Circumcise tomorrow ....what to expect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who plan to or have cut, damaged, mutilated your boy child's penis I challenge you to come back here in 20, 30, 40 years time and tell me that you don't regret that decision and that you don't then understand why what you did was wrong. Your sons will be in the minority and there will be no support for this cultural phenomenon any more.

If this isn't the case, I will willingly buy you all a drink.

Look at other cultural mutilation and how it it viewed today e.g.

- binding feet in China
- female circumcision around the globe

Are you implying there will be peer pressure against circumcision? Because although about zero percent of the circumcision parents on here have listed reasons like, "so he'll look 'normal,'" that's what many anti-circ poster accuse them of. Yet here you are making an argument that sounds an awful lot like peer pressure.

You do realize that circumcised men can walk with great ease and urinate and have sex normally, right? You really undercut your argument by drawing ridiculous comparisons.

Not true. Look at the impact of circumcision, read some research, try and learn how the penis functions.

While you're at it, read back through the thread and see all the posters talking about their fear that their kid will be teased in the locker room. yes, it's absolutely peer pressure that makes people circumcise in this country. do you not understand what it means that this is a cultural practice?!

Do you not understand that talking down to people who have also done their research and come to the opposite conclusion are not doing it for peer pressure? And, really, you want to equate the difficulties urinating and having sex faced by women who have had FGM to what men suffer? And to the foot binding - cut men can walk without assistance. I note you didn't bold that part of my quote.

Are you deliberately pretending not to understand the comparison? All are cultural practices that are (or were) done because people thought that they looked good and were the right thing to do. If people who have decided to circumcise in the US did so because they have "done their research" then how is it that the vast majority of people in almost any other country in the world are faced with the same "choice" and come to different conclusions EVERY.SINGLE.TIME? Are Americans just "smarter" than virtually everyone else on the planet? No they are not. They have just bought into this fallacy that 1) it is somehow healthier and 2) that is looks better/like daddy/like the other kids in the locker room who in your world are all comparing their genitals all the time. None of these things are true. In fact, outside of the US, it's not actually an active choice that most people even consider. They leave their child's genitals just as they were when they were born. Perfect. There's something quite perverse and sickening to think that you have the right to damage or alter your baby boys sexual organs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok medical journals aside, here's a perspective as a male that's not cut.

No one made fun of me in the locker room. A few friends who knew me well made jokes sometimes, but it was the same as making jokes about each other for anything other attributes we had (hair color, height, etc). I'm sure if I was cut, my friends would just have found some other attribute to make jokes about. It's part of growing up.

I've traveled in Europe extensively, and the norm there is not being cut.

This "non-hygienic" stuff is not really a big deal in practice. If there's one part of the body that every male pays attention to in the shower, it's his penis. It will get more soap and attention than any other part, so as long as he showers regularly in general, things will be fine.

I think the STD risk they refer to is because the skin on the glans (head) is softer/more sensitive if you're not cut, because it's in a protective sheath most of the time, so it's more likely to get abrasions during rough sex. In my wide experience, this never happened if your partner is lubricated, and this risk is only there if you are not using a condom. I had a rather err... "wild" life in my 20s including plenty of bareback sex with questionable women, and never had anything like this. I did get Chlamydia and Gonorrhea (like over half of all sexually active people in their 20s), but I'm pretty sure that came the way cut men get it also - via the urethra. No UTIs, no penile cancer. Those days are past me and I thankfully have a clean bill of health, despite doings lots of stupid stuff.

The benefit to not being cut is that the glans is sensitive = easier to masturbate and sex can be more stimulating.

If we have a son, we won't get him cut.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all of you people that are so vehemently against so circumcision, do you really think that spewing your "amputation" propaganda at those of us that have done it, plan to do it, and/or don't have a boy, but think it's perfectly fine to do it, will change our minds? Do you think continuing to call us stupid (I went to a top 5 undergrad and grad, so stupid I ain't) will have any effect on me or anyone else whatsoever? Here's what's stupid: your belief that there's only one side to this issue. You're like the right-wing crazy pro-lifers who simply *can't conceive* that there are people out there who don't share their beliefs that life starts at conception and that anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. This is how crazy you sound. You don't like hearing it? Stop shouting at everyone else, then, as if we don't have a legit view.

