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

[Parrothead]

Since most of the posters are women ;) :D

 

Bill

Are you still egging these women on? :D

[Jenny in Florida]

It makes me laugh that you're trying to fight this argument with the old, "Do you drive your child around?' argument.

 

Yeah, that one gets used a lot around here, doesn't it?

[TranquilMind]

Because it's so patently dumb, and because no man whom I know intimately would think that way.

Agreed. No man I know would think that way as well, any more than he would think that his son's hair color, eyes, or body shape ought to match his. It might. It might not. He might get Grandpa's genes or great Aunt Sally's. It is NOT important.

[StaceyinLA]

I will say that my first husband's argument for wanting our ds circ'd was the same - he wanted them (and by them I mean their penises) to look alike. Thank the Lord he had an affair and I kicked him out during my pregnancy, so I didn't have to battle him over it when the time came. :tongue_smilie:

 

He is NOT the only person I have ever heard make that argument. Yes, it's an extremely dumb argument, but, alas, some men are apparently shallow that way.

[NASDAQ]

When I hold my newborns, ANY risk of death is too much. Perhaps we simply have differeing parenting styles.

 

I call my method "understanding of relative risk."

 

All decisions carry risk. Failure to make a decision carries risk. There is a minute chance that your child will die from circumcision (G-d forbid). There is a minute chance your child will die because you didn't have him circumcised (G-d forbid).

[ktgrok]

Why is it so hard to believe that men want their boys to be physically like them, particularly with regard to an appendage that's pretty important to most males? Boys are very likely to be familiar with the way their fathers' bodies look long before they are in position to be teased in a locker room.

 

It's hard to believe because forskin or not, a little boy's penis is not going to look like a grown man's. Period. By the time it MIGHT look similar they are certainly well beyond the age of looking and comparing. Cosmetic surgery on a child for the purpose of making his sexual ogan resemble his fathers is just bizzare....I mean, seriously, WHEN would they be comparing, and why????

[melissel]

It's hard to believe because forskin or not, a little boy's penis is not going to look like a grown man's. Period. By the time it MIGHT look similar they are certainly well beyond the age of looking and comparing. Cosmetic surgery on a child for the purpose of making his sexual ogan resemble his fathers is just bizzare....I mean, seriously, WHEN would they be comparing, and why????

 

Of course I get that, and I think most men, when presented with true discussion about it, would see that. But it doesn't change the fact that it is still the first reaction of many men when asked what they'd prefer to do. That is my point. I'm not arguing that it makes any kind of sense. My point is simply that many men, when presented with the question, have appearance/similarity as a first consideration. I don't know why it is. Maybe, deep down, there's discomfort over possibly having to explain why they're different from each other? Most men I know wouldn't exactly want to have a heart to heart about foreskins with a child if they can avoid it! How do you explain a circumcision to a child who's asking why his penis looks different his dad's? It would probably not be the most comfortable chat!

Edited January 17, 2012 by melissel

[ktgrok]

Of course I get that, and I think most men, when presented with true discussion about it, would see that. But it doesn't change the fact that it is still the first reaction of many men when asked what they'd prefer to do. That is my point. I'm not arguing that it makes any kind of sense. My point is simply that many men, when presented with the question, have appearance/similarity as a first consideration. I don't know why it is. Maybe, deep down, there's discomfort over possibly having to explain why they're different from each other? Most men I know wouldn't exactly want to have a heart to heart about foreskins with a child if they can avoid it! How do you explain a circumcision to a child who's asking why his penis looks different his dad's? It would probably not be the most comfortable chat!

 

It doesn't come up, honestly, or if it does the question is likely to be 'why is yours bigger, has hair, etc" not about foreskin. What I'm trying to say is that they are so different anyway that the foreskin is not going to be the factor that makes this conversation happen or not happen. My son is intact, his father is not, and it was never an issue. In fact, my son didn't know what circumcision was until we came across it while reading the bible. He had seen his father's penis, but I'm sure the differences were no more confusing than the fact that they have different eye color was.

[Veritaserum]

It doesn't come up, honestly, or if it does the question is likely to be 'why is yours bigger, has hair, etc" not about foreskin. What I'm trying to say is that they are so different anyway that the foreskin is not going to be the factor that makes this conversation happen or not happen. My son is intact, his father is not, and it was never an issue. In fact, my son didn't know what circumcision was until we came across it while reading the bible. He had seen his father's penis, but I'm sure the differences were no more confusing than the fact that they have different eye color was.

 

Melissel is NOT arguing that the "match daddy" reason is at all logical. She is obviously aware of everything you and others have mentioned against the "match daddy" argument. All she was doing was pointing out that some men do, in fact, seriously believe that "matching" is Very Important. :)

Edited January 17, 2012 by Veritaserum

[ktgrok]

Melissel is NOT arguing that the "match daddy" reason is at all logical. She is obviously aware of everything you and others have mentioned against the "match daddy" argument. All she was doing was pointing out that some men do, in fact, seriously believe that "matching" is Very Important. :)

 

She asked how you handle the conversation when the child points out that they are different. I answered that question.

[melissel]

She asked how you handle the conversation when the child points out that they are different. I answered that question.

 

Thank you. It was rhetorical, actually, since the answer to the question is actually very simple, if it were to come up. But Laura is right--my point was more along the lines of what might be going on in the subconscious of a man whose first reaction is that he and his son should "match" in that area, particularly a first-time father.

