According to American Academy of Pediatrics Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Anonymous]

I like what my OB recommends-- a boy's penis should look like his father's. This seems to be the best advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like anti vaccine phobia, Science wins against the crazies once again .

Crazies because we didn't want to do voluntary surgery on our newborns when the scientific evidence was mixed? Riiiight.

BTW, the rest of the world thinks we're the crazies.

It's like clipping a toenail at the newborn stage. My kids were given sugar water, didn't cry and were healed within a day...actually the umbilical cord stump was more of a PIA to deal with then post circ area. I hardly put it in the category of 'surgery'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like what my OB recommends-- a boy's penis should look like his father's. This seems to be the best advice.

That's what we thought too...and his brothers...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like anti vaccine phobia, Science wins against the crazies once again .

Crazies because we didn't want to do voluntary surgery on our newborns when the scientific evidence was mixed? Riiiight.

[/b]BTW, the rest of the world thinks we're the crazies[b].

Uncircumcised penises, like British teeth and women with hairy armpits, are fugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

What about dick cancer, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, etc? It wasn't just HIV...

This whole thing is just silly. No one chooses to circumcise or not based on the very marginal medical benefits that may be associated with it, most of which relate to sexually transmitted diseases. No one looks at their newborn and thinks "my son is going to go whoring around when he's a teenager/young adult, so I'm going to send him off to have part of his penis removed to reduce the chance he'll pick up an infection from some skank." People circumcise for religious or cultural or aesthetic reasons, which are almost always highly emotional in nature, NOT because of a small reduction in risk of contracting STDs. Own your choice, circ'ers! If you think that foreskin is ugly or gross, just say so! (As some of you, regrettably but honestly, have).

For my own part, I will admit that my decision to leave my three sons intact was based partially on emotion. And predictably, the new AAP wording does not alter my view of routine infant circumcision one bit. The consent issue troubles me greatly, and the purported medical benefits, assuming the soundness of the studies cited by the AAP, are marginal on the individual level (as with most public health recommendations, including, for example, the recommendation to breastfeed). It was really a no-brainer for me, but then I didn't have any preexisting prejudice against foreskin. Let's just admit what this is about. It ain't about HIV, folks. Maybe for the AAP, yes. But not for the parents out there who are making this decision (or not) for their sons every day.

Speak for yourself, kitten. This is exactly why we had our son circumcised: we will raise him to be sexually responsible, but you know what? There are no guarantees. From what I read - and I posted this up-thread - circumcision seems to be healthier. I give consent for lots of stuff my son can't consent for when it is in his best interests, like vaccines and will make him do more of the same as he grows up, like school, writing thank you notes, and trying new foods. Having never seen an uncirced penis, I have no opinion on them. I am owning my choice, thank you very much.

Right. Circumcision will give you that 100% guarantee.

Good lord! Reading comprehension! And really, just general life comprehension: nothing gives 100% guarantee. The more I talk with anti circers, the nuttier I am convinced you all are. I know there are some, but, really, how many circumcisized men mourn the state of their penis? This is so not something I get riled up about, so I'm not sure why I keep clicking on these threads (the lure of the DCUM sirens, I guess - an incoherent argument here, passionate spittle over there... I just can't stop myself). As a group, the obsession with penises is reaching fetish proportions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

What about dick cancer, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, etc? It wasn't just HIV...

This whole thing is just silly. No one chooses to circumcise or not based on the very marginal medical benefits that may be associated with it, most of which relate to sexually transmitted diseases. No one looks at their newborn and thinks "my son is going to go whoring around when he's a teenager/young adult, so I'm going to send him off to have part of his penis removed to reduce the chance he'll pick up an infection from some skank." People circumcise for religious or cultural or aesthetic reasons, which are almost always highly emotional in nature, NOT because of a small reduction in risk of contracting STDs. Own your choice, circ'ers! If you think that foreskin is ugly or gross, just say so! (As some of you, regrettably but honestly, have).

For my own part, I will admit that my decision to leave my three sons intact was based partially on emotion. And predictably, the new AAP wording does not alter my view of routine infant circumcision one bit. The consent issue troubles me greatly, and the purported medical benefits, assuming the soundness of the studies cited by the AAP, are marginal on the individual level (as with most public health recommendations, including, for example, the recommendation to breastfeed). It was really a no-brainer for me, but then I didn't have any preexisting prejudice against foreskin. Let's just admit what this is about. It ain't about HIV, folks. Maybe for the AAP, yes. But not for the parents out there who are making this decision (or not) for their sons every day.

Speak for yourself, kitten. This is exactly why we had our son circumcised: we will raise him to be sexually responsible, but you know what? There are no guarantees. From what I read - and I posted this up-thread - circumcision seems to be healthier. I give consent for lots of stuff my son can't consent for when it is in his best interests, like vaccines and will make him do more of the same as he grows up, like school, writing thank you notes, and trying new foods. Having never seen an uncirced penis, I have no opinion on them. I am owning my choice, thank you very much.

Right. Circumcision will give you that 100% guarantee.

