s/o piercing thread; so what if one was against circ?

[SKL]

Well, there was a time when I'd never seen any of that whole package and the thought of it grossed me out - but mother nature has a way of fixing that problem. And the mother nature solution is formulated assuming uncut men. So . . . .

 

 

Then again, maybe I was simply afraid to look at all . . . .

[MHowell]

Your opinion on the matter is appreciated, but, I can assure you that I KNOW circumcision is NOT a painless procedure.

 

Pain meds are NOT the norm. They are NOT always administered, and, even when they are, that process itself is not pain-free.

 

I have a friend who has been with her FIVE sons during their circumcisions on the 8th day (performed by a urologist). Several of them cried until passing out. All cried to the point of hysteria.

 

My nephew is a dr. He has witnessed MANY circumcisions. Babies are NOT silent. Many cry inconsolably for a time during and afterward, and some, indeed cry until passing out. How can we not think they would? Wouldn't you?

 

I just love how we can subject them to this and tell ourselves that they won't remember or it doesn't hurt. Maybe they won't remember, but let's not pretend that it doesn't cause them AGONY. THAT is spreading untruths.

 

I was less than 3 feet away from my sons circ' and he did not cry out in agony. He did not cry until he passed out. He actually slept through the entire thing. He fell asleep waiting for the doctors, and didn't wake until I was carrying him back out to the car.

 

Yes, many probably cry. Many babies cry during diaper changes too. Your personal experiences and someone else's knowledge lead you to believe one thing. My personal experiences tell me something else. We are done having children but if for some reason we did have another child who also happened to be male we would circ' again without hesitation.

[Bluegoat]

Has there been much of 'men wanting them put back on'? I've never heard of that before in my life.

I'm not saying that for debate, I just had really never thought about it.

 

Yeah, there are actually support groups, and it is possible to have surgery to try to recreate the look of the foreskin.

 

IME most men tend initially to think however they are is the best way to be, unless they had or knew of someone who had a bad experience - needed to be circed later or it was badly done and caused problems (which isn't that uncommon.)

 

In effect what that means is if you ask a bunch of American men of 35 but without kids what is best they tend to say have it done, but if you ask French men they say not. If you ask men who has a bad one, they say no, or men that had to get it done later, yes.

 

Even asking men who had it done later and experienced both ways as an adult isn't very useful, since the reason they had it removed is often because it was causing problems which means they may well have felt better after.

 

So I don't actually think asking men for their experience is very useful.

[PeacefulChaos]

:lol: I'm trying to picture the face of someone who opened up a baby's diaper and saw the unexpected...

 

It probably was funny. I thought I masked my surprise ok, but judging by the way others responded to me, I probably didn't. :tongue_smilie:

I had similar surprised feelings when I would change DD for the first few weeks. I KNEW she was a girl, I KNEW what to expect (which was a definite advantage over the other experience), but I still took off her diaper and was like 'Holy cow... No p*nis!' :lol:

[melissel]

One can't fully control such studies. The men "self-report" and most are positive or neutral towards sensation post circumcision. I can not envision a better methodology give ethical constraints.

 

One can grant that men who undergo adult circumcision (not optimal) might be more included to change their situation than "average" and that could be a factor. And the cultural response of women, some of whom might find circumcision preferable, could be a factor too. We live in the real world.

 

It seems from all credible studies that when it comes to sensation and satisfaction that it is pretty much a "push" either way. This makes the argument against circumcision on this point essentially moot.

 

Studies of American men show those who are circumcised report better and more varied sex lives than uncircumcised men. They have better hygiene and are afford better protection against a number of sexual transmitted diseases, have fewer infections, and none of the retraction issues uncircumcised boys face.

 

There are many upsides to circumcising.

 

Bill

 

Ok then.

 

Stacey, I'm sorry we kinda derailed your thread! I guess it's true that any mention of circumcision will devolve into debate. Is there a Godwin's Law-type association for this kind of thing? :lol:

[Parrothead]

:lol: I'm trying to picture the face of someone who opened up a baby's diaper and saw the unexpected...

I can make that face. The first time I was confronted with an uncirc'ed male was with a little red headed boy whose diaper I was changing. I was 20. I asked his mom what was wrong with him.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Parrothead

[SKL]

So I don't actually think asking men for their experience is very useful.