[awisha.]

My DH is circumcised, our DS is not. I said no way to it before our son was born and hubby didn't care. He's good like that ;)

 

The thought of a father wanting his son to be the same as him 'down there' is bizzare to me.

 

*shrugs* but then everyone is entitled to their own opinions/beliefs etc.

[SKL]

Maybe, deep down, there's discomfort over possibly having to explain why they're different from each other? Most men I know wouldn't exactly want to have a heart to heart about foreskins with a child if they can avoid it! How do you explain a circumcision to a child who's asking why his penis looks different his dad's? It would probably not be the most comfortable chat!

 

Yeah, even if they were both cut or both uncut, that would be uncomfortable. Do men really foresee that they are going to be sitting with their sons having a chat about their organs' similarities and differences?

 

If you can get past the whole adult vs little boy penis aspect of it, the foreskin aspect ought to be relatively easy.

 

Can anyone here imagine having a detailed mommy-and-me vulva discussion/comparison with their daughters? Perhaps some moms shave there because their daughter might see them in the shower and be confused?

 

OK, I guess some men have actually stated "his should look like mine," but my mind still can't fathom it. The words must have some other meaning.

[beaners]

Yeah, even if they were both cut or both uncut, that would be uncomfortable. Do men really foresee that they are going to be sitting with their sons having a chat about their organs' similarities and differences?

 

If you can get past the whole adult vs little boy penis aspect of it, the foreskin aspect ought to be relatively easy.

 

Can anyone here imagine having a detailed mommy-and-me vulva discussion/comparison with their daughters? Perhaps some moms shave there because their daughter might see them in the shower and be confused?

 

OK, I guess some men have actually stated "his should look like mine," but my mind still can't fathom it. The words must have some other meaning.

 

Freud would be all over this thread.

 

I have a very distinct memory of making my mother uncomfortable when I was around 3 or 4 years old because she washed me while she was taking a shower. What could be more fun than answering questions about what "all that stuff" was and why she had it and I don't when you're trying to rush out of the house in the morning?

 

In the cases where I've heard this argument made, it has been clear. Every time I've assumed a man really meant something other than what he said, I've been wrong. It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe there's also some unconscious leaning toward what's good enough for me is good enough for them? I don't know. I do know that it is said with that specific intent in mind.

[Spy Car]

Men—despite the opinions of some to the contrary—are not stupid, uninformed, incapable of doing research or making an informed decision.

 

What is bizarre is that some people think this is a purely "cosmetic" procedure. They are tragically misinformed.

 

Circumcision brings boys and men a life-time of benefits, and most men are smart enough to know that.

 

The uncircumcised will have hygiene issues the circumcised don't (to the same degree), this reality has implications on sex-lives. Beyond that circumcision reduces the likelihood of contracting many diseases including UTI (which have significant rates of morbidity in infancy, and are also a grave threat to the elderly.

 

The reduction in risk to HIV/AIDS contraction is significant, and well as transmission of HPV, to name a few serious STDS.

 

Too bad that "mothering forums" ignore the truth and replace reason with appeals to emotion. One would think WTMers would have some exposure to "informal logic" and argumentation, and could stick to the facts. But we get "straw men" arguments" and appeals to emotion, because on the facts the arguments against circumcision are weak.

 

The notion that circumcised men have lost the sensitivity of their sexual part is an absolute laugh. Suggest it to a group of men and you will get howling laughter. It just ain't so.

 

People take a (very small) risk when they choose circumcision. And people take risks when they choose not to. They take the increased risk of their sons contracting and spreading diseases and they set them up for problems of hygiene (especially at life-stages when they need care).

 

Properly done circumcision is a simple and pain-free procedure.

 

Calling it "mutilation," claiming it is a procedure that inherently causes trauma, comparing it to the removal of a female's clitoris, are all despicable tactics that make reasoned discussion difficult (if not impossible).

 

I get we live in an "internet age" where people become passionate even when they are misinformed by websites that act as an echo-chamber of untruths. It is the same with vaccinations.

 

Too bad. As lives will be lost and compromised when bad decisions are made because the opportunity for sane discussion is truncated by fears of being called a "mutilator."

 

Reasonable people can reach different conclusions on the risks and rewards of circumcision and the risks and rewards of not circumcising. But reasoned discussions are pretty rare. Instead of "argument" (in the classical sense) the debate gets larded with fallacies.

 

Bill

[Heather in Neverland]

Men—despite the opinions of some to the contrary—are not stupid, uninformed, incapable of doing research or making an informed decision.

 

What is bizarre is that some people think this is a purely "cosmetic" procedure. They are tragically misinformed.

 

Circumcision brings boys and men a life-time of benefits, and most men are smart enough to know that.

 

The uncircumcised will have hygiene issues the circumcised don't (to the same degree), this reality has implications on sex-lives. Beyond that circumcision reduces the likelihood of contracting many diseases including UTI (which have significant rates of morbidity in infancy, and are also a grave threat to the elderly.

 

The reduction in risk to HIV/AIDS contraction is significant, and well as transmission of HPV, to name a few serious STDS.

