Why Vaccines Matter

[DesertBlossom]

Yes, you can compare the two.  All personal and health care decisions are the parents' domain.  Wisdom teeth are not birth defects, either, but they are often removed because they "will cause crowding problems later" (mine were because they would have prevented floss from accessing between my teeth - a cleaning problem).  The preventive removal of breast/ovary decision would be mine if I had a daughter in that position, also.  For all the hysterical flapping by activists with an agenda, the men I've known have no issues with circumcision.  If you don't want to circumsize your DS, great, but don't push falsehoods by saying such men will have sexual problems, because that is very far from a universal, or even common, truth.

 

You can't compare wisdom teeth to circumcision because one is done on an infant, the other on an almost-grown adult.  Wisdom teeth are removed when it's apparent that they will cause problems for the young adult. Many adults still have their wisdom teeth. Only 1 in over 16,000 men will ever need to be circumcised. You can't compare circumcision to any other parenting decision because there's nothing else like it. We don't cut healthy tissue from babies.  Circumcision is more like having your infant's tonsils or appendix removed because someone in your family has problems and you want to spare them future problems. Problems which probably won't happen anyway! (And we don't do that!)  Let's face it, your chance of getting an STD or STI has far more to do with your sexual practices than the state of your anatomy anyway.  

 

I didn't say that all men will have complications from their circumcisions. But it is a fact that the foreskin is an integral part of a man's sexual organ. When you remove it, you remove its benefits. To say otherwise means you haven't yet learned about normal male anatomy. You can remove it and it will still "work," just like my hand would still work if my thumb were removed, but it will be changed. And unfortunately it is much more common than you think for boys and men to have complications associated with their circumcisions. It's definitely not something people bring up around the office water cooler. But just because you don't hear about it, just because men aren't confiding in you about their problems, doesn't mean it isn't an issue.

[Slartibartfast]

See, you are biased against thinking your sons are a "risk category" because of uncirc. HPV is very common, circumcised or not. Most people have it at least once at some point; it is frequently asymptomatic.

 

I have read numerous times that uncircumcised males ARE more likely to contract STD and STIs. There is more hiding and breeding area for viruses. It bugs me when mothers who have chosen not to circumcise are unwilling to consider that this statistic does actually apply to their son(s).

 

Or maybe moms who choose not to circumcise intend to teach their sons to use condoms and practice safe sex.  I do intend to give him the tools he needs to be a responsible adult. The foreskin has a purpose.

 

 

 

[Lisbeth]

I have only read a few responses. Very controversial subject!I am pro-vax. I am very frustrated by those who want to give up our first world advantages in this manner.  I am annoyed by those who want to let others carry the burden of vaccinating, for herd immunity, unless there is a legitimate medical reason not to vaccinate.  I am annoyed by those who are more worried about having BO in public than a nasty disease that will spread.

 

Perhaps not vaccinating without provable medical cause will eventually lead to quarantine. I have no great answer.. Just a ton of frustration over the situation.

[NASDAQ]

Using condoms and safer sex does not prevent hpv. Hpv can be transmitted skin-to-skin.

[KarenNC]

I have only read a few responses. Very controversial subject!I am pro-vax. I am very frustrated by those who want to give up our first world advantages in this manner.  I am annoyed by those who want to let others carry the burden of vaccinating, for herd immunity, unless there is a legitimate medical reason not to vaccinate.  I am annoyed by those who are more worried about having BO in public than a nasty disease that will spread.

 

Perhaps not vaccinating without provable medical cause will eventually lead to quarantine. I have no great answer.. Just a ton of frustration over the situation.

 

I get very frustrated with the fear-mongering things people forward without thinking or investigating the facts. There was one that came across my feed fairly recently claiming herd immunity was ridiculous and the equivalent of saying that if the poster took birth control, others wouldn't get pregnant. Showed such a profound lack of understanding of the basic disease processes involved that I couldn't even read the rest of the screed.

 

Another one was going around a year or so ago claiming that a study showed something like 30 or 40 girls had died from the HPV vaccine (sorry, I can't be precise since I don't still have the original post). The post did at least link the research it was supposed to be based on (though I can't tell that they actually read the report). When I read the original, which included several thousand subjects, half the claimed deaths had been in the placebo group (so couldn't be blamed on the vaccine) and the majority of the deaths in the group who *did* receive the vaccine were from car accidents! The rest were from a variety of things and no causation or pattern noted, nor were they more than in the general population.

[Reefgazer]

My sister's wisdom teeth were removed before she was a teenager, as were my Sil's; quite common, actually.  The parent makes sole decisions about the foreskins, the appendix, and tonsils of their children, as well as the breast/ovary scenario, above. Furthermore, that is quite irrelevant to the original point. The original point I brought up was that parents have the right to, and do, make these decisions every day, and the foreskin scenario is no different from the other examples I gave.  If I decided to remove my child's teeth or appendix as a preventive, I am acting within my rights as a parent.  All are legitimate decisions parents make for thier minor children, whether others agree with it or not. 
 
