above 10%. This does not apply to the US. There are many, MANY medical reasons not to.

 

To perform a painful surgery with long-lasting negative consequences and horrific possible complications just do junior can "look like Dad"... Well, the less I say on this, the better, because I can't stay civil.

 

There are certain areas of the country that are still horribly backward about circumcision, but in many areas, the rate is below 50%. Thank God. I hope this gets relegated to the same place China put footbinding.

 

And for those who do it for religious reasons, there are a number of different TYPES of circumcision. The oldest were actually quite minor--a "mark" but little more. Nothing like the mainstream, high-and-tight hospital circumcision of the 20th century.

[Reya]

It's also recorded that circumcised boys get fewer urinary infections.

 

 

This is only true in, ahem, poorly designed US studies where infant boys were subjected to the forcible retraction of the foreskin by @#$@ idiot doctors and some got urinary infections as a result.

 

There has never been a European study that gives this the SLIGHTEST bit of credence.

 

And, really, would you cut off your clitoral hood if it meant you got 5% fewer UTIs?

 

However, it is true that uncirced boys everywhere have a 0% risk of getting a really gruesome infection from an unnecessary circumcision.

[Reya]

Both of my boys received sufficient local anesthetic, but I understand that is not common in most hospitals in our area.

 

Yeah. Watch the videos of *anesthetized* circs and then tell me how well it works 9 times + out of 10 and how much it's just to soothe the mind of the parents. The local anesthetic is scarcely more than topical. And there's no post-operative main medication, something that NO ONE would tolerate for an older child or adult.

 

I have a friend who works in the neonatal ward, and circs almost make her vomit every time. And yes, the kids are given local anesthesia, but it is rarely more than very partially effective.

 

Babies have every bit as much ability to feel pain and none of the coping skills of older people.

[Reya]

It was common treatment back in the day to circ children who were caught playing with their penises.

Old medical texts site it as a cure for the oversexualized child.

 

Yep! The original purpose of non-religious circumcision in England and the US was to prevent masturbation by causing pain, trauma, and terror and reducing sensation.

 

And now we do it to our babies.

 

YAY US!

[Reya]

I have never heard of a circ'd man who regretted it.

 

I've heard of many. Most don't like to trumpet it because they are admitting to feeling sexually robbed, mutilated, etc.

 

Weirdly, feeling this way is why some men get so up in arms about wanting their sons circ'd, too. "I'm not damaged! See? I'll do it to my baby! If it were DAMAGE, would I do it to him?"

 

But they would. Just to try to prove something to themselves.

 

If it weren't damage, why would they care so much?

 

Cutting off the foreskin because at the age of 85 their awful children may throw them in a terrible nursing home (You better believe MY parents will never see a nursing home! NONE of my grandparents did, either!) where they might receive such horrible care that they get infections makes less sense than preemptively removing all tonsils and appendixes from newborns.

[Reya]

Obviously, my DS isn't circ'd. If this one was a DS, he wouldn't be, either.

 

At the hospital, the nurse asked, with a very blank face, whether I was going to circ him. I said, "Absolutely NOT!"

 

She broke into a smile and said fervently, "Good for you!"

 

We'd heard of cases where a doctor would swoop in, circ all the boys in the nursery, and swoop out again. (This relayed by nurses of particular hospitals in areas where people aren't thinking about it yet, sadly.) So DH was with our son EVERY INSTANT he was out of the room with me.

 

I think DH was also concerned that someone might possibly confuse and/our steal our baby. Because ours was clearly the best, you know. ;-)

 

A doctor I was going to for a while marked DS's penis as "circumcised." Apparently, she hasn't seen many uncirc'd ones and doesn't know that they don't all have the gathered skin at the tip!

[Reya]

We circ'd.

 

Honestly, our reasoning is that if it was good enough for the Israelites, it's good enough for our son. ;) So I guess you could consider that a "religious reason", though we don't at all feel it is a command or that intact is "less spiritual" at ALL. We just believe that what God commanded as a sign and seal did not have negative physical consequences to it - rather, the opposite.

 

Just our opinion. :)

 

What the Israelites did and what is done in hospitals today could scarcely be more different.

 

Historical Jewish circumcision was such a minor procedure that many boys could go to Roman bath houses and not be recognized as circumcised (which became a BIG issue during the Roman rule of Israel). You can't say that about any hospital circumcision today.

 

This is like comparing an ear piercing to cutting off an ear.

 

Later Jewish practice became more drastic precisely because circ'd men were "passing" as uncirc'd. That's when it was necessary to add such things to traditional law like, "If three of your sons have died from circumcision, you do not need to circumcise the fourth."

[Reya]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/e36 2 kinds of cancer folks one of which is rarely seen in circumcised males.