 

Too bad that "mothering forums" ignore the truth and replace reason with appeals to emotion. One would think WTMers would have some exposure to "informal logic" and argumentation, and could stick to the facts. But we get "straw men" arguments" and appeals to emotion, because on the facts the arguments against circumcision are weak.

 

The notion that circumcised men have lost the sensitivity of their sexual part is an absolute laugh. Suggest it to a group of men and you will get howling laughter. It just ain't so.

 

People take a (very small) risk when they choose circumcision. And people take risks when they choose not to. They take the increased risk of their sons contracting and spreading diseases and they set them up for problems of hygiene (especially at life-stages when they need care).

 

Properly done circumcision is a simple and pain-free procedure.

 

Calling it "mutilation," claiming it is a procedure that inherently causes trauma, comparing it to the removal of a female's clitoris, are all despicable tactics that make reasoned discussion difficult (if not impossible).

 

I get we live in an "internet age" where people become passionate even when they are misinformed by websites that act as an echo-chamber of untruths. It is the same with vaccinations.

 

Too bad. As lives will be lost and compromised when bad decisions are made because the opportunity for sane discussion is truncated by fears of being called a "mutilator."

 

Reasonable people can reach different conclusions on the risks and rewards of circumcision and the risks and rewards of not circumcising. But reasoned discussions are pretty rare. Instead of "argument" (in the classical sense) the debate gets larded with fallacies.

 

Bill

 

 

We need an emoticon for a standing ovation. I have not gotten involved in this thread because of the hysteria that always ensues when this topic is brought up. I cannot top this post. Well done.

 

 

 

.

[Retired]

Men—despite the opinions of some to the contrary—are not stupid, uninformed, incapable of doing research or making an informed decision.

 

What is bizarre is that some people think this is a purely "cosmetic" procedure. They are tragically misinformed.

 

Circumcision brings boys and men a life-time of benefits, and most men are smart enough to know that.

 

The uncircumcised will have hygiene issues the circumcised don't (to the same degree), this reality has implications on sex-lives. Beyond that circumcision reduces the likelihood of contracting many diseases including UTI (which have significant rates of morbidity in infancy, and are also a grave threat to the elderly.

 

The reduction in risk to HIV/AIDS contraction is significant, and well as transmission of HPV, to name a few serious STDS.

 

Too bad that "mothering forums" ignore the truth and replace reason with appeals to emotion. One would think WTMers would have some exposure to "informal logic" and argumentation, and could stick to the facts. But we get "straw men" arguments" and appeals to emotion, because on the facts the arguments against circumcision are weak.

 

The notion that circumcised men have lost the sensitivity of their sexual part is an absolute laugh. Suggest it to a group of men and you will get howling laughter. It just ain't so.

 

People take a (very small) risk when they choose circumcision. And people take risks when they choose not to. They take the increased risk of their sons contracting and spreading diseases and they set them up for problems of hygiene (especially at life-stages when they need care).

 

Properly done circumcision is a simple and pain-free procedure.

 

Calling it "mutilation," claiming it is a procedure that inherently causes trauma, comparing it to the removal of a female's clitoris, are all despicable tactics that make reasoned discussion difficult (if not impossible).

 

I get we live in an "internet age" where people become passionate even when they are misinformed by websites that act as an echo-chamber of untruths. It is the same with vaccinations.

 

Too bad. As lives will be lost and compromised when bad decisions are made because the opportunity for sane discussion is truncated by fears of being called a "mutilator."

 

Reasonable people can reach different conclusions on the risks and rewards of circumcision and the risks and rewards of not circumcising. But reasoned discussions are pretty rare. Instead of "argument" (in the classical sense) the debate gets larded with fallacies.

 

Bill

 

 

:iagree:

[ktgrok]

The diseases you mention can be prevented in other ways, that don't involve surgery. Many prefer to use those other methods. As for hygeine, 30 seconds a day of washing seems a fair alternative to surgery as well. I do see how one could view circumcision as a viable medical procedure, but it isn't the only way to deal with these problems, and to keep bringing them up as if they are the only reason people circ is misleading. We were referring to mean who really do want it done to look like them. I've known these men.

Edited January 17, 2012 by ktgrok

[Jennifer3141]

Bill, I normally agree with you. But I'm reminded of my time on one of the medical boards in southern Michigan where we were discussing whether or not to continue with a community support program for low income circumcisions.

 

One of the urologists stood up and said that when someone invokes their version of a "sky daddy" regarding cutting off parts of their children's genitals, that he doesn't bother communicating with those people anymore because the current medical literature isn't going to sink in.

 

Yes, there is a benefit of reduced HIV transmission by circing. But, EW. If your kid is out there having sex without a condom with a partner with whom HIV status hasn't been determined, then as far as I believe, you've failed as a parent and your kid isn't that bright either.

 

Females would have fewer labia infections if we removed the labia. Women would have no ovarian cancers if we removed their ovaries. We could cure kidney cancer, lung cancer, heart disease too. Guess how. :D

 

I reminded of my old British boyfriend when I questioned him about it. "Well love, I wash it. And I'm careful where I stick it. So far that seems to work." And frankly, that's good advice for both sexes.

[SKL]

The diseases you mention can be prevented in other ways, that don't involve surgery. Many prefer to use those other methods. As for hygeine, 30 seconds a day of washing seems a fair alternative to surgery as well.