Comparing a foreskin to a thumb is worse than ridiculous; the hand will not be remotely functional in a similar way for grasping without the thumb, but I can assure you that the wieners I have met in my day are perfectly functional for their intended purpose without the foreskin, and that I've learned of this functionality through means that do not involve water-cooler conversation, but actual field testing.  They are changed; so what?  They are still perfectly functional as is.  I taught A+P at the college level for years; I would be quite sure of this even if I were a raging virgin.
 
 

You can't compare wisdom teeth to circumcision because one is done on an infant, the other on an almost-grown adult.  Wisdom teeth are removed when it's apparent that they will cause problems for the young adult. Many adults still have their wisdom teeth. Only 1 in over 16,000 men will ever need to be circumcised. You can't compare circumcision to any other parenting decision because there's nothing else like it. We don't cut healthy tissue from babies.  Circumcision is more like having your infant's tonsils or appendix removed because someone in your family has problems and you want to spare them future problems. Problems which probably won't happen anyway! (And we don't do that!)  Let's face it, your chance of getting an STD or STI has far more to do with your sexual practices than the state of your anatomy anyway.  
 
I didn't say that all men will have complications from their circumcisions. But it is a fact that the foreskin is an integral part of a man's sexual organ. When you remove it, you remove its benefits. To say otherwise means you haven't yet learned about normal male anatomy. You can remove it and it will still "work," just like my hand would still work if my thumb were removed, but it will be changed. And unfortunately it is much more common than you think for boys and men to have complications associated with their circumcisions. It's definitely not something people bring up around the office water cooler. But just because you don't hear about it, just because men aren't confiding in you about their problems, doesn't mean it isn't an issue.

[Slartibartfast]

Using condoms and safer sex does not prevent hpv. Hpv can be transmitted skin-to-skin.

 

Yes, it does.

 

http://www.hpvinfo.ca/adults/frequently-asked-questions/

 

 

• HPV is usually transmitted through intimate sexual contact between partners. This may happen with rubbing the penis on the entrance of the vagina or the anus, or kissing the genitals or anus of a partner. You do not need penetration to transmit the infection. Some people wrongly think that not ejaculating in the vagina protects them from acquiring an STI. It is not the case. There are sufficient viruses for HPV transmission even when minimal skin-to-skin contact occurs. Condoms need to be worn for protection from the start of intercourse until the end. See the section on condoms for more information.

  HPV can also be transmitted during delivery from the infected mother to the baby. Most of the time, mothers do not even know they are infected.

  HPV can also be transmitted by sharing contaminated sex toys. Sex toys are to be used by one partner at a time. Sharing sex toys without properly disinfecting them carries a risk of transmission for all STIs. If sex toys are to be shared they can be used with condoms, as long as the condom is changed each time a different partner uses the toy.

  HPV cannot be passed by sitting on toilet seats or touching door knobs.

[kiana]

Yes, it does.

 

http://www.hpvinfo.ca/adults/frequently-asked-questions/

 

I believe her point was that it did not completely prevent HPV, which is why she mentioned skin-to-skin contact. From the link you pasted:

 

Condoms will reduce but not completely eliminate your risk of STIs. It is quite good for protection against HIV, herpes and Chlamydia, which are infections that can lead to developing cervical cancer in women if they have high risk HPV.

 

In other words, even if you use condoms every time, the vaccine may still be a good idea.

[DesertBlossom]

My sister's wisdom teeth were removed before she was a teenager, as were my Sil's; quite common, actually.  The parent makes sole decisions about the foreskins, the appendix, and tonsils of their children, as well as the breast/ovary scenario, above. Furthermore, that is quite irrelevant to the original point. The original point I brought up was that parents have the right to, and do, make these decisions every day, and the foreskin scenario is no different from the other examples I gave.  If I decided to remove my child's teeth or appendix as a preventive, I am acting within my rights as a parent.  All are legitimate decisions parents make for thier minor children, whether others agree with it or not. 

 

Comparing a foreskin to a thumb is worse than ridiculous; the hand will not be remotely functional in a similar way for grasping without the thumb, but I can assure you that the wieners I have met in my day are perfectly functional for their intended purpose without the foreskin, and that I've learned of this functionality through means that do not involve water-cooler conversation, but actual field testing.  They are changed; so what?  They are still perfectly functional as is.  I taught A+P at the college level for years; I would be quite sure of this even if I were a raging virgin.

 

 

 

Find me a doctor that would remove your child's healthy appendix just because you wanted it done.  I imagine if you starting asking a doctor to remove other healthy body parts that did not pose an immediate problem for your baby you'd be investigated by CPS.

 

 

It may not matter to YOU whether they are "changed."  But the point is, a man has the right to decide for himself what he wants his own body to look like. Infant circumcision on healthy babies is not necessary. Yet it's permanent. Circumcision takes away a person's right to decide for themselves. At least with vaccines, it can be argued that there is an immediate benefit for the child.  A vaccinated child may be protected from diseases, but they don't permanently alter their bodies. (except in the case of vaccine injury)   The "beneifts" of circumcision don't happen until much much later, at a point when the man can decide for himself.

 

I don't know if I'm allowed to post videos, but this is a really good video on the subject. 