 

Well, if I'm the dad and it's my son you're talking about, I really don't care whether you think my experience matters.

[Veritaserum]

:lol: I'm trying to picture the face of someone who opened up a baby's diaper and saw the unexpected...

 

My first experience changing a circ'd boy was shocking to me.

[melissel]

My first experience changing a circ'd boy was shocking to me.

 

:lol: again! Like, where could it have gone???!

[Veritaserum]

:lol: again! Like, where could it have gone???!

 

Exactly. Hey, there's something missing! WTH? :001_huh:

[NicAnn]

Is Canada a country where there is a strong cultural component against circumcision?

 

Because my husband did not support it. Neither did my brother, or the majority of males I know.

 

I know of no men who support circumcision, with the exception of one. He is also an older gentleman who has never once researched it. The ones who don't support it are intelligent, professionals who have done the research. They haven't (from my understanding) been listening to the anti-circ "zealots" but instead have read the studies and talked to doctors.

 

I believe the current circ rates from 2010 are under 35% in the US. I doubt that all these people are coming to this conclusion based on fanatical internet hype. As a doula and student midwife, I deal with this issue all the time, and I can tell you that these people are smart and educating themselves.

 

I'm appalled by the tone of some in this thread.

[J-rap]

In our marriage, "NO" always wins -- although there are special circumstances. I can see that circumcision -- under circumstances such as Lynn's -- would be very important. In that very special case, I would probably let my husband make the final decision. Part of marriage is knowing when to "break the rules."

[Spy Car]

Your opinion on the matter is appreciated, but, I can assure you that I KNOW circumcision is NOT a painless procedure.

 

Pain meds are NOT the norm. They are NOT always administered, and, even when they are, that process itself is not pain-free.

 

Physicians who perform circumcisions without anesthesia are irresponsible IMO. It is very simple to do things the right way. Dentists don't need to drill without novocaine, nor do doctors need to perform this procedure in a less than humane fashion. I would not have the procedure performed by an incompetent or less than humane physician. But performed properly, with topical and local anesthetic it is a "wince-free" procedure. And that's the fact.

 

I have a friend who has been with her FIVE sons during their circumcisions on the 8th day (performed by a urologist). Several of them cried until passing out. All cried to the point of hysteria.

 

Then the friend is a very foolish woman for not seeking out a different doctor. There is no cause for a wince, much less tears.

 

My nephew is a dr. He has witnessed MANY circumcisions. Babies are NOT silent. Many cry inconsolably for a time during and afterward, and some, indeed cry until passing out. How can we not think they would? Wouldn't you?

 

How can I think they wouldn't?! Because we have this miracle of modern medicine called "anesthesia." Perhaps your nephew should talk to the medical board, because there is no excuse for inflicting pain when it is completely unnecessary.

 

I just love how we can subject them to this and tell ourselves that they won't remember or it doesn't hurt. Maybe they won't remember, but let's not pretend that it doesn't cause them AGONY. THAT is spreading untruths.

 

It doesn't hurt if it is done properly. We don't drill teeth without anesthesia. There is no reason for circumcision to be a painful procedure. We live in the twenty-first century, we have the technology to make this a pain-free event.

 

Bill

Edited January 15, 2012 by Spy Car

[StaceyinLA]

IF there is no difference for men (sensitivity-wise) between circ and non-circ, and IF there is no good, logical reason for men to HAVE a foreskin, why do you think God put them there in the first place?

 

From everything I have read (many, many sources over the years), as well as discussions with ladies who are married to uncirc'd men and a couple of ladies who have been with both, the uncirc'd male is better for the woman. First, there is some natural lubricant stored in all that extra, unnecessary skin, causing less vaginal dryness for the woman (totally makes sense to me). Secondly, the movement of the additional skin and the natural friction causes some sensations that a circ'd penis doesn't. In another discussion forum, with a lot more women who've had experiences than the 5 I personally know, I read much of this very same information.

 

Sensitivity tests have also been done on circ'd and non-circ'd males and the non-circ'd definitely show more sensitivity.

[Parrothead]

IF there is no difference for men (sensitivity-wise) between circ and non-circ, and IF there is no good, logical reason for men to HAVE a foreskin, why do you think God put them there in the first place?