 

But

 

1) Other prevention methods are also intrusive and involve risks.

 

2) From what I've read, "30 seconds a day of washing" would do more harm than good. I know that many moms of uncirc'd boys do not get sufficiently educated on how to properly care for the uncirc'd penis, and this leads to some of the problems that uncirc'd boys have. So as we pat ourselves on the back for our superior research skills, perhaps we should take said research beyond the neonatal stage.

[Veritaserum]

The diseases you mention can be prevented in other ways, that don't involve surgery. Many prefer to use those other methods. As for hygeine, 30 seconds a day of washing seems a fair alternative to surgery as well.

 

:iagree: I know several intact American men who have not have ANY of the problems circumcision claims to prevent. They are clean and disease-free and have never had surgery on their sex organs. To suggest that a man cannot be clean or healthy unless he is circumcised is the illogical position. It is insulting to men to say that they are incapable of keeping themselves clean and healthy unless they have their foreskins surgically removed.

[melissel]

Reasonable people can reach different conclusions on the risks and rewards of circumcision and the risks and rewards of not circumcising.

 

You know, Bill, you keep saying this, but I think you're just paying lip service to some kind of back-handed courtesy. I don't think you truly believe it. You keep misrepresenting what many of us are saying and you continue to insist that our information comes from hysteria sites, even when we've pointed out that it doesn't. If you really believe a reasonable person can come down on the side of not circumcising, yet you invalidate all of the reasons we've given for our belief, what reasons would you consider valid?

[Denisemomof4]

I agree with most of what Bill said, but I'm still not sure about that first sentence.:lol::lol::lol:

 

I used to work with a gal who was married to an uncircumcised man. She had chronic infections and her doctor told her a big part of the problem was her uncircumcised husband. Even with careful.cleaning there still seemed to be a serious issue.

 

I still believe it is a parent's choice, and strongly believe nobody should have an opinion or judgment on other people's choices to circumcise or not.

[Veritaserum]

You know, Bill, you keep saying this, but I think you're just paying lip service to some kind of back-handed courtesy. I don't think you truly believe it. You keep misrepresenting what many of us are saying and you continue to insist that our information comes from hysteria sites, even when we've pointed out that it doesn't. If you really believe a reasonable person can come down on the side of not circumcising, yet you invalidate all of the reasons we've given for our belief, what reasons would you consider valid?

 

:iagree: Yeah, Bill, what are reasonable reasons you've found to NOT circumcise an infant?

[SKL]

Yes, there is a benefit of reduced HIV transmission by circing. But, EW. If your kid is out there having sex without a condom with a partner with whom HIV status hasn't been determined, then as far as I believe, you've failed as a parent and your kid isn't that bright either.

 

 

Whoa - I would be very reluctant to make such a statement until my own kids are at least 50 years old with a fairly spotless history.

 

FTR, I do not think the HIV argument is sufficient to sway me. I also won't have my kids get the HPV vax. Physical STD prevention is not something I consider a parent's responsibility, assuming the child is developing the capacity to make reasonably intelligent choices. But other parents are entitled to their opinions on that.

[SonshineLearner]

She asked how you handle the conversation when the child points out that they are different. I answered that question.

My son realized that some are different; he asked , "Why do they look different?" I just said, "Well sweetie, some mamas and daddys choose to have the skin cut off around the p*n*s and it's called circumcision, and some mamas and daddys don't. We chose to not to have yours cut." He said something along the lines of, "Oh gosh, I'm lucky, I wouldn't want part of my p**p** to be cut off" I also went on to explain that we don't point out differences between our friends.

[SonshineLearner]

:iagree: I know several intact American men who have not have ANY of the problems circumcision claims to prevent. They are clean and disease-free and have never had surgery on their sex organs. To suggest that a man cannot be clean or healthy unless he is circumcised is the illogical position. It is insulting to men to say that they are incapable of keeping themselves clean and healthy unless they have their foreskins surgically removed.

 

If this isn't true, then why do countries who DON'T circ all start circing? I mean several countries don't, except for in cases of religious mandate...

[Spy Car]

Bill, I normally agree with you. But I'm reminded of my time on one of the medical boards in southern Michigan where we were discussing whether or not to continue with a community support program for low income circumcisions.

 

One of the urologists stood up and said that when someone invokes their version of a "sky daddy" regarding cutting off parts of their children's genitals, that he doesn't bother communicating with those people anymore because the current medical literature isn't going to sink in.

 

Yes, there is a benefit of reduced HIV transmission by circing. But, EW. If your kid is out there having sex without a condom with a partner with whom HIV status hasn't been determined, then as far as I believe, you've failed as a parent and your kid isn't that bright either.

 

Females would have fewer labia infections if we removed the labia. Women would have no ovarian cancers if we removed their ovaries. We could cure kidney cancer, lung cancer, heart disease too. Guess how. :D

 

I reminded of my old British boyfriend when I questioned him about it. "Well love, I wash it. And I'm careful where I stick it. So far that seems to work." And frankly, that's good advice for both sexes.

 

Condoms break. That is a fact. The young are sometimes rash, unthoughtful, and impulsive. Mistakes happen. As you say, there is a scientifically reduced risk of contracting HIV (and other STDs). I will take that advantage any time, especially when combined with all the other upsides of circumcision.