 

[Slartibartfast]

I believe her point was that it did not completely prevent HPV, which is why she mentioned skin-to-skin contact. From the link you pasted:

 

Condoms will reduce but not completely eliminate your risk of STIs. It is quite good for protection against HIV, herpes and Chlamydia, which are infections that can lead to developing cervical cancer in women if they have high risk HPV.

 

In other words, even if you use condoms every time, the vaccine may still be a good idea.

 

I wasn't arguing against the vaccine, my original post that was quoted was about circumcision.

 

My kids are vaccinated, they are a bit young for hpv shots but they have their others.

 

And safer sex IMO would include vaccines in addition to being aware of disease and how they are transmitted.

[Dory]

The vaccine is effective in something like 7 out of 10 people throughout the entire population, IIRC. Also, if you've had the vaccine and you still get whooping cough, you are much more likely to have less severe symptoms, less long-lasting health issues, etc. The vaccine may still have helped those 7 family members that did get whooping cough.

 

The other thing is kids aren't fully protected until they've had the full round of doses, however many that is. Kids that get the whole course are likely to be fully protected, but they're higher risk for contracting whooping cough until they've finished that number of doses.

 

So people who look at anecdotal evidence such as your story here (or even the factual evidence, as not 100% will be fully protected by the vaccine), and then use that as further "proof" that the pertussis vaccine isn't a good idea (again, not sure exactly where you stand on this, so I'm not saying this is your point--just using your story as an example), are really putting that high-risk population in danger, i.e., babies and children who haven't finished the full amount of doses, those who cannot vaccinate, etc.

 

My whole point being, using that logic as some sort of proof that the pertussis vaccine isn't necessary is really a logic fail. Pertussis kills babies, rather horrifically.

 

(I'll point out again that I'm not picking on you or trying to argue with you, you just bring up stories similar to those I've heard as an argument against vaccines, so I'm just using your post as a jump-off point. :) )

 

 

Yes my story is purely anecdotal and I would hope no one would take it as proof that the vaccine didn't work. That would be a very poor way to make ones decision with something as important as this. I would say that obviously in some way some immune systems are able to protect an individual against things like whooping cough and I would love to see more research done on that. Allergic reactions to the pertussis shot are pretty common in my family. None of my kids had their DTaP shots because I wouldn't touch it after my son reacted badly to his first shot.

 

We all lived together, slept in the same house and ate at the same table and they didn't get sick. I would love to know why some day.

 

I do love how the majority of people on this thread have been able to talk about such a hot topic for 4 PAGES and it's still civil and polite of the opposing opinions. I love it!

[Dory]

Find me a doctor that would remove your child's healthy appendix just because you wanted it done.  I imagine if you starting asking a doctor to remove other healthy body parts that did not pose an immediate problem for your baby you'd be investigated by CPS.

 

 

It may not matter to YOU whether they are "changed."  But the point is, a man has the right to decide for himself what he wants his own body to look like. Infant circumcision on healthy babies is not necessary. Yet it's permanent. Circumcision takes away a person's right to decide for themselves. At least with vaccines, it can be argued that there is an immediate benefit for the child.  A vaccinated child may be protected from diseases, but they don't permanently alter their bodies. (except in the case of vaccine injury)   The "beneifts" of circumcision don't happen until much much later, at a point when the man can decide for himself.

 

I don't know if I'm allowed to post videos, but

is a really good video on the subject. 

 

I have a cousin who's dd was born with a deformed arm. the arm still had feeling. It wasn't dead, but it was basically useless. They had it amputated as a baby. Obviously not exactly the same as circumcision, but still, they took of a living limb before the child was old enough to have a say. It would not have hurt her to keep the arm for longer, but they thought that she would adjust to life with a prosthetic easier if the arm was just gone before she would remember it.

So yes, parents do often get to make decisions to take off body parts on babies. Even if the body part doesn't pose and immediate problem.

 

The kid might have chosen to keep the arm, we'll never know now.

[kiana]

I wasn't arguing against the vaccine, my original post that was quoted was about circumcision.

 

My kids are vaccinated, they are a bit young for hpv shots but they have their others.

 

And safer sex IMO would include vaccines in addition to being aware of disease and how they are transmitted.

 

Sorry, then, I misread what you are arguing against.

[LizzyBee]

I'm not in the US, what are kids getting besides those?

 

Hepatitis, chickenpox, flu

[SwallowTail]

I find the drama surrounding the procedures used to treat cervical lesions to be baffling.  I had a colposcopy and cervical LEEP many years ago.  This was before they really knew much about HP, so we don't know if that is what caused the need for the procedures.  Anyway, while it wasn't awesome, I would totally have rather gone through that than have the vaccine. :shrug:

 

As far as the myriad other vaccines, I think there is a time and place for some of  them.  I do not believe that it is best practice to load them all rapdifire into newborn infants though. (For the record, I am a scientist).

[Slartibartfast]

I find the drama surrounding the procedures used to treat cervical lesions to be baffling. I had a colposcopy and cervical LEEP many years ago. This was before they really knew much about HP, so we don't know if that is what caused the need for the procedures. Anyway, while it wasn't awesome, I would totally have rather gone through that than have the vaccine. :shrug:

 

As far as the myriad other vaccines, I think there is a time and place for some of them. I do not believe that it is best practice to load them all rapdifire into newborn infants though. (For the record, I am a scientist).