 

Breast cancer is hundreds of times is more common--and more deadly.

 

Why do you still have your breasts?

 

BTW, complications of circumcision can--and do--cause death, too. Compared to deaths from penile cancer, the numbers are significant.

 

Ignorance and mismanagement of uncirc'd penises by untrained and circ'd doctors are the leading cause of "medical" circumcision in the US. Look at rates in other countries with excellent health care, like Japan. Here, a little thing goes wrong, and an older doctor will immediately suggest circumcision out of the belief that it's "no big deal." It's like cutting off a breast for mastitis. There is less penile injury and better treatment in other countries.

[Pensguys]

FWIW, my best friend's dh' (her second husband) is not cir'd and she just shrugs at the difference...meaning....not much to even discuss.

 

My dh is my 2nd and I say the same thing...not much to discuss as far as differences in men although being intact makes some parts more sensitive (in a good way) than others.

[Melinda]

We did not circ. DH was adamantly opposed.

[anewday]

What the Israelites did and what is done in hospitals today could scarcely be more different.

 

Historical Jewish circumcision was such a minor procedure that many boys could go to Roman bath houses and not be recognized as circumcised (which became a BIG issue during the Roman rule of Israel). You can't say that about any hospital circumcision today.

 

This is like comparing an ear piercing to cutting off an ear.

 

Later Jewish practice became more drastic precisely because circ'd men were "passing" as uncirc'd. That's when it was necessary to add such things to traditional law like, "If three of your sons have died from circumcision, you do not need to circumcise the fourth."

 

 

 

Please do not insult me (and yes, it is insulting to be spoken to like that).

 

It is of no consequence to this discussion, but since you brought it up, the type circ we had WAS very much like OT circ. Even if it was not, cutting away of the foreskin was involved in BOTH cases. Are you trying to say that somehow OT circumcision was more "humane" and less "painful"? That's a definate opinion because I have no idea how that conclusion could be drawn, and even if it could, it's no argument against circumcision (U.S. style or not).

[anewday]

.

[Old Dominion Heather]

You said:

 

"Ignorance and mismanagement of uncirc'd penises by untrained and circ'd doctors are the leading cause of "medical" circumcision in the US. Look at rates in other countries with excellent health care, like Japan. Here, a little thing goes wrong, and an older doctor will immediately suggest circumcision out of the belief that it's 'no big deal."

 

You are being quite vitriolic here without using any facts to support your position. I, for one, would be far more inclined to consider your opinions if you could support them instead of presenting them as fact.

[kokotg]

You said:

 

"Ignorance and mismanagement of uncirc'd penises by untrained and circ'd doctors are the leading cause of "medical" circumcision in the US. Look at rates in other countries with excellent health care, like Japan. Here, a little thing goes wrong, and an older doctor will immediately suggest circumcision out of the belief that it's 'no big deal."

 

You are being quite vitriolic here without using any facts to support your position. I, for one, would be far more inclined to consider your opinions if you could support them instead of presenting them as fact.

 

I think it's pretty clear if you look at the statistics from countries where routine infant circumcision is not the norm that it's very, very rare in such countries for older children or adults to be circumcised for medical reasons. It makes perfect sense, really, that doctors in a country like the US where circumcision is seen as normal would be quicker to suggest it as a solution for medical problems than doctors in countries where it's nearly unheard of. From Wikipedia:

 

Denniston reported in 1996 that the neonatal circumcision rate in Finland is zero and that the rate of later circumcision is 1 in 16,667.[30] Similarly, Wallerstein estimated in 1980 that the Finnish rate of adult circumcision for health reasons is six per 100,000.

 

And I would further argue that it makes more sense to look at countries with a very low rate of infant circumcision to get a true picture of how often circumcision is "necessary" later on. In those countries, they look at circumcision as a last resort. Since that's how I would also view things were one of my boys to develop a medical problem, these statistics are much more meaningful for my situation than statistics or anecdotes from this country. Unless someone presents evidence that Finnish men routinely drop dead from phimosis that is, but I'm nearly certain that that's not the case ;)

[elizabeth]

Breast cancer is hundreds of times is more common--and more deadly.

 

Why do you still have your breasts?

 

BTW, complications of circumcision can--and do--cause death, too. Compared to deaths from penile cancer, the numbers are significant.

 

Ignorance and mismanagement of uncirc'd penises by untrained and circ'd doctors are the leading cause of "medical" circumcision in the US. Look at rates in other countries with excellent health care, like Japan. Here, a little thing goes wrong, and an older doctor will immediately suggest circumcision out of the belief that it's "no big deal." It's like cutting off a breast for mastitis. There is less penile injury and better treatment in other countries.