 

It is a decision made using reason and logic and not on based on a belief in a "sky-daddy." That urologist is a twit.

Bill

[Spy Car]

You know, Bill, you keep saying this, but I think you're just paying lip service to some kind of back-handed courtesy. I don't think you truly believe it. You keep misrepresenting what many of us are saying and you continue to insist that our information comes from hysteria sites, even when we've pointed out that it doesn't. If you really believe a reasonable person can come down on the side of not circumcising, yet you invalidate all of the reasons we've given for our belief, what reasons would you consider valid?

 

:iagree: Yeah, Bill, what are reasonable reasons you've found to NOT circumcise an infant?

 

On a medical level the lack of access to a highly-competent doctor who could perform the procedure in a safe, sterile, and humane fashion where risks of complications, infections, and pain/suffering are minimized (or eliminated) could be a big factor in choosing not to circumcise. Unfortunately not everyone has access to outstanding medical care, and even in the US medical practices can be "backwards" when in comes to this procedure.

 

Rather than avoiding circumcision I'd like to see people researching how it can be done safely and humanely. But that's just me.

 

Bill

[melissel]

On a medical level the lack of access to a highly-competent doctor who could perform the procedure in a safe, sterile, and humane fashion where risks of complications, infections, and pain/suffering are minimized (or eliminated) could be a big factor in choosing not to circumcise. Unfortunately not everyone has access to outstanding medical care, and even in the US medical practices can be "backwards" when in comes to this procedure.

 

Rather than avoiding circumcision I'd like to see people researching how it can be done safely and humanely. But that's just me.

 

Bill

 

So that's the only reasonable reason? Otherwise, you would consider choosing not to circ unreasonable? There's not one bit of additional compelling evidence to make you think that not circ'ing would be a valid choice?

[Veritaserum]

On a medical level the lack of access to a highly-competent doctor who could perform the procedure in a safe, sterile, and humane fashion where risks of complications, infections, and pain/suffering are minimized (or eliminated) could be a big factor in choosing not to circumcise. Unfortunately not everyone has access to outstanding medical care, and even in the US medical practices can be "backwards" when in comes to this procedure.

 

Rather than avoiding circumcision I'd like to see people researching how it can be done safely and humanely. But that's just me.

 

Bill

 

How understanding of you. :001_rolleyes: Considering the number of botched circumcisions the moms around here complain about (including the one of my poor nephew), maybe my son qualifies for your exemption.

 

Seriously, though, I'd love to see more humane and safer circumcisions for the babies that have them. However, there are valid reasons for not circumcising an infant that have nothing to do with the availability of a safe and humane procedure. Can you name one? Surely, if you have researched both sides as you claim, you can?

[JeneralMom]

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 not to get into the circ discussions but I can address this directly :tongue_smilie:

 

1) It does feel "better" with an uncirc'd man because of many of the reasons you mentioned. Every woman I have spoken to who has been with both circ'd and uncirc'd agrees....there isn't a single dissenter. One friend actually summed it up as "the best circ'd guy I was with was only equivalent to the mediocre uncirc'd guys" and she had loads of comparisons.

 

2) usually I agree with SpyCar n most everything, but his is one area we just don't agree on. Sorry.

 

3) My ex-fiancee got himself circ'd because the much older girl he had his first sexual experience with teased him about his foreskin (he realized years later that she was just teasing good-naturedly but he was just 13 and took it badly). Before he did the procedure he had sex with 2 other people (yeah, he was precocious) and so had enough experience to be able to judge the pre and post-operation sensations. He told me that it felt much better pre-surgery, it took him longer to ejaculate both during masturbation and coitus, that he had a lot of not-good sensations on the exposed tip post-coitus compared to before, and that the period during which the freshly circ'd tip was become desensitized was horrible and painful. He out and out said that if we ever had boys they would never be circ'd.

 

4) neither of my boys are done because it is not part of my culture or either of my parents culture (both are European and moved to Canada). None of my paternal male relatives are circ'd and none have had problems. My maternal g-father and uncle were not done, but my maternal aunt had her boys done because their father is half Jewish and it was really important to his mom. She did say they both experienced pain and that they had some issues post operation and she regretted doing it.

 

5) I have a friend who is trying to regrow his foreskin (it involved progressive weights stretching what is left of his foreskin after the surgery he had as a baby. His wife is very anti-circ and admitted to him that she finds sex with uncirc'd partners more enjoyable. Neither of their sons is circ'd. I haven't asked how well his stretching has progressed but I know he was serious about it.

[melissel]

5) I have a friend who is trying to regrow his foreskin (it involved progressive weights stretching what is left of his foreskin after the surgery he had as a baby. His wife is very anti-circ and admitted to him that she finds sex with uncirc'd partners more enjoyable. Neither of their sons is circ'd. I haven't asked how well his stretching has progressed but I know he was serious about it.

 

:svengo: x 10

[Spy Car]

How understanding of you. :001_rolleyes: Considering the number of botched circumcisions the moms around here complain about (including the one of my poor nephew), maybe my son qualifies for your exemption.

 

Seriously, though, I'd love to see more humane and safer circumcisions for the babies that have them. However, there are valid reasons for not circumcising an infant that have nothing to do with the availability of a safe and humane procedure. Can you name one? Surely, if you have researched both sides as you claim, you can?