HPV does not only cause cervical cancer. It can also cause throat cancer as well as penile cancer and anal cancer.

[DesertBlossom]

I have a cousin who's dd was born with a deformed arm. the arm still had feeling. It wasn't dead, but it was basically useless. They had it amputated as a baby. Obviously not exactly the same as circumcision, but still, they took of a living limb before the child was old enough to have a say. It would not have hurt her to keep the arm for longer, but they thought that she would adjust to life with a prosthetic easier if the arm was just gone before she would remember it.

So yes, parents do often get to make decisions to take off body parts on babies. Even if the body part doesn't pose and immediate problem.

 

The kid might have chosen to keep the arm, we'll never know now.

 

The foreskin is not a birth defect.

[Reefgazer]

Yes, he does.  But infants' and children's decisions are made by the parents, whether the decision is made about circumcision, leg amputation (in lieu of other alternative treatments), wisdom teeth removal, ovary/breast removal, tonsil removal, mole removal, permanent straightening of the teeth with orthodontia, cosmetic surgery to remove a large strawberry birthmark, or any other number of decisions parents make about their children.  You don't seem to get that this is not about the benefits/drawbacks of circumcision; it is about parental rights in making medical decisions for their children.   

Find me a doctor that would remove your child's healthy appendix just because you wanted it done.  I imagine if you starting asking a doctor to remove other healthy body parts that did not pose an immediate problem for your baby you'd be investigated by CPS.

 

 

It may not matter to YOU whether they are "changed."  But the point is, a man has the right to decide for himself what he wants his own body to look like. Infant circumcision on healthy babies is not necessary. Yet it's permanent. Circumcision takes away a person's right to decide for themselves. At least with vaccines, it can be argued that there is an immediate benefit for the child.  A vaccinated child may be protected from diseases, but they don't permanently alter their bodies. (except in the case of vaccine injury)   The "beneifts" of circumcision don't happen until much much later, at a point when the man can decide for himself.

 

I don't know if I'm allowed to post videos, but

is a really good video on the subject. 

 

[DesertBlossom]

Yes, he does.  But infants' and children's decisions are made by the parents. 

 

Then I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that I have the right to make permanent modifications to my children's bodies without a pressing, urgent medical need, especially when it comes to their genitals.  

 

Circumcision rates are dropping rapidly. Once upon a time nearly all American men were circumcised and it became so normal that most people did not question it. In fact, I think a lot of people didn't even really know what it was. It definitely wasn't talked about. I know that when I was pregnant with my oldest son and we began resesarching, both DH and I had inaccurate ideas about what circumcision was. The national average is now somewhere at 50%. My state is about 20% of boys being circumcised.  More and more people are learning that the foreskin has a purpose and are choosing to leave their children intact.  

[Reefgazer]

Yes, we will.  Especially considering that it is a religious decision for many families and not even performed by a doctor in some religious circles.

 

I could not care less about circumcision rates anywhere; I am only concerned with decisions I have to make for the little people entrusted to my care.

Then I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that I have the right to make permanent modifications to my children's bodies without a pressing, urgent medical need, especially when it comes to their genitals.  

 

Circumcision rates are dropping rapidly. Once upon a time nearly all American men were circumcised and it became so normal that most people did not question it. In fact, I think a lot of people didn't even really know what it was. It definitely wasn't talked about. I know that when I was pregnant with my oldest son and we began resesarching, both DH and I had inaccurate ideas about what circumcision was. The national average is now somewhere at 50%. My state is about 20% of boys being circumcised.  More and more people are learning that the foreskin has a purpose and are choosing to leave their children intact.  

 

[SeaConquest]

Yes, I agree. In my demographic, circ. is normal. I briefly considered whether or not my sons should be circumcised, but DH felt that it was normal. He is the one with a pen!s, so I assume he knows. As a woman, I would have some reservations about a partner who was uncircumcised. I am influenced by the culture in which I grew up.

 

I find it very sad that any woman would have reservations about a partner with a normal, intact penis. Where I live, in Southern California, intact children are the majority. I hope that American society will continue to evolve away from removing a healthy, normal part of our children's sexual organs without their consent. 

[umsami]

I find the drama surrounding the procedures used to treat cervical lesions to be baffling.  I had a colposcopy and cervical LEEP many years ago.  This was before they really knew much about HP, so we don't know if that is what caused the need for the procedures.  Anyway, while it wasn't awesome, I would totally have rather gone through that than have the vaccine. :shrug:

 

As far as the myriad other vaccines, I think there is a time and place for some of  them.  I do not believe that it is best practice to load them all rapdifire into newborn infants though. (For the record, I am a scientist).

 

Really? You're lucky. My colposcopy was extremely painful.  Call me crazy but removing a cone shaped portion of my cervix hurts like the dickens.  Taking some ibuprofen before did absolutely nothing. THe LEEP wasn't bad, because there was anesthesia, but then again, every time you have anesthesia, you are at risk for side-effects.