 

God is not limited to time and space. Maybe he put it there so He could tell Abraham that it needed to go as part of the covenant.

[StaceyinLA]

It serves another purpose.

[TranquilMind]

But my dear, you did not say you'd measure the risks and rewards and come down on the side of not circumcising. Instead you called circumcision "brutal," which it is not. Not if done humanely, as should always be the case.

 

 

She did EXACTLY what YOU did with your crack about "anti-circ zealots". She responded in kind.

 

You ought to take the log out of your own eye before trying to retrieve the speck from hers.

 

And the "my dear" was condescending. I'm probably older than you and am justified - but condescending - if I address you like this: "Now listen, young man, blah blah".

[Guest]

IF there is no difference for men (sensitivity-wise) between circ and non-circ, and IF there is no good, logical reason for men to HAVE a foreskin, why do you think God put them there in the first place?

 

From everything I have read (many, many sources over the years), as well as discussions with ladies who are married to uncirc'd men and a couple of ladies who have been with both, the uncirc'd male is better for the woman. First, there is some natural lubricant stored in all that extra, unnecessary skin, causing less vaginal dryness for the woman (totally makes sense to me). Secondly, the movement of the additional skin and the natural friction causes some sensations that a circ'd penis doesn't. In another discussion forum, with a lot more women who've had experiences than the 5 I personally know, I read much of this very same information.

 

Sensitivity tests have also been done on circ'd and non-circ'd males and the non-circ'd definitely show more sensitivity.

 

I tend to think what male needs that part to be more sensitive, but - whatever. I have not been involved with an uncircumcised man, so I can't speak about the details of tea-making, but so far everything has brewed up fine with the circumcised version so if I'm missing something, it hasn't troubled me so far.

 

I have not personally heard any man lament that his foreskin was removed when he was too young to have any choice in the matter. Not to say there isn't any such person, but I would think if it bothered more guys, more of them would be making a stand against circ. their own sons. So far, the only people I know of who did not circ. was because the woman did not want to and the man went along with her.

[TranquilMind]

melissel: First, it is exceptionally condescending to call me "my dear." Are you kidding me with that? When did this turn into an episode of Mad Men? :confused:

 

Lol. That was a great visual.

 

At least he didn't say it to you in person, accompanied by a fanny pat as you walked away...:lol:

[TranquilMind]

We live in the twenty-first century, we have the technology to make this a pain-free event.

 

Bill

 

But not a pain-free recovery. Of course, the infant isn't complaining loudly while urinating the way a grown man would. It's just crying because "that's what babies do".

[Spy Car]

IF there is no difference for men (sensitivity-wise) between circ and non-circ, and IF there is no good, logical reason for men to HAVE a foreskin, why do you think God put them there in the first place?

 

So he could remove it? That's what the Christian legend says he did with his own son (Jesus was circumcised) and such was the covenant with the Jews before that according to the biblical sources.

 

Te better question is what advantage did a foreskin offer in human evolution, but that's a topic for another day ;)

 

From everything I have read (many, many sources over the years), as well as discussions with ladies who are married to uncirc'd men and a couple of ladies who have been with both, the uncirc'd male is better for the woman. First, there is some natural lubricant stored in all that extra, unnecessary skin, causing less vaginal dryness for the woman (totally makes sense to me). Secondly, the movement of the additional skin and the natural friction causes some sensations that a circ'd penis doesn't. In another discussion forum, with a lot more women who've had experiences than the 5 I personally know, I read much of this very same information.

 

This runs counter to American studies than show uncircumcised men and their partners have better and more varied sex lives. Part of that is very likely "cultural," but American women report a strong preference for circumcision.

 

Sensitivity tests have also been done on circ'd and non-circ'd males and the non-circ'd definitely show more sensitivity.

 

The studies have shown no significant difference for men circumcised in adulthood, with the balance slightly in favor of circumcision.

 

Bill

[Bluegoat]

Well, if I'm the dad and it's my son you're talking about, I really don't care whether you think my experience matters.

 

Yes, you would always talk with your spouse or the other parent about it, because he is involved in making the decision. But that wasn't the kind of use experience i meant - after all, what you are saying holds true for either the mother or father, not just men. The general discussion was suggesting that some thought the male POV was somehow more important or special or useful because it had experience behind it.