While I understand that it feels like that to you, and agree that the posters who are using a very confrontational tone and vocabulary are not helping their cause, this comparison has a big flaw, namely that unlike the pro-lifers, people who are against routine infant circumcision have the medical professionals of every other Western country but the US on their side. So your analogy doesn't really sting. You can, of course, discount the opinion of this overwhelming majority of medical professionals and insist that there are truly two equally legitimate sides to this issue based on the insular argument made by American doctors, but don't be surprised if the rest of the world doesn't agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Ladies -- just leave this decision up to the dad.

[Anonymous]

One thing to keep in mind: Circumcision rates have fallen in conjunction with fewer insurance providers covering the service. Yeah, yeah, correlation doesn't equal causation, but sometimes the difference between tradition and bucking the trend is a hefty hospital bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you people that are so vehemently against so circumcision, do you really think that spewing your "amputation" propaganda at those of us that have done it, plan to do it, and/or don't have a boy, but think it's perfectly fine to do it, will change our minds? Do you think continuing to call us stupid (I went to a top 5 undergrad and grad, so stupid I ain't) will have any effect on me or anyone else whatsoever? Here's what's stupid: your belief that there's only one side to this issue. You're like the right-wing crazy pro-lifers who simply *can't conceive* that there are people out there who don't share their beliefs that life starts at conception and that anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. This is how crazy you sound. You don't like hearing it? Stop shouting at everyone else, then, as if we don't have a legit view.

While I understand that it feels like that to you, and agree that the posters who are using a very confrontational tone and vocabulary are not helping their cause, this comparison has a big flaw, namely that unlike the pro-lifers, people who are against routine infant circumcision have the medical professionals of every other Western country but the US on their side. So your analogy doesn't really sting. You can, of course, discount the opinion of this overwhelming majority of medical professionals and insist that there are truly two equally legitimate sides to this issue based on the insular argument made by American doctors, but don't be surprised if the rest of the world doesn't agree with you.

So... there's a conspiracy among American doctors and no one else to push a circumcision agenda???

[Anonymous]

Pity the OP who just wanted answers on what to expect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you people that are so vehemently against so circumcision, do you really think that spewing your "amputation" propaganda at those of us that have done it, plan to do it, and/or don't have a boy, but think it's perfectly fine to do it, will change our minds? Do you think continuing to call us stupid (I went to a top 5 undergrad and grad, so stupid I ain't) will have any effect on me or anyone else whatsoever? Here's what's stupid: your belief that there's only one side to this issue. You're like the right-wing crazy pro-lifers who simply *can't conceive* that there are people out there who don't share their beliefs that life starts at conception and that anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. This is how crazy you sound. You don't like hearing it? Stop shouting at everyone else, then, as if we don't have a legit view.

While I understand that it feels like that to you, and agree that the posters who are using a very confrontational tone and vocabulary are not helping their cause, this comparison has a big flaw, namely that unlike the pro-lifers, people who are against routine infant circumcision have the medical professionals of every other Western country but the US on their side. So your analogy doesn't really sting. You can, of course, discount the opinion of this overwhelming majority of medical professionals and insist that there are truly two equally legitimate sides to this issue based on the insular argument made by American doctors, but don't be surprised if the rest of the world doesn't agree with you.

So... there's a conspiracy among American doctors and no one else to push a circumcision agenda???

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is that I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy" exactly; it is more like heavy cultural blinders...a latent conspiracy, if you will. Most adult men in our country who came from middle-upper class, educated families, are cut. Therefore most of the doctors in this country are themselves cut - unlike practically any other western country, where the adult men are mostly intact. It is exactly the same way female circumcision is perpetuated in the middle east and africa. When it was inflicted on a person, then they often go on to support it. Of course, there are differences in some types of female circumcision when compared to male circumcision; however the beliefs supporting the two different practices are alarmingly similar.

Additionally, once a practice is so deeply engrained in our medical system as normal, acceptable, and perhaps even desireable, it is extremely difficult to end that practice. Because of this bias, doctors tend to believe any piece of information they might hear which supports routine infant circumcision. People are like herd animals, and unfortunately doctors are not exempt from this mentality. Sometimes it takes many years for large cultural shifts to happen. Think the resistance to reducing mammograms or pap smears, despite the overwhelming evidence which has shown in recent years that these procedures are not helpful (and might even be damaging) following the popular schedule.

Fortunately, we ARE in the middle of a cultural shift regarding circumcision. For the first time in 50 years, newborn babies are more likely to be left intact than to be cut. As these new intact boys grow up, they will become our future medical care providers and it will become intuitive to reject the practice of circumcision. My bet is that over the next 10-20 years, we will find far more doctors refusing to perform a routine infant circumcision than those who will agree to do it. Within 30 years, the practice of medical circumcision will be outlawed entirely, as is happening in other countries around the world.