 

I think you're in the minority regarding choosing removing a cone shaped portion of your cervix and/or burning off layers of your cervix with a metal loop over a shot…but maybe I'm the strange one.  They are two very invasive IMHO procedures.  They also cost far more than vaccination.  I wish that I'd had the option to be vaccinated against HPV, rather than worry about a recurrence the rest of my life.

[Crimson Wife]

"...where our fear lies." ;)

 

I do understand, as I have been saying, that one's own experience colors what one fears. I'm assuming you never visited a classmate in an "iron lung," from contracting Polio.

 

No, but I actually *DO* know someone who contracted polio from the old vaccine and became paralyzed. I did choose to have my kids receive the polio vaccine (as part of a delayed schedule) because the newer vaccine is safer, but if the choice were the old risky vaccine vs. skipping it, I probably would skip it.

[Guest]

I find it very sad that any woman would have reservations about a partner with a normal, intact penis. Where I live, in Southern California, intact children are the majority. I hope that American society will continue to evolve away from removing a healthy, normal part of our children's sexual organs without their consent.

Why "sad?" It's fortunate for Dh. What I think is sad is any adult male who is bitter about having been circumcised as a newborn, as stated by a PP. That is as odd to me as it would be if I was angry that my mother did not breastfeed.

 

I don't doubt that statistic is true in Southern CA. I don't have an opinion on what American Society does; my decisions with my own sons were not based on what people do in CA. I am glad that I grew up in a time and place where male newborns were always circumcised. That is what I prefer, personally.

 

What I don't understand is why anyone gets so worked up about removing a foreskin. As reefgazer correctly states, parents continually make all decisions for their children. Take a different example: the majority of homeschoolers choose to hs without the consent or desire of the child. Is it possible the child gets to adulthood and wishes they had not been hsed? Yes. I do know (a couple) of young adults who feel this way. As homeschoolers, we are assuming a MAJOR role in shaping our child's mind, their worldview, their habits. Definitely a much bigger deal than removing or not removing an inch of skin from a baby's pen!s.

[Crimson Wife]

What I don't understand is why anyone gets so worked up about removing a foreskin. As reefgazer correctly states, parents continually make all decisions for their children. Take a different example: the majority of homeschoolers choose to hs without the consent or desire of the child. Is it possible the child gets to adulthood and wishes they had not been hsed? Yes. I do know (a couple) of young adults who feel this way. As homeschoolers, we are assuming a MAJOR role in shaping our child's mind, their worldview, their habits. Definitely a much bigger deal than removing or not removing an inch of skin from a baby's pen!s.

 

What strikes me as a VERY weird dynamic is for the parents to even be thinking about their infant son's s*xual pleasure at all. Ick, ick, ick. For us personally, health and hygiene benefits (and I had a female relative whose husband apparently is uncirc'd confide to me that he INSISTED on the procedure for their sons because of the hygiene issue) were what we considered and NO WAY would we find the "but he might have slightly more pleasurable s*x some day!" argument at all convincing.

[mommymilkies]

Why "sad?" It's fortunate for Dh. What I think is sad is any adult male who is bitter about having been circumcised as a newborn, as stated by a PP. That is as odd to me as it would be if I was angry that my mother did not breastfeed.

 

I don't doubt that statistic is true in Southern CA. I don't have an opinion on what American Society does; my decisions with my own sons were not based on what people do in CA. I am glad that I grew up in a time and place where male newborns were always circumcised. That is what I prefer, personally.

 

What I don't understand is why anyone gets so worked up about removing a foreskin. As reefgazer correctly states, parents continually make all decisions for their children. Take a different example: the majority of homeschoolers choose to hs without the consent or desire of the child. Is it possible the child gets to adulthood and wishes they had not been hsed? Yes. I do know (a couple) of young adults who feel this way. As homeschoolers, we are assuming a MAJOR role in shaping our child's mind, their worldview, their habits. Definitely a much bigger deal than removing or not removing an inch of skin from a baby's pen!s.

You can not compare cutting off part of a penis to not breastfeeding.  Seriously.  How are the two even close to synonymous?  Or comparing to homeschooling?  I mean really? 

 

As for it being more prevalent-only by a couple percent nationwide.  IDK about you, but I don't inquire as to foreskin status when I am dating (long past, thankfully-but I never did) or talking to males.  So how would you even know your majority status outside of public health records? I personally know men who wish they had not been circumcised.  I used to work in infertility and had more than a few who had issues from being circumcised.  And I met a lot more with ds's surgeries and talking to a ton of urologists and pediatric urologists.  And I certainly never met a man when I worked med/surg and hospice who was like "man, I really wish I had that thing lopped off when I was a baby" when I was doing their personal cleaning.  Your experiences color your opinions.  But we're not talking about painting nails or homeschooling.  We're talking about cutting off part of a fully functioning and healthy body part. 

 

And get worked up-what is your feeling on female circumcision?  Why is one ok, but not the other?  You're removing a piece of fully functioning genital tissue.  That's a major freaking deal.  

[Dory]

You can not compare cutting off part of a penis to not breastfeeding.  Seriously.  How are the two even close to synonymous?  Or comparing to homeschooling?  I mean really? 