 

I don't think it is special or useful in that sense for the most part. If you are getting a whole different set of answers from the men asked based on their geographical region, it suggests that their answers are based on cultural assumptions or experiences rather than some sort of more objective criteria.

[Spy Car]

But not a pain-free recovery. Of course, the infant isn't complaining loudly while urinating the way a grown man would. It's just crying because "that's what babies do".

 

I can assure you that my son (who was circumcised) did not cry when he urinated, or any did he display any other signs other than being a very happy and well-loved baby.

 

Bill

[Bluegoat]

Is Canada a country where there is a strong cultural component against circumcision?

 

Because my husband did not support it. Neither did my brother, or the majority of males I know.

 

Circumcision is more rare here in Canada compared to the USA, so to some extent that is true. Although I would put it the other way:circumcision is an American cultural expression of sorts, though one that is decreasing.

[Spy Car]

Yes, you would always talk with your spouse or the other parent about it, because he is involved in making the decision. But that wasn't the kind of use experience i meant - after all, what you are saying holds true for either the mother or father, not just men. The general discussion was suggesting that some thought the male POV was somehow more important or special or useful because it had experience behind it.

 

 

Actually, the general suggestion was that men were were too stupid, too lazy, or were otherwise incapable of doing "research" and they insight into having informed opinions on the subjects.

 

Bill

[Audrey]

I let my husband decide that one because frankly I don't have much of an opinion about it. He was against it.

 

I'm thankful my husband and I generally agree on these things.

 

:iagree: This was my experience as well. I hadn't expected to have a boy, so when the issue came up, I wasn't really opinionated on it one way or the other. Dh's position was that, the kid just spent 4 days fighting to get here, slicing up his perfectly normal, functioning penis was not exactly how he felt the child should be greeted into this world.

 

Put like that, I couldn't possible have disagreed even if I'd had an opinion on it.

 

FWIW, here you have to request it. The hospital and doctors never ask you about it. (At least that is my summation from my own and friends' anectodal experiences). So it isn't really an issue unless you make it an issue, or you have a religious need to do it.

 

While I respect the religious need to do it, my own research has me coming to the conclusion that there is no medical reason of any signficance to do it.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Audrey

[melissel]

Actually, the general suggestion was that men were were too stupid, too lazy, or were otherwise incapable of doing "research" and they insight into having informed opinions on the subjects.

 

Bill

 

Wow, I'm amazed that that's what you got from what I said, considering that I meant nothing of the sort. But you've been attributing whatever suits your own bias to what I've said throughout this discussion, so I suppose it really shouldn't surprise me.

[StaceyinLA]

that many more circ'd men are going the uncirc route for their babies than the opposite. I think that's a step forward in not allowing irreversible damage to that particular body tissue.

 

And those who choose it based on reasons like appearance are just clearly not realistic. Most of them will not have the same size penises anyway. It would be akin to wanting my dd to have breast reduction so her boobs could look like mine.

[Jennifer3141]

DH wanted to circ. I did not. In my state, you need the mother's consent. DH and I spent a tense couple of days when I was around 6 months pregnant with DS but he could not come up with one single, sound reason to circ so we didn't.

 

About 2 weeks after we got home from the hospital with DS, a baby transferred into our children's hospital as a result of a bad bris. That baby died a few days later. I taped the story to the computer and DH never argued the issue with me again.

[Guest]

that many more circ'd men are going the uncirc route for their babies than the opposite. I think that's a step forward in not allowing irreversible damage to that particular body tissue.

 

And those who choose it based on reasons like appearance are just clearly not realistic. Most of them will not have the same size penises anyway. It would be akin to wanting my dd to have breast reduction so her boobs could look like mine.

 

I have never heard a man say he wanted his son circumcised so his son's penis would look like his. Saying that is typical for your cultural demographic is not the same as saying you want your child's genitals to look like yours. I think you misunderstand what "reasons like appearance" actually means to someone who does circumcise.

[justamouse]

DH wanted to circ. I did not. In my state, you need the mother's consent. DH and I spent a tense couple of days when I was around 6 months pregnant with DS but he could not come up with one single, sound reason to circ so we didn't.

 

About 2 weeks after we got home from the hospital with DS, a baby transferred into our children's hospital as a result of a bad bris. That baby died a few days later. I taped the story to the computer and DH never argued the issue with me again.

