Forum Index
»
Elementary School-Aged Kids
Are Boys Bullied for being Uncircumcised?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Yes. He will be called "smeg", as in: "wrinkled smeg tube." |
Anonymous
Whatever, 2 different bae daddies--they've probably got bigger problems in life than a lumpy potato sack. |
Anonymous
Medical crisis of ignorance? Really? All hands on deck. Sound the alarms. The titanic is sinking. Some parents are not circumcising their boys. Girls find it disgusting and the penises smell and you are something like 8000% times more likely to get a STD or penis cancer. The non-circumcised boys are going to be bullied. No. Really they are! You just wait and see! This thread demonstrates why histrionic, excitable people with no-analytical-skills should just STFU when discussing medial issues. |
Anonymous
|
So my kid's uncircumcised and old enough to undress in a locker room for gym class.
This has never been an issue. |
Anonymous
|
I have mixed feelings on this topic, but here are my thoughts:
1) I don't understand why people say it's better to have it done as an infant b/c it is so painful as an adult. The truth is that as an adult, if you get the procedure done, you have anesthesia and then pain meds afterwards. But an infant getting the procedure done doesn't have either. I don't believe that it is *less* painful for the infant. they just can't articulate it, and the hope is that they forget about the pain. 2) #1 is exactly why getting a kid circed is nothing like getting a girl's ears pierced: the procedure isn't as painful, not by a long shot. 3) I think we are doing everyone a disservice by even suggesting that you are more likely to get an STD by an uncirced penis. No matter what a person's position is on circumcision, plenty of people get STDs from circed penises! You are less likely to get an STD from any penis if you use condoms. 4) All of the people who insist uncirced penises are smelly and gross, how many uncirced penises have you seen??? I think this is myth more than fact. 5) If it is medically advantageous, then why don't other developed countries do it? I've always wondered this, and I really haven't gotten a very good answer. And #5, for me (if I have a son), is really the issue I'm interested in. I won't put an infant through a painful experience because of some aesthetic bias among some people about what a penis should look like. I would only do it if I feel that there really is a compelling medical reason. And frankly, I'm not convinced by the American Pediatric group, because I still don't understand why it is mainly an American preference. Are there increased rates of male genital infection in other developed countries that have low rates of circumcision? I think it is a mistake to compare rates of infection with places that are undeveloped, because the issue might be more with resources (clean water and facilities). What I would like to see are side by side rates of infection compared to rates of circumcision between European and UK and Australia and Canada and Japan and the U.S. But all of this back and forth about smelly penises and suggesting that a boy won't get laid is juvenile. A medical procedure should only be done to a child who is unable to consent if it has a medical purpose (a compelling one, not a *slight* one that might be resolved with better hygiene). |
Anonymous
|
The thing with the STD argument is that it only (marginally) protects men from female-male transmission. It does nothing for stopping male to female and male to male transmission.
And really, if it was such a great method for preventing STDs, I assume all of us are counseling our circumcised sons to not worry about condoms. |
Anonymous
PP, my DS is not circ'd either (but DH is), and I could have written your post, down to not considering DS being smelly and unwanted by women. I had an uncirc'd partner once, and it was great. No issues with hygiene whatsoever and I was not bothered one bit by the look or feel of him. In fact, he was the best I've ever had. Do not worry. 
|
Anonymous
Me too. Don't worry. |
Anonymous
It's ok to have mixed feelings about it. It's something that the medical research has shown a slight positive from, but there are also slight risks. On the whole, as the AAP says, it's a choice to make personally with your Ped. When the procedure is done on a newborn, yes, it hurts. They do apply anesthetic, and it heals pretty quickly. How much do you remember of your first few days out of the womb, let alone your first couple of years? The point about piercing ears is that (a) it's painful (and, yes, I agree that it's less painful than circumcision seems to be, since I don't remember my own), (b) there is a risk of infection and (c) it is done solely for aesthetic reasons and there is no documented medical benefit to offset the risk. So anyone who is ranting about how awful circumcision is should be positively militant about stopping the horror of piercing. Given that you can wear clip on earrings and avoid the risk of infected piercings entirely, I'd say there is no reason to pierce a child's ears (or any other body part or your own body parts for that matter) since it's a painful procedure that creates risk of infection, is purely for aesthetic reasons and for which there is an alternative in the form of clip on earrings. If you're up in arms over stopping circumcision and you're not trying to stop piercing, I'd say you're a hypocrite, but, then, if you're up in arms over either of those things, I'd say you need better priorities in your life. |
Anonymous
| All of the misinformation on here is insane. You women are nuts. An uncircumcised penis does not smell, does not get a buildup, does not cause medical problems, etc. I have plenty of experience, and know this for a fact...as does any other person reading this board who did the non-circumsized route. You pull the skin back and clean it in the shower, just like you clean your vagina ladies. No big deal. What incredible ignorance. |
Anonymous
|
The irony is that US funded tax dollars are going overseas to fund mass circumcision to prevent HIV AIDS.
If that isn't proof that there are health benefits I don't know what else is. "Male Circumcision (MC) UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO) have issued normative guidance stating that male circumcision should be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. PEPFAR supports MC as a component of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in sub-Saharan Africa, and is working to scale up quality MC programs as feasible and appropriate to the country context. In its next phase, PEPFAR is transitioning to a two-pronged MC assistance approach. This approach would simultaneously support the immediate demand for MC and allow governments to develop policies and the necessary infrastructure for more sustained service delivery. The comprehensive MC interventions supported by PEPFAR include not only the MC surgery, but risk reduction counseling, sexually transmitted infection treatment, and HIV testing and counseling." http://www.pepfar.gov/press/strategy_briefs/138399.htm |
Anonymous
My first real boyfriend, to whom I lost my virginity, was uncirced. No issues or smell at all. |
Anonymous
^^^PP here. My sons are not circed. |
Anonymous
That's not ironic at all. There are plenty of reasons why intervention is needed in sub-Saharan Africa. Has nothing to do with US. Of course there are health benefits in communities such as the ones you're referencing. That doesn't mean widespread circumcision is warranted. |
Anonymous
AFAIK, this is because attempts at getting men to wear condoms have failed miserably. It's a stopgap at best; odds are betting at getting a one time procedure done over repeated use of condoms. However, if it actually worked as a true STD prophylactic, the US, with a huge percentage of circumcised males, would have a lower STD rate. But it doesn't. |