 

As for it being more prevalent-only by a couple percent nationwide.  IDK about you, but I don't inquire as to foreskin status when I am dating (long past, thankfully-but I never did) or talking to males.  So how would you even know your majority status outside of public health records? I personally know men who wish they had not been circumcised.  I used to work in infertility and had more than a few who had issues from being circumcised.  And I met a lot more with ds's surgeries and talking to a ton of urologists and pediatric urologists.  And I certainly never met a man when I worked med/surg and hospice who was like "man, I really wish I had that thing lopped off when I was a baby" when I was doing their personal cleaning.  Your experiences color your opinions.  But we're not talking about painting nails or homeschooling.  We're talking about cutting off part of a fully functioning and healthy body part. 

 

And get worked up-what is your feeling on female circumcision?  Why is one ok, but not the other?  You're removing a piece of fully functioning genital tissue.  That's a major freaking deal.  

 

Comparing female circumcision to male circumcision isn't even close.

I have met men who were upset that they hadn't been circumcised as infants. So yes, they are out there. I know a couple of guys who had it done as adults. One idiot actually did it to himself. Issues tend to come from doctors who are not properly trained to do a circ.

 

Anyway, this has all been hashed out on this board a couple times already and it never ends well. When stating my original post I was not trying to change the topic or start an argument about circumcision. I was just stating info from the American Cancer Society. I thought that would be a safe place to quote from and that everyone would be able to leave it alone, but I was wrong. My bad.

 

If you don't agree with circumcision, well don't do that. It's that simple right now. Other parents on this board have very, very differing views on the matter and I have never seen a discussion on it end well.

 

[SeaConquest]

Why "sad?" It's fortunate for Dh. What I think is sad is any adult male who is bitter about having been circumcised as a newborn, as stated by a PP. That is as odd to me as it would be if I was angry that my mother did not breastfeed.

 

I don't doubt that statistic is true in Southern CA. I don't have an opinion on what American Society does; my decisions with my own sons were not based on what people do in CA. I am glad that I grew up in a time and place where male newborns were always circumcised. That is what I prefer, personally.

 

What I don't understand is why anyone gets so worked up about removing a foreskin. As reefgazer correctly states, parents continually make all decisions for their children. Take a different example: the majority of homeschoolers choose to hs without the consent or desire of the child. Is it possible the child gets to adulthood and wishes they had not been hsed? Yes. I do know (a couple) of young adults who feel this way. As homeschoolers, we are assuming a MAJOR role in shaping our child's mind, their worldview, their habits. Definitely a much bigger deal than removing or not removing an inch of skin from a baby's pen!s.

 

I find it incredibly sad that an intelligent, grown woman has been so culturally conditioned that she would have "reservations" about a sexual partner who had a normal, healthy, functioning anatomical part of the male body. Indeed, I find that very sad.

 

I can completely understand how a man could find it distressing that he was strapped to a board, when he was a few days or even hours old, and had a part of his sexual organ permanently removed without his consent, often with inadequate pain medication. As already discussed, to equate such an act with formula feeding or homeschooling is preposterous.

 

I am curious if you have ever taken the time to watch a circumcision video on YouTube or witnessed a circumcision first-hand? There are plenty of training videos that have been uploaded by physicians. After seeing a few circumcisions, I would be hard-pressed to believe that you would be so nonchalant about it.

 

And yes, Crimson Wife, while I certainly respect your opinion and advice on a great many things, I will admit that my sons' sexual health did factor into my decision. I have personally been with both intact and circumcised men, and I could tell a difference with respect to their pleasure and performance. If you have an understanding of the function and role of the foreskin, the reasons for the difference should be obvious. Upwards of 20,000 erogenous nerve endings will do that. :)

[Dory]

I find it incredibly sad that an intelligent, grown woman has been so culturally conditioned that she would have "reservations" about a sexual partner who had a normal, healthy, functioning anatomical part of the male body. Indeed, I find that very sad.

 

I can completely understand how a man could find it distressing that he was strapped to a board, when he was a few days or even hours old, and had a part of sexual organ permanently removed without his consent. As already discussed, to equate such an act with formula feeding or homeschooling is preposterous.

 

I am curious if you have ever taken the time to watch a circumcision video on YouTube or witnessed a circumcision first-hand? There are plenty of training videos that have been uploaded by physicians. After seeing a few circumcisions, I would be hard-pressed to believe that you would be so nonchalant about it.

 

And yes, Crimson Wife, while I certainly respect your opinion and advice on a great many things, I will admit that my sons' sexual health did factor into my decision. I have personally been with both intact and circumcised men, and I could tell a difference with respect to their pleasure and performance. If you have an understanding of the function and role of the foreskin, the reasons for the difference should be obvious. Upwards of 20,000 erogenous nerve endings will do that. :)

 

I've been with both circumcised and uncircumcised men too and there were differences amongst the uncirc'ed and among just the circ'ed. I think it has to do a little bit with each individual being a little different and with the style of circumcision.

[DesertBlossom]

What strikes me as a VERY weird dynamic is for the parents to even be thinking about their infant son's s*xual pleasure at all. Ick, ick, ick. For us personally, health and hygiene benefits (and I had a female relative whose husband apparently is uncirc'd confide to me that he INSISTED on the procedure for their sons because of the hygiene issue) were what we considered and NO WAY would we find the "but he might have slightly more pleasurable s*x some day!" argument at all convincing.