 

To compare a prophylactic mastectomy to circumcision shows a fanaticism and restort to hyperbole and cruelty that is unwarranted. There are no sites I could find that showed any statistic tying death to circumcision except those countries that do this in unsanitary conditions to say the least. I noted earlier that cancer prevention was but one reason for the procedure others being to reduce by 60%, citation provided earlier,the transmission of HIV that alone is a reason to consider along with recurrent UTI and other infections mainly those to do with unprotected inter... I have no desire to convince others of my position nor would I dare to compare female genital mutilation to this procedure. To do so is unbelievable and irresponsible. The analogy you try to paint between having a mastectomy to save life and a routine circumcision is appalling. I took care of a dear friend who had this done due to BRAC gene and death of a sibling -it is not even close not even remotely so...

[mittmaman]

Male circumcision of babies/children is ILLEGAL in most European countries, as it is considered "mutilation".

For religious reasons there is no prosecution, though - but thoses are relatively few cases (...and then you'll need to find a doctor willing to do it...which is not going to be easy...).

[elizabeth]

Male circumcision of babies/children is ILLEGAL in most European countries, as it is considered "mutilation".

For religious reasons there is no prosecution, though - but thoses are relatively few cases (...and then you'll need to find a doctor willing to do it...which is not going to be easy...).

It is legal in England and France, illegal in Norway and Finland. That leaves a whole range of countries in which it may or may not be legal. Please provide links to evidence when making a sweeping assertion regarding the law .

[elizabeth]

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/search?fulltext=male+circumcision&x=12&y=5

Several articles from a peer reviewed medical journal regarding male circumcision that presents both sides of the argument. Intellectual honesty - with citations from peer reviewed journals that meet the Daubert standard of evidence. No hyperbole, red herrings or straw men in sight.

[Peek a Boo]

To compare a prophylactic mastectomy to circumcision shows a fanaticism and resort to hyperbole and cruelty that is unwarranted. ........ I have no desire to convince others of my position nor would I dare to compare female genital mutilation to this procedure. To do so is unbelievable and irresponsible. The analogy you try to paint between having a mastectomy to save life and a routine circumcision is appalling. .

 

I completely agree.

[Reya]

To compare a prophylactic mastectomy to circumcision shows a fanaticism and restort to hyperbole and cruelty that is unwarranted. There are no sites I could find that showed any statistic tying death to circumcision except those countries that do this in unsanitary conditions to say the least. I noted earlier that cancer prevention was but one reason for the procedure others being to reduce by 60%, citation provided earlier,the transmission of HIV that alone is a reason to consider along with recurrent UTI and other infections mainly those to do with unprotected inter... I have no desire to convince others of my position nor would I dare to compare female genital mutilation to this procedure. To do so is unbelievable and irresponsible. The analogy you try to paint between having a mastectomy to save life and a routine circumcision is appalling. I took care of a dear friend who had this done due to BRAC gene and death of a sibling -it is not even close not even remotely so...

 

Actually, there is on average one recorded case a year where a baby boy in the US dies *on the table* as a result of bleeding out or because of the anesthesia. There are many more who have very severe complications, from the loss of all or a major portion of the penis to meningitis that does, in fact, turn deadly. It's hard to find out HOW many babies die a year from circumcision because an infection from circumcision will usually be listed on the death cert. merely as sepsis.

 

And why is it not even close? Breast buds on an infant girl would be extremely easy to remove before they develop. The only difference is that it ISN'T routine and acceptable in our culture.

 

HIV, even if the studies are sound, would only be reduced by a reasonable amount in a society where infection rates were extremely high. UTIs are not, in fact, reduced in any country but the US, because we're the only ones stupid enough to damage and uncirc'd penis and give a poor kid a UTI because of it.

 

Penile cancer, of any form, affects fewer than 300 men a year. Those aren't deaths, just rates of any form of cancer. Not only that, but NO studies control for different cancer rates between the races, for instance. Cancer occurs more often in older men than younger men. Among older men, blacks are much less likely to have been circ'd. They also have higher cancer rates, period. Also, poor men are more likely to have higher rates of cancer and are also more likely to be uncirc'd. Additionally, poor men are more likely to have many sex partners--another link with penile cancer. There is good CORRELATIONAL data with penile cancer--which is really exceedingly rate, anyway--and incredibly poor CAUSATION.

 

Emerging evidence suggests that HPV is a major cause of MOUTH cancers in nonsmoking men--and I bet we'll discover it's behind many of the penile cancers, too, which are more common in men with many partners. So, hmmm, lessee.... We can give our sons a shot, or we can cut off a part his anatomy.