 

I don't understand the eye-roll. I believe there are botched circumcisions and there are many performed without the highest standards of care and concern for pain-elimination and safety. I would like to see a societal push for the highest medical standards for those who choose the procedure. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

 

On the medical front I see no advantages to not circumcising except for the risks of complications from the procedure itself. Those risks can be drastically reduced with good practices.

 

In terms of hygiene and resistance to disease and infection there is a clear advantage of circumcision.

 

Circumcised boys do not have the potentially serious retraction issues that uncircumcised boys face.

 

I have seen arguments that some women consider the smell of sm*gm* a "turn-on" or that it is the greatest lubricant ever. If that is an arrow in the quiver you can have it.

 

The "sensitivity' argument is a wash (no pun intended).

 

For personal or cultural reasons women in different societies or sub-groups may have different preferences. This can be a factor in a decision on a non-medical basis.

 

Outside the risks of the procedure itself, I don't see any medical advantage to avoiding circumcision. Do you?

 

Bill

[Veritaserum]

I don't understand the eye-roll. I believe there are botched circumcisions and there are many performed without the highest standards of care and concern for pain-elimination and safety. I would like to see a societal push for the highest medical standards for those who choose the procedure. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

 

On the medical front I see no advantages to not circumcising except for the risks of complications from the procedure itself. Those risks can be drastically reduced with good practices.

 

In terms of hygiene and resistance to disease and infection there is a clear advantage of circumcision.

 

Circumcised boys do not have the potentially serious retraction issues that uncircumcised boys face.

 

I have seen arguments that some women consider the smell of sm*gm* a "turn-on" or that it is the greatest lubricant ever. If that is an arrow in the quiver you can have it.

 

The "sensitivity' argument is a wash (no pun intended).

 

For personal or cultural reasons women in different societies or sub-groups may have different preferences. This can be a factor in a decision on a non-medical basis.

 

Outside the risks of the procedure itself, I don't see any medical advantage to avoiding circumcision. Do you?

 

Bill

 

The eye-roll is because of the lip service you pay to "reasonable people being able to disagree" and yet you respond with hostility toward any person who disagrees with your conclusions, even if they haven't done the same to you.

 

Some medical advantages of avoiding circumcision:

1. No surgical complication risks (infection, botched procedure, bleeding, pain, and the rare death).
   
2. The foreskin protects against infection and irritation.
   
3. The foreskin reduces friction and increases pleasure for both males and females during intercourse.
   
4. The foreskin allows an erect penis to enlarge without pain or stretching of non-shaft skin.
   

[Jennifer3141]

Condoms break. That is a fact. The young are sometimes rash, unthoughtful, and impulsive. Mistakes happen. As you say, there is a scientifically reduced risk of contracting HIV (and other STDs). I will take that advantage any time, especially when combined with all the other upsides of circumcision.

 

It is a decision made using reason and logic and not on based on a belief in a "sky-daddy." That urologist is a twit.

Bill

 

Uh, if you're going to make that argument that condoms break, then don't have sex. Seriously, if I'm having sex with an HIV+ guy and the condom BREAKS, the last thing I'm going to think is, "Whew! He's circumcized!!!" Seriously? Yeah. NOT.A.COMFORT there. :glare:

If that happens, maybe my "womanly internet hysteria" over circumcision will come flying back out. :D

[ktgrok]

But

 

1) Other prevention methods are also intrusive and involve risks.

 

2) From what I've read, "30 seconds a day of washing" would do more harm than good. I know that many moms of uncirc'd boys do not get sufficiently educated on how to properly care for the uncirc'd penis, and this leads to some of the problems that uncirc'd boys have. So as we pat ourselves on the back for our superior research skills, perhaps we should take said research beyond the neonatal stage.

 

I'm confused. What do you mean 30 seconds of washing would do more harm than good? When they are little you wash the outside, like a finger. I guess 30 seconds is a bit more time than needed, but whatever. When older, they retract and rinse a few times....(and honestly, I have a hard time believing a boy of age to have a retractable foreskin isn't messing with it a bit in the shower anyway). Again, maybe you meant 30 seconds was too much time? I was trying to average lifetime care needs, including sponge bathing an elderly man.

[Veritaserum]

Uh, if you're going to make that argument that condoms break, then don't have sex. Seriously, if I'm having sex with an HIV+ guy and the condom BREAKS, the last thing I'm going to think is, "Whew! He's circumcized!!!" Seriously? Yeah. NOT.A.COMFORT there. :glare:

If that happens, maybe my "womanly internet hysteria" over circumcision will come flying back out. :D

 

No kidding! :lol:

[ktgrok]

Outside the risks of the procedure itself, I don't see any medical advantage to avoiding circumcision. Do you?

 

Bill

 

I haven't come up with a medical advantage to my pinky finger either, honestly. Still got both of them though. Figure they probably have a purpose.

[Jennifer3141]

I tend not to get into the circ discussions but I can address this directly :tongue_smilie:

 

1) It does feel "better" with an uncirc'd man because of many of the reasons you mentioned. Every woman I have spoken to who has been with both circ'd and uncirc'd agrees....there isn't a single dissenter. One friend actually summed it up as "the best circ'd guy I was with was only equivalent to the mediocre uncirc'd guys" and she had loads of comparisons.

