Honestly, why don't people circumcise their sons in D.C.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think nationally it's closer to 50/50 OP.

And that probably has something to do with the fact that most people can't afford it since insurance doesn't cover it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think nationally it's closer to 50/50 OP.

And that probably has something to do with the fact that most people can't afford it since insurance doesn't cover it.

This is what my pediatrician told us, too.

Seriously, OP, you need a wider circle of friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think nationally it's closer to 50/50 OP.

And that probably has something to do with the fact that most people can't afford it since insurance doesn't cover it.

This is what my pediatrician told us, too.

Seriously, OP, you need a wider circle of friends.

PP here.. sorry, that comment was about the 50/50 not about the insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We didn't circumcise our sons because we saw no need for cosmetic surgery on a newborn.

good joke

It's not a joke.

[Anonymous]

Article in "The Atlantic" - Fewer boys are being circumcised in the US

Many factors may contribute to the decreasing circumcision rates seen in hospitals across the U.S., including the fact that good hygiene and practicing safe sex can provide similar benefits.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/09/fewer-boys-are-being-circumcised/245292/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 10 minutes of googling will tell you all you will ever need to know about why medically not necessary circumcision is one of the worst things you can do to your child.

3. Circumcised men feel less during sex. Yes, that IS proven. The foreskin protects the head of the penis and without it the head loses more and more of its sensitivity. Meaning by adulthood and the later (during their 30s...40s) the more men will lose feeling in the head of their penis. Which often leads to sexual problems in marriage. Like the man doesn't feel enough, so sex has to be very rough. Or men don't feel enough and have problems with erection and/or orgasm.

3. I don't know of a single friend who husband has this problem. Indeed, they all had kids through natural sex during that age bracket.

It hurts and isn't necessary, but it was our choice. We did it at the hospital, no infection.

Circumcised men don't know any other way. They don't know sex could feel different. It's just the way it is for them. Also I highly doubt that any of your friends would tell you if their husband had this problem - I am pretty certain a husband who confides to his wife will ask her not to share with anyone. A man admitting that he has sexual problems is after all a very private and highly sensitive issue...

I never said circumcision lessens sex drive, sexual activity or fertility. I said a circumcised mens' penis is less sensitive. And that's just a fact. The foreskin is supposed to protect the very sensitive head against every day abrasions. Once the foreskin is gone the sensitive head gets exposed to everything it's supposed to be shielded from. So the skin on the head gets thicker and harder over time - therefor less sensitivity. It's just logical. Same thing happens when you wear certain shoes a long time (back of your heel, certain areas where bones under your skin constantly rub against shoes) or when you play guitar (tips of your fingers).

It's not a fact if all you got is your opinion. Is there published data you can refer to?

Uncircumcized men also don't know any other way.

[Anonymous]

Haven't read all 9 pages. NP here. I'm originally from the Midwest, as is my husband. We circumcised both of our boys. However, looking back, I would have made a different decision if I could do it all over again. Based on the most current research re: health benefits, the evolving cultural norms, and the downfalls re: pain for the infant, I would not have done it.

However, it doesn't keep me awake at night. We made the best decision we could at the time for the best reasons we had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 10 minutes of googling will tell you all you will ever need to know about why medically not necessary circumcision is one of the worst things you can do to your child.

3. Circumcised men feel less during sex. Yes, that IS proven. The foreskin protects the head of the penis and without it the head loses more and more of its sensitivity. Meaning by adulthood and the later (during their 30s...40s) the more men will lose feeling in the head of their penis. Which often leads to sexual problems in marriage. Like the man doesn't feel enough, so sex has to be very rough. Or men don't feel enough and have problems with erection and/or orgasm.

3. I don't know of a single friend who husband has this problem. Indeed, they all had kids through natural sex during that age bracket.

It hurts and isn't necessary, but it was our choice. We did it at the hospital, no infection.

Circumcised men don't know any other way. They don't know sex could feel different. It's just the way it is for them. Also I highly doubt that any of your friends would tell you if their husband had this problem - I am pretty certain a husband who confides to his wife will ask her not to share with anyone. A man admitting that he has sexual problems is after all a very private and highly sensitive issue...

I never said circumcision lessens sex drive, sexual activity or fertility. I said a circumcised mens' penis is less sensitive. And that's just a fact. The foreskin is supposed to protect the very sensitive head against every day abrasions. Once the foreskin is gone the sensitive head gets exposed to everything it's supposed to be shielded from. So the skin on the head gets thicker and harder over time - therefor less sensitivity. It's just logical. Same thing happens when you wear certain shoes a long time (back of your heel, certain areas where bones under your skin constantly rub against shoes) or when you play guitar (tips of your fingers).

It's not a fact if all you got is your opinion. Is there published data you can refer to?

Uncircumcized men also don't know any other way.

If you don't even care enough to do some research yourself I'd say you don't want to read my answer anyway

And if you seriously can not at least accept the most logical point of my argument (Cut off protective skin = obviously the skin of the head of the penis gets thicker and less sensitive over time) then honestly why even bother? People like you don't want to know the truth. Everyone who read what I wrote and got a bit scared is now sitting in front of their PCs googling it to make sure they are making the right decision for their babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is I wouldn't do it with an adult male with an uncircumsized one. They are nasty! They look freakish to me.

And it is people like you who cause thousands of baby boys to have their penises mutilated without ever being asked if they want it or not.

It is more than sad, that an entire society can fall under the sick belief that a mutilated penis is somehow prettier than a healthy, natural, intact one. Sad. Incredibly sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Once the foreskin is gone the sensitive head gets exposed to everything it's supposed to be shielded from.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you have not ever seen the subject of this "discussion". The "sensitive head" is quite far from being esposed to "daily abrasions." Do you homework, then judge.


So in your VAST experience with both circumcised and intact penises (peni?), you think that the intact penises were not softer and more sensitive? I've only dabbled in the subject myself, but have found intact penises to be much much softer and seemingly more sensitive given that they are protected 90% of the time.


Yuck, who wants a soft penis!



And in my experience uncircumcised penises are stinky, even when carefully washed right before sex. But that's just my experience. Unlike some of the PPs, I realize that my experience is not universal.

You need to get your external genitalia removed. It's a quick and easy process and will change your experience.


That doesn't make sense, they take the skin not the entire thing. Maybe you need to learn a little more about it before passing ignorant judgments.

Maybe you should read before you post...external genitalia removal is done to females...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ignorance, people really need to look at the recent medical findings, it's not just cosmetic and cultural.

Yes it is. That is really absolutely all it is. With the rare exception of a few medically necessary cases, yes. That. Is. All. It. Is. Wake up US, take a look at the rest of the modern world...you are alone in your craze to circumcise every boy born in this country...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is I wouldn't do it with an adult male with an uncircumsized one. They are nasty! They look freakish to me.

And it is people like you who cause thousands of baby boys to have their penises mutilated without ever being asked if they want it or not.

It is more than sad, that an entire society can fall under the sick belief that a mutilated penis is somehow prettier than a healthy, natural, intact one. Sad. Incredibly sad.

NP here. I'm not sad. My husband isn't sad. My sons aren't sad. Be sad for people who have actual bad things happen to them, not this.

It really doesn't matter either way.

[Anonymous]

I live in SF and the majority of my friends did not circumcise. Only one who did happens to be Jewish, although a more religious Jewish friend of mine also opted not to circumcise her son.

[Anonymous]

I didn't only because my husband wasn't circumcised and I felt my son should be the same as his father. Sorry if that offends you op.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, why do you care about other people's penises in D.C?

She's down w/OPP.

Yeah you know me!