 

To give you some perspective, more men DIE from BREAST CANCER every year than are diagnosed with penile cancer. Women, OTOH, are diagnosed with 180,000+ cases of breast cancer a year. It is absolutely ridiculous to subject an infant to a life-endangering procedure because of an incredibly rare disease that is itself rarely life threatening. We wouldn't even think of doing it to an infant girl who had a genetically proven 1-in-4 risk of developing breast cancer. We'd declare that it's not our RIGHT to make such a drastic decision for our baby. Yet we do it all the time for our sons on extremely flimsy medical grounds.

 

Please note that there is no form of FGM that mirrors male circumcision. It would be exactly identical to the removal of the clitoral hood. Most FGM includes the removal of the entire clitoris and often a drastic reshaping of the labia. There isn't a parallel among men except among those who dramatically mutilate themselves for various reasons, which I am NOT going into here. There could be female procedures that mimic it. There just aren't.

[Reya]

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/search?fulltext=male+circumcision&x=12&y=5

Several articles from a peer reviewed medical journal regarding male circumcision that presents both sides of the argument. Intellectual honesty - with citations from peer reviewed journals that meet the Daubert standard of evidence. No hyperbole, red herrings or straw men in sight.

 

I've read the studies. The vast majority of US-produced are poorly drawn causation from correlation, and some are almost criminally badly designed. Why?

 

Well, these studies are designed by people who are heavily invested in the status quo of default circumcision and who are looking for any reason to justify the routine mutilation of generations of children. These are the same kinds of people that strongly discouraged women from breastfeeding less than 50 years ago with the same kinds of far-fetched arguments that deliberately confound correlation and causation and are, overall, extremely badly designed. These are published worldwide because of the esteem in which the US medical community is held--and usually swiftly refuted by other, better-designed studies.

 

Do look at studies of OTHER first-world countries--and notice the difference! But I suppose that Germany, Japan, and Sweden are all inventing data and the US has it right.

 

If it does have a real purpose, why then is the US the ONLY country in which it is allowed routinely for non-religious reasons? Why has every other first-world country looked upon it as bizarre at best and barbaric at worst? Surely other countries with the best healthcare systems in the world would embrace a procedure that would actually be helpful.

 

I'll bet you cold, hard cash as more and more American doctors become uncirc'd, the studies are going to find less and less reason for circumcision.

[LynnG in Arizona]

We circ'd.

 

Honestly, our reasoning is that if it was good enough for the Israelites, it's good enough for our son. ;) So I guess you could consider that a "religious reason", though we don't at all feel it is a command or that intact is "less spiritual" at ALL. We just believe that what God commanded as a sign and seal did not have negative physical consequences to it - rather, the opposite.

 

Just our opinion. :)

 

I've thought about this as well. Our first "reasons" for circ-ing are for medical and traditional reasons, and the second "reason" is as you stated.

[Peek a Boo]

Actually, there is on average one recorded case a year where a baby boy in the US dies *on the table* as a result of bleeding out or because of the anesthesia. There are many more who have very severe complications, from the loss of all or a major portion of the penis to meningitis that does, in fact, turn deadly. It's hard to find out HOW many babies die a year from circumcision because an infection from circumcision will usually be listed on the death cert. merely as sepsis.

 

And why is it not even close? Breast buds on an infant girl would be extremely easy to remove before they develop. The only difference is that it ISN'T routine and acceptable in our culture.

 

....and babies die in all sorts of GOOD situations too.

 

one can't nurse a child if breastbuds are removed, but you can certainly father a child even if you are circ'd.

 

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/search?fullte...ision&x=12&y=5

Several articles from a peer reviewed medical journal regarding male circumcision that presents both sides of the argument. Intellectual honesty - with citations from peer reviewed journals that meet the Daubert standard of evidence. No hyperbole, red herrings or straw men in sight.

 

that you want to discount the evidence because you deem them discredible doesn't hold much water. We can look at study after study and find some flaw w/ any of them. At this point we are left w/ some guys want to be circ'd, some don't. Some people die in a myriad of situations, many don't. Many babies do fine after circ, some don't. Many uncirc'd boys are happy and healthy, some aren't. I've already given my own family's stats on it :)

[Reya]

Please do not insult me (and yes, it is insulting to be spoken to like that).

 

It is of no consequence to this discussion, but since you brought it up, the type circ we had WAS very much like OT circ. Even if it was not, cutting away of the foreskin was involved in BOTH cases. Are you trying to say that somehow OT circumcision was more "humane" and less "painful"? That's a definate opinion because I have no idea how that conclusion could be drawn, and even if it could, it's no argument against circumcision (U.S. style or not).

 

Oh, goodness. I'm saying that OT circumcision was a fairly minor procedure that carried little chance of death. Loss of sensitivity would be directly linked to loss of nerve endings. Fewer nerve endings lost, more sensitivity retained.

 

You (and others) were trying to argue that if God said to do it to anyone, it can't be bad. That's like saying that because there are references to biblically physically punishing a child being a good thing, then any level of beating can't be bad. This is very bad and dangerous reasoning.