Lastly, circumcision is profitable. It is a quick surgery. Even with the falling rates, several million of these surgeries can occur every year. Lawsuits are low -- the patient never gets a chance to tell their side of the story or complain and the need for revisions is common so parents tend to accept it as part of the choice they made. And, the market for foreskins is good. So, there is an incentive to continue the practice from the profit side of things, although I realize many people are uncomfortable accepting the fact that any medical care is ever undertaken because it could make a buck for hospitals, so feel free to discount this point if it doesn't mesh with your worldview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you people that are so vehemently against so circumcision, do you really think that spewing your "amputation" propaganda at those of us that have done it, plan to do it, and/or don't have a boy, but think it's perfectly fine to do it, will change our minds? Do you think continuing to call us stupid (I went to a top 5 undergrad and grad, so stupid I ain't) will have any effect on me or anyone else whatsoever? Here's what's stupid: your belief that there's only one side to this issue. You're like the right-wing crazy pro-lifers who simply *can't conceive* that there are people out there who don't share their beliefs that life starts at conception and that anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. This is how crazy you sound. You don't like hearing it? Stop shouting at everyone else, then, as if we don't have a legit view.

While I understand that it feels like that to you, and agree that the posters who are using a very confrontational tone and vocabulary are not helping their cause, this comparison has a big flaw, namely that unlike the pro-lifers, people who are against routine infant circumcision have the medical professionals of every other Western country but the US on their side. So your analogy doesn't really sting. You can, of course, discount the opinion of this overwhelming majority of medical professionals and insist that there are truly two equally legitimate sides to this issue based on the insular argument made by American doctors, but don't be surprised if the rest of the world doesn't agree with you.

So... there's a conspiracy among American doctors and no one else to push a circumcision agenda???

I don't know where you get the idea of a "conspiracy" from my post as I would never think of this concept in this context, but the PP above gave you an excellent answer regarding the question why American doctors tend to approach this issue differently from their international peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a guy. I'm circ'd. I wouldn't have it any other way.


Also, if you choose not to have the procedure done on your son, prepare for the day the other kids make fun of him in the locker room at school. I remember telling this to a mom, and she was stunned that adolescent boys would compare their genitals and make fun of each other. I told her she clearly had never spent much time around adolescent boys.

I take the view that it's up to the parent. Yes, there are health benefits. And yes, there are cultural biases. But the absolute vitriol with which people talk on here -- YOUR KID IS A SERIAL RAPIST! YOU SHOULD GO TO PRISON! -- is just, well, disappointing.

Sadly, it is probably true that many parents think like that. However, since fewer and fewer parents are circumcising, this problem, if it exists, is going to go away.

FWIW, my husband, who is American but intact, was never made fun of in the locker room.

DH is intact and he says about half of the guys he went to high school with were. No one made fun of anyone for it.

Then again, we're educated and from the northeast, and circumcision is on the decline amongst people like us. Probably circumcised boys will be the ones getting pointed out as unusual in 15 years.

I'm educated and also from the northeast and my sons are circumcised. I think a fair assessment of the situation would conclude that there are valid reasons/arguments on both sides and medical reports which can be used to validate each point of view.

Also well-educated and also from the northeast and plus one for circumcision. I'm still laughing at the sweeping notion that "educated and from the northeast" means that you don't circumcise. Someone earlier quoted a stat that suggests that the majority of male babies born in U.S. hospitals TODAY (not 20 years ago, TODAY) are still circumcised. Where is this disappearing phenomenon of which you speak? I suppose vaccinations are also on the decline because there are some crazy, uneducated parents out there who believe that vaccines are the equivalent of giving your kid Hostess twinkies (I believe this is an actual quote from that thread), but that doesn't speak to the intelligence or "rightness" of it. I'm not suggesting that people who don't circumcise are idiots; I'm simply saying that you all are WAY overstating your case and the support which your "army" has in the U.S. By the way, since all of us live here, I don't really care what they do in Australia.