 

And yet the Jews are still thriving and having more babies.

 

:confused:

 

Horrible things happen. No one wants it to be our kid, but no one builds a hose and plans for a tornado to rip it up , either. I just don't see how the article proved you right. It reported a tragedy, yes, but the one article didn't prove your point. But in your case it did win your argument.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I have never heard a man say he wanted his son circumcised so his son's penis would look like his. Saying that is typical for your cultural demographic is not the same as saying you want your child's genitals to look like yours. I think you misunderstand what "reasons like appearance" actually means to someone who does circumcise.

 

Many fathers HAVE used the "I want him to look like me" and "I want him to not stand out (no pun intended) in the locker room".

[Spy Car]

that many more circ'd men are going the uncirc route for their babies than the opposite. I think that's a step forward in not allowing irreversible damage to that particular body tissue.

 

And those who choose it based on reasons like appearance are just clearly not realistic. Most of them will not have the same size penises anyway. It would be akin to wanting my dd to have breast reduction so her boobs could look like mine.

 

Circumcision is not "damage" it offers life-long advantages to men at every spectrum of life, from infantry to old age.

 

Bill

[Guest]

Many fathers HAVE used the "I want him to look like me" and "I want him to not stand out (no pun intended) in the locker room".

 

Who? Where? Who says that? The second part is the cultural element I was speaking to. The proverbial locker room argument is not the same as saying, "I want his penis to look like mine." It's saying you want them in the majority for your demographic.

 

I'm just wondering about the "I want him to look like me" part. Who says that? Where is that documented?

[Deb in NZ]

I left the final decision up to dh, but I did say IF our ds was to be circ it had to be done before he was 2mo. I was NOT willing to have an older ds circ w/o a HUGE medical reason. It isn't common here & can't be done in the maternity ward. Most drs. won't circ a baby, only a child 2yo+. We had to really ask around for a dr willing to circ our boys. There is only one in the whole province. Dh is not circ, but chose to have both our ds circ as he has friends who ended up needing to be circ as teens or even older. He did not want our boys to go through that pain. My father, brothers, etc. are circ, but that had no bearing on my opinion.

 

JMHO,

[Guest]

Circumcision is not "damage" it offers life-long advantages to men at every spectrum of life, from infantry to old age.

 

Bill

 

Does that mean if they are in the Army? :tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

Does that mean if they are in the Army? :tongue_smilie:

 

Darn auto-spell :D

 

Bill (sent from iPad :tongue_smilie:)

[melissel]

Who? Where? Who says that? The second part is the cultural element I was speaking to. The proverbial locker room argument is not the same as saying, "I want his penis to look like mine." It's saying you want them in the majority for your demographic.

 

I'm just wondering about the "I want him to look like me" part. Who says that? Where is that documented?

 

Ha! Actually, that was the first thing my DH said when I brought it up. I kid you not. And that he wouldn't want his son to be teased in the locker room, because that's what boys do. I pointed out that around half of the of boys in the locker room with him wouldn't be circ'ed, and he concurred that that was true statistically. Then we moved on to hygiene issues. And so on...

[Guest]

Actually, that was the first thing my DH said when I brought it up.

 

Bizarre. Totally outside of my experience.

[TranquilMind]

Circumcision is not "damage" it offers life-long advantages to men at every spectrum of life, from infantry to old age.

 

Bill

 

NoW THAT'S funny.

 

I'm glad to know our men in uniform have lifelong advantages.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Who? Where? Who says that? The second part is the cultural element I was speaking to. The proverbial locker room argument is not the same as saying, "I want his penis to look like mine." It's saying you want them in the majority for your demographic.

 

I'm just wondering about the "I want him to look like me" part. Who says that? Where is that documented?

 

 

This is simply not the sort of thing for which I can provide you documentation. :lol: It comes from numerous discussions with numerous people, people who have said, "I want him to look like me" or "I want his to look like mine" and women who have reported that their husbands said those words.

 

I can't prove it. I will simply hope that you take my word on it that it has been said and I will take your word that you have never heard anyone say it. ;)

[Guest]

This is simply not the sort of thing for which I can provide you documentation. :lol: It comes from numerous discussions with numerous people, people who have said, "I want him to look like me" or "I want his to look like mine" and women who have reported that their husbands said those words.