 

The more drastic post-Roman circs were still less major than standard hospital circumcisions are now, and even they carried recognized risks that were far greater than that of earlier practice. The practice was changed under extreme social pressures, and babies did suffer for it.

 

Without modern medicine and standards of hygiene, a procedure as major as many of today's circumcisions could cause death pretty frequently. (Even with hospitals, the rate in the 40s was estimated at one in 40k babies--and again, that's not counting sepsis and meningitis.) Now death is rare, though it still does happen--and when you're talking about an elective procedure, ANY level of death is significant!

 

That kind of insult to the integrity of a baby's skin would have killed him pretty easily in an earlier age...which is why the "high and tight" circs are an invention of hospitals. "See what we can do! We can cut it ALL off! Why? Um... It's DIRTY. That's right! DIRTY. We'll come up with other excuses later...."

 

The most major circumcisions can *only* occur in a modern hospital setting without a major risk of complications. And, yes, they are far more painful for the same reasons that a third degree burn the size of a quarter dollar is more painful than half the size of a dime. To say that this is a "definate" opinion is very strange to me.

 

If you want an argument against ANY circumcision for Christians, try the passages about living under grace and not under law, where Paul is TOLD to partake of unclean foods, and all the passages about circumcision of the spirit versus the flesh. Christians circumcising because it's in the OT are on very, very bad theological grounds, and Christians picking and choosing from OT cultural laws are even more questionable.

[elizabeth]

I've read the studies. The vast majority of US-produced are poorly drawn causation from correlation, and some are almost criminally badly designed. Why?

 

Well, these studies are designed by people who are heavily invested in the status quo of default circumcision and who are looking for any reason to justify the routine mutilation of generations of children. These are the same kinds of people that strongly discouraged women from breastfeeding less than 50 years ago with the same kinds of far-fetched arguments that deliberately confound correlation and causation and are, overall, extremely badly designed. These are published worldwide because of the esteem in which the US medical community is held--and usually swiftly refuted by other, better-designed studies.

 

Do look at studies of OTHER first-world countries--and notice the difference! But I suppose that Germany, Japan, and Sweden are all inventing data and the US has it right.

 

If it does have a real purpose, why then is the US the ONLY country in which it is allowed routinely for non-religious reasons? Why has every other first-world country looked upon it as bizarre at best and barbaric at worst? Surely other countries with the best healthcare systems in the world would embrace a procedure that would actually be helpful.

 

I'll bet you cold, hard cash as more and more American doctors become uncirc'd, the studies are going to find less and less reason for circumcision.

__________________

----

Umm these are British and they concur with your general concept that it is uneeded generally please read the links before you respond. My problem is with the poor analogy between breasts and a little flap of skin that does ..nothing. Your position is not as problematic as is your lack of willingness to review the evidence from all sources and your refusal to see how hyperbole and hysteria do not convince any one of anything

[Reya]

....and babies die in all sorts of GOOD situations too.

 

one can't nurse a child if breastbuds are removed, but you can certainly father a child even if you are circ'd.

 

that you want to discount the evidence because you deem them discredible doesn't hold much water. We can look at study after study and find some flaw w/ any of them. At this point we are left w/ some guys want to be circ'd, some don't. Some people die in a myriad of situations, many don't. Many babies do fine after circ, some don't. Many uncirc'd boys are happy and healthy, some aren't. I've already given my own family's stats on it :)

 

Women can HAVE babies without breasts. Many women with breast reductions, for example, who are unable to breastfeed have happy, healthy children. Some don't, but many do. There is NO decrease in female fertility with the removal of the breasts. (There is, however, a rise in infant mortality.)

 

Some men with circumcision suffer from erectile dysfunction because of poorly performed procedures or because the reduced sensation isn't sufficient to keep them aroused. Some of these men are truly impotent in ways that cannot be surgically corrected and find it very difficult, if not impossible, to father children. You think Viagra's so popular in the US just because lots of men today have high blood pressure?

 

I want to analyze evidence and find out whether ANY studies are properly conducted. This is why I am NOT hysterical about cancer-causing cell phones and power lines--I have a background that allows me to read, understand, and analyze PEER-REVIEWED articles and find out whether or not the study is complete bosh. (Yes, studies about cell phones and power lines causing cancer ARE complete bosh.) That's also why I don't sprint to load up on the newest supplement-of-the-moment that supposedly prevents cancer...and then throw it all away when another study finds that too much supplementing with it actually CAUSES cancer.

[Peek a Boo]

If you want an argument against ANY circumcision for Christians, try the passages about living under grace and not under law, where Paul is TOLD to partake of unclean foods, and all the passages about circumcision of the spirit versus the flesh. Christians circumcising because it's in the OT are on very, very bad theological grounds, and Christians picking and choosing from OT cultural laws are even more questionable.