Educated or not, I would bet that you are not educated about circumcision. Can you name (without googling) the various parts of the foreskin, as well as five functions of it? Can you name five complications of circumcision, along with about how often those things happen? People who have spent time researching elective, amputative, surgery on their newborn child's genitals should at least have a proper understanding of what it is they are planning to remove and what the real risks of doing so are. And yes, I would label those who don't ask these types of questions as "idiots" regardless of what type o fancy education they've gotten.

who are you people? I have friends both here and in the "northeast" who have chosen not to circumcise their sons but I've never been condemned by anyone for having made the opposite choice for my own children. The vitriol expressed in these posts is really odd and I can only imagine that it is because these are anonymous posts. While there are certainly individual Jewish/Muslim families who have chosen not to circumcise, the majority of those communities still believe it to be religiously sanctioned. Others circumcise for health reasons. We are loving parents who have made a different choice than you, get over it. You will never be able to outlaw the practice in the US-the religious component of it, plus the acceptance of the medical profession guarantees that. And no, I don't know the various parts of the foreskin as well as the five functions of it. But thanks for the morning laugh.

The irony is that you didn't make any choice at all. You blindly followed a cultural tradition, supported by extreme bias and lots of myth. This is why we who are against routine infant circumcision, would call you uneducated about this topic. (for what it's worth, I'm not the one who started the whole north-east part of the debate).

There are many functions of the foreskin, but for discussion sake, I always ask those who claim to have researched the issue to name just five. You say you cannot name five; can you name even one? Do you know anything at all about the intact anatomy of a boy? Are you aware of ANY of the risks associated with circumcision, and about how often they occur? Are you aware of any of the treatments for some typical problems that might occur with the intact penis? People who actually research the issue learn that there are valuable functions, that there is a complex anatomy (ie, it's not "just a flap of skin"), and that the risks can and do include death of the baby. And, the more common risks (ashesions, skin bridges, scarring, buried penis, revisions, etc.) will occur at a GREATER rate than all problems combined of intact penises. They also learn that the rare problems associated with the foreskin can almost always be avoided by proper care (no one should ever retract the foreskin) and simple medicines (ie, antibiotics if a bacterial infection occurs -- just like you would give a girl antibiotics for a genital infection).

Again, I ask you, why the foreskin? Can you answer why? Do you believe it is that much more likely to cause the boy trouble than any other body part? Do you believe it is just expendable? I would guess that your honest answer is more along the lines of "well, it's just what we do." Which, as time goes on and information is more readily available, is a completely unacceptable answer for amputating part of a newborn baby's healthy, functioning, genitalia.

We chose to circumcise our sons for religious reasons. Now if modern medicine demonstrated that this was a harmful practice we would not have done it. However, the AAP and the WHO both highlight the health benefits or circumcision as does other "peer-reviewed" research. The health benefits were not our primary motivation in having our sons circumcised, but they did provide additional support for our religious-based decision. Despite what you may think, I did make a conscious choice ( and since my husband and I both have advanced degrees we are quite capable of reading the peer-reviewed research that keeps getting mentioned). Yes, there are studies which support your point of view, but I don't find them particularly compelling enough to override my religious beliefs. You don't believe in circumcision and think that it is practiced out of ignorance/outdated tradition. Therefore, no reason I could provide would justify the practice to you. I'm fine with that. But don't think that because someone disagrees with you that they are not aware of the facts.

You do yourself a disservice by boasting about your advanced degrees, insisting that you've done plenty of research, and still being unable to explain the anatomy of the intact penis, explain the many functions of the foreskin, or give any kind of plausible explanation for why the foreskin - of all the potential body parts that can cause illness and disease - is the one and only which should be surgically amputated (for better health!) at birth.

As a side note, although I find circumcision in any form to be absolutely barbaric, I am in complete support of protecting religious circumcison for Orthodox Jews. If you live a devoutely religious life, then I can see the need for it, as well as any discussion about ending the practice needing to take place within religious circles. In those cases, routine medical circumcision doesn't even enter into the conversation, because those circumcisions (for better or for worse...) are not happening in hospitals or with medical care providers at all. I wonder if your religious circumcision occurred in a hospital? Interesting point though -- in ancient history, Jewish circumcision was much less invasive then it is today. If I were an Orthodox Jew, I would be debating this point and seeing what we could do to bring circumcision back into line with the original practice, instead of co-mingling it with the nonsense that happens in popular/medical culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You do yourself a disservice by boasting about your advanced degrees, insisting that you've done plenty of research, and still being unable to explain the anatomy of the intact penis, explain the many functions of the foreskin, or give any kind of plausible explanation for why the foreskin - of all the potential body parts that can cause illness and disease - is the one and only which should be surgically amputated (for better health!) at birth.