 

I know someone who asked her fiance before they got married if he was circ'd (and he was) and said that had he not been, she would have asked him to have it done. They were both virgins until their wedding night, so this personal bias of hers was not from experience. But I'm astonished that she would say that. Can you imagine if a man told a woman he wouldn't have sex with her until she cut off all her folds and creases?  Because there's a lot you could take off of a woman to make things "easier to clean" and more "hygienic."  Women are far more susceptible to infections than men are, intact or not.  This same woman told me she would circumcise her own son because foreskins look gross and disgusting and "every woman prefers a cut penis."  And I'm the one who's overly obsessed with the future sexual practices of my sons?  I'm not the one cutting part of their penises off in order to fit in with our cultural norms. 

 

The argument that sex is "slightly more pleasurable" for an intact man is important because too often people believe that the foreskin doesn't do anything. Its "just an inch of skin." (No, it's not!) I think it's incredibly relevant to the conversation to include the fact that circumcision alters sexual function. It's not just about hygiene or STDs or STIs. Men can wash their own bodies, just like women do. And again, our bodies are much harder to keep clean than theirs! The point is NOBODY has the right to alter another person's genitals without their consent.  

 

I think it's really interesting that circumcised women in other countries defend circumcision with the exact same reasons we do here. They say it's cleaner and smells better. They say men prefer it.  And when they have problems during intimacy, they don't realize that it stems from their circumcisions because "that was so long ago."  And they are so convinced it has benefits they hold down their daughters and do it them.  :sad: A pp said it's unfortunate that a grown man would be upset that he was circumcised. Would you dare say that to a circumcised woman who knows that her body has been permanently injured? Would you trivialize it and say it's not that big of a deal?   We're talking about removing part of someone's genitals. The men who are upset about their circumcisions are upset because they know the damage that it has caused. Some will experience pain their entire lives because of it. And that's not a big deal? They don't have a right to be upset?

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

You can not compare cutting off part of a penis to not breastfeeding. Seriously. How are the two even close to synonymous? Or comparing to homeschooling? I mean really?

 

As for it being more prevalent-only by a couple percent nationwide. IDK about you, but I don't inquire as to foreskin status when I am dating (long past, thankfully-but I never did) or talking to males. So how would you even know your majority status outside of public health records? I personally know men who wish they had not been circumcised. I used to work in infertility and had more than a few who had issues from being circumcised. And I met a lot more with ds's surgeries and talking to a ton of urologists and pediatric urologists. And I certainly never met a man when I worked med/surg and hospice who was like "man, I really wish I had that thing lopped off when I was a baby" when I was doing their personal cleaning. Your experiences color your opinions. But we're not talking about painting nails or homeschooling. We're talking about cutting off part of a fully functioning and healthy body part.

 

And get worked up-what is your feeling on female circumcision? Why is one ok, but not the other? You're removing a piece of fully functioning genital tissue. That's a major freaking deal.

I am comparing them in terms of parents making decisions that seem good or fine or right or best in their time. My mother did not bf. It wasn't common at the time. My mother had my brother circumcised. AFAIK, she didn't ponder whether or not that was best. It was normal for her time and demographic. That is what I think is strange in a grown man complaining about it.

 

AFA "majority status" - as I said, i do not *care* what the stats are and whether or not my choice is majority. Seaside brought that up. My own intimate experience (not a vast sampling, BTW) is with circumcised men. i fully recognize that I am influenced by the culture I grew up in. White, middle-to-upper-middle class men in the mid-atlantic region, born 40-50 years ago were nearly always circumcised at birth. Therefore, to me, normal.

 

I have no experience with, nor knowledge about female circumcision. It has not been part of my culture at any time.

[SeaConquest]

Comparing female circumcision to male circumcision isn't even close.

 

No? http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/

[Dory]

No? http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/

 

nm, I need to stop feeding into this mess I started.

[Guest]

I can completely understand how a man could find it distressing that he was strapped to a board, when he was a few days or even hours old, and had a part of his sexual organ permanently removed without his consent, often with inadequate pain medication. As already discussed, to equate such an act with formula feeding or homeschooling is preposterous.

 

 

which is why it mattered to me what DH's opinion was. His opinion? Circumcise. No big deal. He doesn't remember being circumcised and, at least so far in the twenty years I've been observing it, has no sex$al dysfunct!@n.

[NASDAQ]

You know what never, ever goes anywhere positive? Circumcision arguments.

[Trish]

You know what never, ever goes anywhere positive? Circumcision arguments.

 

They DO tend to go around and around, though.

 

[Guest]

I am curious if you have ever taken the time to watch a circumcision video on YouTube or witnessed a circumcision first-hand? There are plenty of training videos that have been uploaded by physicians. After seeing a few circumcisions, I would be hard-pressed to believe that you would be so nonchalant about it.

 

I have done neither. However, I could have, had I gone to my boss' son's Briss. Interesting how Jewish parents not only witness, but celebrate, the circumcisions of their eight-day-old sons without concluding that it's barbaric.