 

except that there is nothing that says Christians can't follow a personal conviction to adhere to any OT practices --as long as we are in complete agreement that adhering to those is NOT in any way tied to salvation.

 

The practice is similar to those who choose to be vegetarians because they recognize the health benefits and tie it in w/ God's initial diet plan :)

 

Assuming that Christians who "pick and choose" do so for salvation purposes is a gross misunderstanding of the subject of personal convictions and each family's personal values and faith. That you are going to consider Christians who follow such personal convictions "questionable" based on a few posts is questionable in and of itself --unless you are calling it "questionable" as in.... "I don't understand and would like to question them to better understand their faith." So i guess it would boil down to: are you questioning their faith, or your own lack of understanding?

 

I would suggest you take your own advice in your post earlier and back away from the discussion for awhile.

[Peek a Boo]

Women can HAVE babies without breasts. Many women with breast reductions, for example, who are unable to breastfeed have happy, healthy children. Some don't, but many do. There is NO decrease in female fertility with the removal of the breasts. (There is, however, a rise in infant mortality.)

 

I wasn't talking about women HAVING babies --i was directly comparing the role of each organ in a baby's life.

 

A woman can't NURSE a baby if breast buds are removed -- THAT's why they aren't automatically removed as a cultural norm [despite the risks of cancer]. Most choose the pros [nursing] over the cons [cancer]. There's not the same level of life-giving "pro" to remaining uncirc'd.

[Peek a Boo]

Some men with circumcision suffer from erectile dysfunction because of poorly performed procedures or because the reduced sensation isn't sufficient to keep them aroused. Some of these men are truly impotent in ways that cannot be surgically corrected and find it very difficult, if not impossible, to father children. You think Viagra's so popular in the US just because lots of men today have high blood pressure?

 

so.... guys who are intact don't have ED problems? Guys who are circ'd might not have OTHER reasons for ED and impotence? there are simply too many variables to tag this all as a circ/intact only problem.

[Karen sn]

What Your Doctor May Not Tell you About Circumcision

 

I must admit after reading that book I wonder why anyone would want to circumcise. I did look at the library for other books about circumcision to get a differencing view point, but couldn't find any. (And I wouldn't want to shell out money to buy a book:tongue_smilie:)

 

AWESOME book.

[Reya]

I wasn't talking about women HAVING babies --i was directly comparing the role of each organ in a baby's life.

 

A woman can't NURSE a baby if breast buds are removed -- THAT's why they aren't automatically removed as a cultural norm [despite the risks of cancer]. Most choose the pros [nursing] over the cons [cancer]. There's not the same level of life-giving "pro" to remaining uncirc'd.

 

It isn't that most choose the pros of nursing over the cons of cancer. Women who never, ever breastfeed only choose a prophylactic removal of what is, for them, a purely nonfunctional part of their bodies if they are at extreme risk. There is a compelling reason for most women past breastfeeding or who will not breastfeed to have such a surgery, and yet very, very few will opt for this route because body alterations aren't something to be taken lightly, even if there is a possibility of death without it. Women are even rebelling (thank goodness) against the medical community's desire to yank out all internal reproductive bits as soon as they cause the slightest problem and are educating themselves about thinks like uterine ablation and, when problems are more severe, surgeries that leave the cervix intact, whenever possible.

 

There is no such compelling reason for men to have their foreskins removed. And yet we do it involuntarily to baby boys. Not only do they face a risk of death and infection, but three are also penile amputations and poorly performed circumcisions that have to be corrected.

 

I am willing to bet that the rate of surgeries to CORRECT bad circumcisions is higher than that of circumcisions needed for medical reasons among first world countries (that is, countries where people have the resources TO correct problems--it wouldn't make sense to compare it to places where people can't fix problems) that don't practice routine circumcision. About 1 in 16,000 men in Finland, for example, must be circumcised for medical reasons.

 

I've been searching but I cannot find standard rates of complications *requiring further surgery* specifically for any kind of surgery, but I think I'm searching badly. Anyhow, from my dealings with most people who undergo minor surgeries, they'd consider themselves exceedingly lucky if they had just a 1 in 16000 chance of needing a second surgery because the first wasn't done right.

 

The foreskin is FUNCTIONAL on ALL sexually active men, not just ones who want children or want the healthiest children or want certain experiences with children. It was once removed because we were frankly disgusted by sex and it is still removed because we can't admit that we were doing something wrong. There were no medical reasons for routine foreskin removal--not ever. Now, people are invested in trying to invent reasons, and medical ignorance causes such damage to a certain number of intact men that they must undergo the same procedure for reasons that would be seen as ludicrous in most countries.