 

 

This has been my experience so far (marrying DH put a halt to my "studies"). But my British boyfriend, even though he was more diminutive than DH felt nicer. There was more glide.

I also suspect DH's circ is too tight but he won't discuss it with me because he suspects I suspect and then I've got another small ding on the "winning" side of our circ argument. :001_smile:

 

I think my Brit also smelled muskier but I'm comparing apples to oranges there. My DH has OCD. Not showering twice a day for him doesn't happen. I like his shampoo/cologne smell but I didn't mind my Brit's smell either, except when he didn't shower after "football" (SOCCER!) and just threw on a clean shirt. We were in college though with open showers for all. Bathing wasn't as enjoyable as it is as grownups in our own home with multiple showerheads and nice body wash, etc.

[Spy Car]

The eye-roll is because of the lip service you pay to "reasonable people being able to disagree" and yet you respond with hostility toward any person who disagrees with your conclusions, even if they haven't done the same to you.

 

Some medical advantages of avoiding circumcision:

 

1. No surgical complication risks (infection, botched procedure, bleeding, pain, and the rare death).

 

I already granted that there is a small risk of complication, risks that ought to be reduced by good practices that are not always followed today. But I asked for reason beyond these risks.

 

The foreskin protects against infection and irritation.

 

This is false. The foreskin is a mucous membrane and a classic entry-point for viruses and other pathogens. You can't possibly be serious. Circumcision is proven to reduce the incidence of contracting a number of diseases and infections.

 

The foreskin reduces friction and increases pleasure for both males and females during intercourse.

 

This goes against the reporting in studies of men in America who have had adult circumcision, and in the preference polls of American women. The idea that circumcised men do not enjoy sexual pleasure is ridiculous.

 

The foreskin allows an erect penis to enlarge without pain or stretching of non-shaft skin.

 

 

:lol: Seriously? This is one case where I've got a better handle on the issue :D

 

Not very convincing, methinks.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I haven't come up with a medical advantage to my pinky finger either, honestly. Still got both of them though. Figure they probably have a purpose.

 

You can't come up with medical advantages to having a pinky finger? :confused:

 

If that's really true (and I doubt that is the case) it doesn't raise the consideration I would give your options on medical advice. This argument (once again) removes us from the arena of logic.

 

Bill

[melissel]

I would like to see a societal push for the highest medical standards for those who choose the procedure. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

 

I'm certain that most people who choose to have the procedure done believe they are entrusting their children to providers who already operate under the highest medical standards. Who would entrust their children to doctors they assumed were operating under a "meh! better your kid than mine!" mindset? How would you know you were wrong until it was too late and the botching had already happened? Also, while the drive toward the highest medical standards was happening, what should happen in the meantime? Will all circumcisions be suspended?

 

In terms of hygiene and resistance to disease and infection there is a clear advantage of circumcision.

 

There are studies, conducted by reputable medical institutions, that disagree. And I don't see public sexual health in Europe spiraling toward epidemic levels. How could that be if circumcision is so integral to STD prevention?

 

Circumcised boys do not have the potentially serious retraction issues that uncircumcised boys face.

 

While we're making a push toward the highest medical standards, we can also make a push toward a greater understanding, on the part of all parties--doctors, parents, and the boys themselves--of how to care for uncircumcised genitals and eliminate the majority of those issues.

 

I have seen arguments that some women consider the smell of sm*gm* a "turn-on" or that it is the greatest lubricant ever. If that is an arrow in the quiver you can have it.

 

The "sensitivity' argument is a wash (no pun intended).

 

 

Agreed (though I've not heard the lubricant argument you cite--I've heard other arguments for lubrication though). Neither of these factor into my own beliefs.

 

Outside the risks of the procedure itself, I don't see any medical advantage to avoiding circumcision. Do you?

 

No, but neither do I see any incontrovertible medical advantage to having it done. Given that, I would not choose to conduct a preemptive surgical procedure on a newborn.

Edited January 17, 2012 by melissel

[Veritaserum]

I already granted that there is a small risk of complication, risks that ought to be reduced by good practices that are not always followed today. But I asked for reason beyond these risks.

 

Yes, you did. Risks of a procedure when there is no pressing need for it is why I opt out of various common medical procedures.

 

This is false. The foreskin is a mucous membrane and a classic entry-point for viruses and other pathogens. You can't possibly be serious. Circumcision is proven to reduce the incidence of contracting a number of diseases and infections.

 

People disagree.

 

This goes against the reporting in studies of men in America who have had adult circumcision, and in the preference polls of American women. The idea that circumcised men do not enjoy sexual pleasure is ridiculous.

 

And what about the partners of circumcised men. There are many women who would prefer a foreskin to artificial lube.

 

:lol: Seriously? This is one case where I've got a better handle on the issue :D

 

Unfortunately, I am acutely aware of the negative effects of "high and tight" infant circumcision once that baby becomes a man. It is fortunate that most circumcised men do not have this problem.

 

Not very convincing, methinks.

 

Bill

 

Well, the pro-circumcision stuff isn't convincing to me. :)

[melissel]

I used to work with a gal who was married to an uncircumcised man. She had chronic infections and her doctor told her a big part of the problem was her uncircumcised husband. Even with careful.cleaning there still seemed to be a serious issue.

 

This happens with circumcised men as well. With any recurrent genital infection, in either partner, the recommendation is that both partners be treated.