Good lord! Reading comprehension! And really, just general life comprehension: nothing gives 100% guarantee. The more I talk with anti circers, the nuttier I am convinced you all are. I know there are some, but, really, how many circumcisized men mourn the state of their penis? This is so not something I get riled up about, so I'm not sure why I keep clicking on these threads (the lure of the DCUM sirens, I guess - an incoherent argument here, passionate spittle over there... I just can't stop myself). As a group, the obsession with penises is reaching fetish proportions.

I am not anti-circ. I have no sons but wouldn't mind circ if had one and DH preferred it (but he is against it, which surprised me). But you are the one who said you wanted to circ because otherwise you could not guarantee your son won't get sexual disease. More importantly, you are the one who claimed your preference is not cultural/aestetic/religios but medical and rational. Sorry, but that's nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like anti vaccine phobia, Science wins against the crazies once again .

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still confused. Prior studies show circumcision does not decrease HIV risk for men who have sex with men, right? In the U.S., HIV still occurs primarily among men who have sex with men. Presumably a very high percentage of MSM with HIV in the U.S. we're circumcised, since, historically, most men here have been circumcised. Yet circumcision didn't protect those men. So it protects just men who have sex with women? Why would that be?

It may or may not. The studies involved only showed that it may reduce transmission during heterosexual sex that was likely to be unlubricated and possibly involved drying powder/herbs, sand, etc. in the vagina.

American women tend not to put sand in their vaginas on purpose. See the beach sex thread. Not popular here.

From hearing annoying sounds of the pro-circ women, you all have sand in your vagina.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like anti vaccine phobia, Science wins against the crazies once again .

Crazies because we didn't want to do voluntary surgery on our newborns when the scientific evidence was mixed? Riiiight.

BTW, the rest of the world thinks we're the crazies.

It's like clipping a toenail at the newborn stage. My kids were given sugar water, didn't cry and were healed within a day...actually the umbilical cord stump was more of a PIA to deal with then post circ area. I hardly put it in the category of 'surgery'.

It isn't. And the studies support it being a painful experience, which is why sugar water is unethical.

"There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.36–39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants.40 "
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full

[Anonymous]

Also from that link a few paragraphs down:

"Sucrose on a pacifier has been demonstrated to be more effective than water for decreasing cries during circumcision.59Acetaminophen may provide analgesia after the immediate postoperative period.60 Neither technique is sufficient for the operative pain and cannot be recommended as the sole method of analgesia."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like what my OB recommends-- a boy's penis should look like his father's. This seems to be the best advice.

Why? It will look nothing like his father's when they're at an age to be comparing. Hope daddy doesn't have a tattoo..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like anti vaccine phobia, Science wins against the crazies once again .

Crazies because we didn't want to do voluntary surgery on our newborns when the scientific evidence was mixed? Riiiight.

BTW, the rest of the world thinks we're the crazies.

It's like clipping a toenail at the newborn stage. My kids were given sugar water, didn't cry and were healed within a day...actually the umbilical cord stump was more of a PIA to deal with then post circ area. I hardly put it in the category of 'surgery'.

It isn't. And the studies support it being a painful experience, which is why sugar water is unethical.

"There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.36–39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants.40 "
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full

Same response happens when my newborn strained to take a shit that was a bit constipated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like anti vaccine phobia, Science wins against the crazies once again .

Crazies because we didn't want to do voluntary surgery on our newborns when the scientific evidence was mixed? Riiiight.

BTW, the rest of the world thinks we're the crazies.

It's like clipping a toenail at the newborn stage. My kids were given sugar water, didn't cry and were healed within a day...actually the umbilical cord stump was more of a PIA to deal with then post circ area. I hardly put it in the category of 'surgery'.

It isn't. And the studies support it being a painful experience, which is why sugar water is unethical.

"There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.36–39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants.40 "
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full

There's an obvious answer for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in altering my baby. No ear piercings, no circ.

BUT keep in mind ladies, men have told me that a foreskin equals less oral sex for the guy. Some girls are just not into it. These men told me they circ'd for their sons' future with the ladies.

There was even a study on this..and you are correct. Also--sorry males---boys and men often aren't as hygenic as women. There is a well-documented increase in infection because they don't lift up the foreskin and clean that area adequately. The term 'd*ck cheese' is appropriate.

Please link to study showing intact men getting less oral.

Really, parents are so eager to circ a newborn to ensure he gets fellatio later in life?
There are other options once he becomes a teenager, let's see:
- Boy decides he can live without frequent oral; or
- Boy decides to practice proper penile hygiene; or
- Boy decides to get circumcised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't circumcise my son, but I'm not anti-circ. If he wishes to make this choice on his own, I will happily set up the appointment.

I think lots of folks are missing this point. Many who don't circumcise their son aren't anti-circ, they're just anti-making-a-permanent-alteration-to-my-child's-body-without-his-consent people.

Exactly. I think this applies to pretty much all parents who didn't circ. I can't imagine anyone arguing with an adult son (or almost adult son) and trying to prevent him from getting circumcised.