[DesertBlossom]

I am comparing them in terms of parents making decisions that seem good or fine or right or best in their time. My mother did not bf. It wasn't common at the time. My mother had my brother circumcised. AFAIK, she didn't ponder whether or not that was best. It was normal for her time and demographic. That is what I think is strange in a grown man complaining about it.

 

AFA "majority status" - as I said, i do not *care* what the stats are and whether or not my choice is majority. Seaside brought that up. My own intimate experience (not a vast sampling, BTW) is with circumcised men. i fully recognize that I am influenced by the culture I grew up in. White, middle-to-upper-middle class men in the mid-atlantic region, born 40-50 years ago were nearly always circumcised at birth. Therefore, to me, normal.

 

I have no experience with, nor knowledge about female circumcision. It has not been part of my culture at any time.

 

My husband wishes that the choice had been his to make for himself. He realizes that it's part of the culture that he was born into and that his parents had no reason to question the doctor that said it was for the best. He holds no hard feelings towards his parents. He had every intention of circumcising his future sons just because that was what he knew. It wasn't until we started looking into it before our first son was born that he (and I) understood what it really was. That it's not "extra skin" or a "flap of skin" or even "just an inch of skin."  He watched a circumcision video and then said that he would never do that to one of his children. And now he also realizes that things he thought were normal, are actually a result of his circumcision. And that bothers him. He's not angry or resentful. It bothers me.  Things that I thought were my problem when we are intimate I realize now are not. And I wish it weren't that way. We've worked things out. We improvise. We actually have a great intimate relationship.  ;)  But because of it all, he is adamant that his own sons will have a right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be circumcised. 

[Guest]

You know what never, ever goes anywhere positive? Circumcision arguments.

Yup. Too true.

[Danestress]

What strikes me as a VERY weird dynamic is for the parents to even be thinking about their infant son's s*xual pleasure at all. Ick, ick, ick. For us personally, health and hygiene benefits (and I had a female relative whose husband apparently is uncirc'd confide to me that he INSISTED on the procedure for their sons because of the hygiene issue) were what we considered and NO WAY would we find the "but he might have slightly more pleasurable s*x some day!" argument at all convincing.

Really? I care very much about my children's happiness and health as adults, even long after I expect to be dead. S@xual pleasure is one of the single greatest pleasures of life, and I think you would be short sighted not to care if you were taking action that were likely to compromise your child's s@xual pleasure, fertility, or s@xual health as an adult.

 

That said, I am not at all convinced that the evidence shows that infant circumcision carries a high risk of affecting future pleasure or performance, but if it did - that would be a huge consideration for me, and doesn't seem 'ick' at all.

[SeaConquest]

I have done neither. However, I could have, had I gone to my boss' son's Briss. Interesting how Jewish parents not only witness, but celebrate, the circumcisions of their eight-day-old sons without concluding that it's barbaric.

 

Now I think you are baiting me. Lol! I am Jewish, and chose to give my sons non-cutting, britot ha shalom (covenant of peace) for precisely this reason. So many Jews are now choosing to forego circumcision that a guide book of sorts for the ceremony is currently being funded on Kickstarter. 

 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1811510440/celebrating-brit-shalom 

[Dory]

 

 

There is a specialist in Vancouver area who specializes in circumcision. The babies play with toys while it's done.

[NASDAQ]

Vancouver BC, or Vancouver WA?

[Dory]

Vancouver BC, or Vancouver WA?

 

BC I had a relative use him.

[SeaConquest]

There is a specialist in Vancouver area who specializes in circumcision. The babies play with toys while it's done.

 

My anesthesiologist played Angry Birds during my c-section. It was still major abdominal surgery and sucked. :) Not sure what your point is. 

[Dory]

My anesthesiologist played Angry Birds during my c-section. It was still major abdominal surgery and sucked. :) Not sure what your point is. 

 

You played angry birds? Or your anesthesiologist? A little different if the one having the procedure done is playing. If I had felt that good during my c-section I wouldn't have fought so hard not to have another.

[NASDAQ]

Interesting. I found him online. I hadn't heard of this guy.

 

My two were done in the standard way by a mohel (drunken baby, cut penis, drink schnapps).

[SeaConquest]

You played angry birds? Or your anesthesiologist? A little different if the one having the procedure done is playing. If I had felt that good during my c-section I wouldn't have fought so hard not to have another.

 

He was playing, but I suppose I could have been too since I didn't feel anything at the time. My point is that I was still undergoing a major surgery which, even in the absence of pain at the time, was traumatizing and painful in its aftermath. And that was a surgery to which I consented (albeit grudgingly).

 

I just don't understand the impulse by some women to discount the physical/emotional repercussions a man may feel from having a part of his sexual organ removed without consent. We would never say this to a woman who had endured FGM, even in its "mildest" form, so why are we so quick to dismiss the feelings of men?

[Slartibartfast]

My anesthesiologist played Angry Birds during my c-section. It was still major abdominal surgery and sucked. :) Not sure what your point is.

My anesthesiologist pat my head and told me jokes. He was so nice.

[Slartibartfast]

Once the circumcision discussion stops being about medical concerns and starts being about religion I don't want to argue about it. I will discuss medical issues and studies but I am not going to argue the religious beliefs behind it.