 

EDIT: If anyone can find out if there are stats on the rates of corrective surgery for initially poor circs, I' be VERY interested. I know they have to be out there somewhere, but it's hard to even find rates on, for example, second KNEE surgeries. We like to pretend that we do no wrong....

[Peek a Boo]

.

There were no medical reasons for routine foreskin removal--not ever. Now, people are invested in trying to invent reasons, and medical ignorance causes such damage to a certain number of intact men that they must undergo the same procedure for reasons that would be seen as ludicrous in most countries.

 

 

The breasts are as functional sexually for women as the foreskin is for men -nerve endings and all that. But a man can still give life w/ a circ. a woman can't nurse --give the best food for her baby's life-- if her breastbuds are removed early in life. there's also the difference in removing something you've lived w/ for most of your life vs growing up w/o it. removing an entirely developed breast is far more complicated than "simple removal" of a breastbud on an infant.

 

There ARE lots of surgeries that have to be corrected due to complications -- I'm probably no better at googling it than you are :) so i'd suggest we bring in a few different docs that can help w/ the key words or some links on that.

 

"compelling" is in the eye of the beholder. It's obviously not compelling enough *for you* --and that's fine. It's when you start denigrating another's choice that it becomes a riled up debate.

 

There are enough real reasons -- they don't have to be "invented". That you consider the risks that people have listed as "not ENOUGH reason" simply isn't applicable to a profitable discussion. We are reaching an impasse in exchanging information ;)

[Karen sn]

A friend once said, "If you told me I had to cut off a piece of him for god I would say you could have a piece of his ear."

 

I don't care if ya do or don't. I WILL NEVER let anyone touch my baby's penis with a sharp instrument.

 

What annoys the living piss out of me - people who have never even seen an intact baby telling me how you have to pull the foreskin back to clean it if you leave them intact....and then show me on their own circ'd baby how it gets dirty in the folds of what is left of any extra skin.

 

Ummm....I have intimately cared for 3 baby boys - permission from their mothers to nurse them while they were in my care. I have changed their diapers and several others who were intact. I can tell you they don't smell. And you leave the skin ALONE!!!

 

This person is my boyfriend's sister. I love her to death and enjoy sincerely her company.

But if she ever babysits for me - she's signing a statement and reading the chapter on the physiology and function of a foreskin - and the chapter which deals with care of the intact person.

 

(From Everything Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision).

 

In fact.......anyone who ever watches him is reading those chapters. I would seriously freak out on the person who messed with my kid's penis because they think they know more than I do.

 

If you want to circ - fine. It is a decision I believe you have to make for your self in the USA. In other countries it's accepted as the person's decision who owns the penis to make later in life if they choose that.

So - many here do it to their kids. I respect that. Don't boss me around - I won't boss you.

 

But good god! Would people opposed to the intact penis at least research the anatomy and physiology before they tell me that my baby's penis will smell! Good Grief! The head of the penis is ATTACHED to the foreskin until later in life. To pull it back is dangerous and painful and causes tearing!

 

And while I am at it..... intact foreskin has (Lagerhan's?) cells that secrete protective oils containing anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, and anti-viral properties. Something tells me that really - an intact male who was taught to bathe would actually run a lower risk of disease and infection.

 

My dear boyfriend feels he was robbed. Yes it would be worse had he been a girl and circ'd. But that doesn't make it any more acceptable to him. We have a grand old time "chatting" - but he does know now what he is missing. Maybe left intact though he would have "been made fun of" and have a complex and done it later in life - or not.....who knows. Nowadays it's quite common for parents to leave their babies intact for many reasons - including financial.

 

As a nurse I believe in informed consent.

Rarely have I ever heard a doctor REALLY explain ANY procedure, its pros AND cons, or any alternatives available. Usually they are in and out in under 5 minutes.

This to me is betrayal. (sp?)

[Reya]

so.... guys who are intact don't have ED problems? Guys who are circ'd might not have OTHER reasons for ED and impotence? there are simply too many variables to tag this all as a circ/intact only problem.

 

Not at all! Uncirc'd men can have ED. There are *additional* reasons for circ'd men to have ED problems that uncirc'd men don't have, though. I am not AT ALL saying that it's a circ'd problem only, only that you raise the *risks* by circ-ing.

 

Every study that does before and after for both circ. and foreskin restoration finds, on average, increased impotence with circumcision affecting a certain number of men. I think the rates for long lasting sexual diminution for men getting adult circ. is something like 20% to more than 35%, depending on the study, on average. A very modest but significant increase in sexual satisfaction and overall experience is reported on average by those who do restorations--these can only do so much, and I'm betting that most of it is likely psychological, anyway, since their glans hasn't been a mucous membrane in many, many years and there's no way to bring back lost nerve tissue.