 

I can't prove it. I will simply hope that you take my word on it that it has been said and I will take your word that you have never heard anyone say it. ;)

 

That works for me.

 

(Going to bed now. Ashamed that I wasted a perfectly good evening reading and talking about something I don't care about at all...again.)

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Circumcision is not "damage" it offers life-long advantages to men at every spectrum of life, from infantry to old age.

 

Bill

 

 

I'll have you know that dh has won marksmanship awards due to his sure shot in the military and he has YET to use that particular body part to do so. ;)

[Guest]

Poor Bill. One little typo and the intellectual giant falls. :D

[ktgrok]

\

 

I think it is instructive that all the husbands mentioned in the thread (save one, who comes from a country where there is a strong cultural component against circumcision) support circumcision. There is good reason for this.

 

Bill

 

Huh...my ex husband was against circing my son, as is my current husband if this child turns out to be a boy. Both were raised right here in the good old USA.

 

Oh, and the two male pediatricians I've had are also against routine circ. One was older and is now retired...he was MY pediatrician if that gives you an age range, and one is our current ped and is much younger, so I don't think it is a generational thing.

 

As for it being humane, I'm sure sometimes it is. often it is not, and as it is usually done away from the parents they really have no way of knowing for sure what is happening. My good friend is a peds nurse and after assisting would never put her own boys through it. The ones she saw were not pain free. Also, because the topical anesthetic takes up to 30 minutes to work, then the injections take another 10 minutes or so, doing it the way you describe would take way more time than most medical professionals can profitably schedule it for.

[caedmyn]

Circumcision is not "brutal." Performed properly (with a topical anesthetic followed by a local) it is a pain-free procedure that brings a life-time of benefits.

 

 

Umm...have you seen it done? I was in the room with both of my boys when they were circ'd and it wasn't pleasant. Topical anesthetic followed by lidocaine injection. The doctor waited plenty of time for the anesthetic to take effect (seemed like forever). It was NOT pain-free for them, and it was traumatic judging by their behavior for the following 12 hours. They were both 8 days old at the time (and no we are not Jewish) and I'd had enough time to get an idea of what normal behavior for them was, and it was very different the rest of the day after they were circ'd.

[caedmyn]

So he could remove it? That's what the Christian legend says he did with his own son (Jesus was circumcised) and such was the covenant with the Jews before that according to the biblical sources.

 

 

From what I've been able to find out, circumcision in Biblical times was very different from circumcision today. It took off a while lot less skin, just the very tip of the foreskin which could actually be cut off without separating the foreskin from the rest. That is not how it is done now, and there's more foreskin taken off than left when they're done. I think it's very likely that Biblical circumcision didn't significantly alter the function of the foreskin--it was meant to be symbolic.

Edited January 16, 2012 by caedmyn

[ktgrok]

From what I've been able to find out, circumcision in Biblical times was very different from circumcision today. It took off a while lot less skin, just the very tip of the foreskin which could actually be cut off without separating the foreskin from the rest. That is not how it is done now, and there's more foreskin taken off than left when they're done. I like it's very likely that Biblical circumcision didn't significantly alter the function of the foreskin--it was meant to be symbolic.

 

Agreed.

[Spy Car]

Umm...have you seen it done? I was in the room with both of my boys when they were circ'd and it wasn't pleasant.

 

I certainly have.

 

Topical anesthetic followed by lidocaine injection. The doctor waited plenty of time for the anesthetic to take effect (seemed like forever). It was NOT pain-free for them, and it was traumatic judging by their behavior for the following 12 hours. They were both 8 days old at the time (and no we are not Jewish) and I'd had enough time to get an idea of what normal behavior for them was, and it was very different the rest of the day after they were circ'd.

 

It was a non-event pain wise for my child, and the medical studies show that the combination of topical and local anesthetic virtually eliminates pain.

 

Bill

[caedmyn]

It was a non-event pain wise for my child, and the medical studies show that the combination of topical and local anesthetic virtually eliminates pain.

 

Bill

 

Any links?

 

Were those studies (and the one you witnessed) done using the Plastibell? I could see that being less painful, though of course you have the trade-off of higher rate of complications like infection.