[Mom-ninja.]

 

 

This is false. The foreskin is a mucous membrane and a classic entry-point for viruses and other pathogens. You can't possibly be serious. Circumcision is proven to reduce the incidence of contracting a number of diseases and infections.

 

 

 

Bill

 

 

And yet, every single case of disease and/or infection that I, IRL, know of have all been circ'd men. Every single one.

 

I know 13 women who contracted HPV from their circ'd dh. Yes, in each case it is very much known exactly who it came from.

 

I know 4 women who contracted herpes II from their circ'd dh.

 

Friend of mine is currently undergoing treatment for penile cancer. He is circ'd.

 

Child of friend of mine has been treated for and even hospitalized for recurrent UTI's. He was circ'd as infant.

 

 

All the men and boys I know who are intact (I know more intact men than circ'd men) have not had any issues ever. Now, is this obviously is not scientific "proof" of anything. It's just happens to be my experience and observation, and through my eyes claiming that circ'd men have lower risks of disease and infection is contradictory to my knowledge.

 

I also want to know why STDs continue to be higher in the USA whereas in Europe they are lower. I mean if circ has been "proven" to reduce risk of disease and infection....I ain't seein' it.

[SKL]

1) It does feel "better" with an uncirc'd man because of many of the reasons you mentioned. Every woman I have spoken to who has been with both circ'd and uncirc'd agrees....there isn't a single dissenter. One friend actually summed it up as "the best circ'd guy I was with was only equivalent to the mediocre uncirc'd guys" and she had loads of comparisons.

 

My experience has been the exact opposite.

 

Now that is way TMI for my liking, but there it is. You have now met a dissenter.

[ktgrok]

You can't come up with medical advantages to having a pinky finger? :confused:

 

If that's really true (and I doubt that is the case) it doesn't raise the consideration I would give your options on medical advice. This argument (once again) removes us from the arena of logic.

 

Bill

 

No, not medical ones. I can think of practical reasons, like making it easier to grab and hold things. And aesthtic ones. But not a medical reason. I can't think of any diseases prevented by having a pinky finger. You asked for medical reasons.

[Spy Car]

I'm certain that most people who choose to have the procedure done believe they are entrusting their children to providers to already operate under the highest medical standards. Who would entrust their children to doctors they assumed were operating under a "meh! better your kid than mine!" mindset? How would you know you were wrong until it was too late and the botching had already happened? Also, while the drive toward the highest medical standards was happening, what should happen in the meantime? Will all circumcisions be suspended?

 

 

People need to be informed about any medical procedure they undertake, or choose for their children. That is common sense. I had this discussion with our physician ( who as a role-model for best practices IMO) after having read everything I would get my hands on (and, despite being a man, I'm a pretty good researcher).

 

As to the second part of your question, if it were up to me I would shut down circumcisions at any hospitals where doctors actions were resulting in babies crying themselves into unconsciousness. There is no cause for such things and the procedures would stop until humane procedures and proper training could be assured.

 

Doctors who are negligent should face suspension or loss of their medical licenses. That said, I think most physicians enter the profession to help people.

 

There are studies, conducted by reputable medical institutions, that disagree. And I don't see public sexual health in Europe spiraling toward epidemic levels. How could that be if circumcision is so integral to STD prevention?

 

Please cite any study that demonstrates a lower incidence of HIV or HPV infection, or UTIs in the circumcised in Europe (or anywhere else). It just ain't so.

 

While we're making a push toward the highest medical standards, we can also make a push toward a greater understanding, on the part of all parties--doctors, parents, and the boys themselves--of how to care for uncircumcised genitals and eliminate the majority of those issues.

 

Agreed. Education could improve the situation for uncircumcised boys in the USA. Unfortunately education will not help all infant boys who may self-retract and cause themselves serious problems, but yes, better education would help. I'm all for it.

 

They are still "issues" where the circumcised are at an advantage.

 

 

No, but neither do I see any incontrovertible medical advantage to having it done. Given that, I would not choose to conduct a preemptive surgical procedure on a newborn.

 

What amount of scientific proof does it take to establish that circumcision affords an advantage in reducing the odds of contracting some pretty serious diseases and infections?

 

You can discount the advantages, but they are real and well-established.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

And yet, every single case of disease and/or infection that I, IRL, know of have all been circ'd men. Every single one.

 

I know 13 women who contracted HPV from their circ'd dh. Yes, in each case it is very much known exactly who it came from.

 

I know 4 women who contracted herpes II from their circ'd dh.

 

Friend of mine is currently undergoing treatment for penile cancer. He is circ'd.

 

Child of friend of mine has been treated for and even hospitalized for recurrent UTI's. He was circ'd as infant.

 

 

All the men and boys I know who are intact (I know more intact men than circ'd men) have not had any issues ever. Now, is this obviously is not scientific "proof" of anything. It's just happens to be my experience and observation, and through my eyes claiming that circ'd men have lower risks of disease and infection is contradictory to my knowledge.

 

I also want to know why STDs continue to be higher in the USA whereas in Europe they are lower. I mean if circ has been "proven" to reduce risk of disease and infection....I ain't seein' it.

 

If one looks at the studies the incidence of HPV and HIV infections in the USA are much higher in populations that don't circumcise.

 

Bill