 

NOW....and this is an important "now"....I would never, ever use this data to say that therefore 30% of circ'd men have ED due to being circ'd because the men who are circ'd as adults, as very rare as it is for medical reasons, are used to having heightened sensation, so without any other factor existing, the fact that they now must become used to a lower level of sensitivity would be harder for them than if they'd never gotten to experience it. To put it a cruder way, those who never have had good sex are satisfied with bad sex much more easily. (To say, then, that everyone should never have good sex because then they might be disappointed or fail to fully respond to any bad sex they might have is, though, a completely insane way of arguing!) So there's no way to do a *direct* mapping of this onto neonatally circ'd boys. It can only be said that it's suggestive, merely. I'd like to see large studies of ED patients to determine the risk factor of non-botched circ with ED. (Botch circ/ED rates must be known through corrective surgery rates or, ahem, lawsuit rates but are VERY hard to get a hold of.)

[Reya]

The breasts are as functional sexually for women as the foreskin is for men -nerve endings and all that.

 

You skipped over lots of my argument, but that being left alone, and going off on a rabbit trail here...

 

This depends on the women. Some women are so sensitive that such stimulation is painful. Others feel next to nothing. And men are, on average, as sensitive as women there! It's just not as culturally acceptable to stimulate a man's nipples for his sexual pleasure as it is a woman's, and many men are, well, freaked out by it because it's supposed to be a "female thing."

 

Just a PSA. ;-)

 

Certain breastfeeding advocates will argue firmly that the nipple is NOT an erogenous zone, despite the sensation being pleasurable for many women. They'll argue that it's purely a cultural phenomenon to associate breasts with sex. I find this to be...ummmm...unconvincing as an argument. But I'm willing to call MANY parts of the body an erogenous zone and to call the entire skin a kind of secondary sexual organ. There *are* a variety of perfectly natural responses.

[Colleen]

There is no valid reason, imo, to circumcise. The thought honestly never even crossed my mind, nor did my husband and I discuss the matter. It simply wasn't an issue. My oldest was born in CH, where I seriously doubt you could even have your son circumcised, so of course the topic wasn't raised there after his birth. My other four were all delivered at the same hospital here in the States; no one ever mentioned the topic. I believe circumcision in the States, for the most part, is becoming less common and for that I'm glad. I realize some people have a religious basis for circumcising their boys; needless to say, I don't share that reasoning. Beyond that, it's a matter of cosmetics. I would prefer to see the act phased out of our culture altogether.

[Reya]

Umm these are British and they concur with your general concept that it is uneeded generally please read the links before you respond. My problem is with the poor analogy between breasts and a little flap of skin that does ..nothing. Your position is not as problematic as is your lack of willingness to review the evidence from all sources and your refusal to see how hyperbole and hysteria do not convince any one of anything

 

I find it problematic that you think the "little flap of skin" does "nothing." It does a WHOLE lot more than many other bits that we *keep* in first-world countries.

 

The appendix, for example, is apparently useful if you get a really awful bowel disease once ever half dozen years but problematical in a largely sanitary environment. 250,000 cases of appendicitis occur per year in the US. More people die from appendicitis than are diagnosed with penile cancer in a year. And yet I'd be seen as insane if I advocated routine, prophylactic appendectomies. Why is the foreskin different, when it DOES have a function in a first-world environment? And, again, if it's about saving the MOST number of lives through some prophylactic surgery, breast removal would be the best way of doing that, statistically speaking. You'd safe way more adult women through neonatal breast removal than babies die in the US from lack of breastfeeding.

 

I'm not saying that you should do prophylactic breast removal on ANY baby. It would be barbaric. I'm saying that prophylactic circumcision by taking the same arguments is NO BETTER. Either the argument makes sense and can be applied to other things...or it doesn't make sense. You have to at least give me some other exaples of surgeries that would not be horrible to do to a baby for the argument that this one fine, too. But if circ is the ONLY surgery that fits these requirements, then you're probably making an excuse for something you want to do, period.

 

I am hoping this makes sense to you! When you argue from *purpose*, then other purposes that are similar must be considered in an equal fashion.

 

You had to buy the entire journal at the link you posted. You couldn't see the individual studies from that link, as far as I could tell, though I've bet that I've read most of them. I knew it was a British journal. The BMJ tends to be sympathetic toward American studies and practices in a way that other European journals aren't. So even though circ rates are thankfully below 10% there and routine circumcision is NOT recommended, they are MUCH higher than in most of Northern Europe, and the rates of recommending circ for minor problems are MUCH higher than in Europe.

 

I really see a parallel between the frequency of recommending circumcision for small problems and the frequency of recommending hysterectomies for small problems in women over 40. It's like quality of sex life and maintaining physical integrity are seen as "silly" concerns. After all, to cut is to cure!