I wonder why it is that you say that because she isn't explaining it to YOU, she must be unable to explain it, period. Who died and appointed you chief circumcision examiner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't mind having your son's pecker look like a dirty, wrinkled snail, by all mean skip the circumcision.

If you don't mind your child's penis looking like a deformed scarred stub, go ahead and mutilate him.

lol at least he'll look like everyone else in the locker room, bald and clean--while your poor boy with the dirty, painful, smelly snail, carries his books to school in a european man purse and eats sandwiches made of dry little Zwieback and stinky pickled
langschanken. "Now is de time vhen ve do ze Schprockets dance...."

You sound astonishing ignorant. The only thing more horrifying than knowing that you have children is that someone with your limited intellectual capacity has the power to make such an important and irreversible decision for another human being.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a side note, although I find circumcision in any form to be absolutely barbaric, I am in complete support of protecting religious circumcison for Orthodox Jews. If you live a devoutely religious life, then I can see the need for it, as well as any discussion about ending the practice needing to take place within religious circles. In those cases, routine medical circumcision doesn't even enter into the conversation, because those circumcisions (for better or for worse...) are not happening in hospitals or with medical care providers at all. I wonder if your religious circumcision occurred in a hospital? Interesting point though -- in ancient history, Jewish circumcision was much less invasive then it is today. If I were an Orthodox Jew, I would be debating this point and seeing what we could do to bring circumcision back into line with the original practice, instead of co-mingling it with the nonsense that happens in popular/medical culture.

Lots of mohel physicians out there, nothing new.

And I wonder - what's with the limited Jewish waiver? So Muslims should just get over it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You do yourself a disservice by boasting about your advanced degrees, insisting that you've done plenty of research, and still being unable to explain the anatomy of the intact penis, explain the many functions of the foreskin, or give any kind of plausible explanation for why the foreskin - of all the potential body parts that can cause illness and disease - is the one and only which should be surgically amputated (for better health!) at birth.

I wonder why it is that you say that because she isn't explaining it to YOU, she must be unable to explain it, period. Who died and appointed you chief circumcision examiner?

She specifically said "no, I can't name the functions of the foreskin, but thanks for the laugh" or something to that effect, so it sure sounded like she had no idea (yes, it might have been a different poster). Of course people don't have to explain to me, personally, what they know about a normal functioning penis, but the point is that they ought to know these things if they are going to claim they have researched circumcision. How can anyone be making an informed choice if they don't *really* know what it is they are deciding to have cut off from their son?

Sadly, many physicians cannot even answer these simple questions with any depth of knowledge: what is the foreskin? How does it work? Why is it there? What is the best way to ensure it stays healthy and functioning properly throughout a mans life? What are the most common problems that tend to occur with intact penises and what are some non-amputative methods to treat those problems? What are all the poor outcomes which can happen during and after a circumcision, and how often do those tend to happen?

Even the new AAP circumcision statement fails to address these things. Thus, I challenge any parent who thinks they are "researching" to explore these issues. In almost every case that a parent actually takes the time to learn about it, they choose to let their sons make the decision for himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
She specifically said "no, I can't name the functions of the foreskin, but thanks for the laugh" or something to that effect, so it sure sounded like she had no idea (yes, it might have been a different poster). Of course people don't have to explain to me, personally, what they know about a normal functioning penis, but the point is that they ought to know these things if they are going to claim they have researched circumcision. How can anyone be making an informed choice if they don't *really* know what it is they are deciding to have cut off from their son?

Sadly, many physicians cannot even answer these simple questions with any depth of knowledge: what is the foreskin? How does it work? Why is it there? What is the best way to ensure it stays healthy and functioning properly throughout a mans life? What are the most common problems that tend to occur with intact penises and what are some non-amputative methods to treat those problems? What are all the poor outcomes which can happen during and after a circumcision, and how often do those tend to happen?

Even the new AAP circumcision statement fails to address these things. Thus, I challenge any parent who thinks they are "researching" to explore these issues. In almost every case that a parent actually takes the time to learn about it, they choose to let their sons make the decision for himself.

This is an anonymous site. You can't tell who said what to whom. The poster you quoted said they researched this to their satisfaction. I think it's very presumptuous of you to imply that if someone looked at ALL the facts, they MUST come to the same conclusion you did. And if they didn't...well...it's because they can't name all five functions of foreskin, to you, right now. You must accept that someone can be as well-informed as you and still make a different conclusion.