Did you get your son circumcised?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ha Ha. If the worst you can find in my parenting is that I circumcised my sons and mocked people on DCUM who are over the top, then I say I'm a pretty damned good mother.

Calm down, I don't think anyone is judging how good a mother anyone is. I think the PPs point was that since you did not know how circumcision causes damage, then you clearly had not done any real research about it.

Upon researching, one would learn that circumcision forcibly rips off the skin of the penis, and then cuts off what will amount to half of the skin of the adult penis. It often also removes the frenulum, which is proven to be the most sensitive part of the penis. Circumcision can leave scar tissue which is prone to tearing, infection, numbness, skin tags or skin bridges. Circumcision can lead to tight erections, premature ejaculation, dry sex for the woman (necessitating greater use of lube), and erectile dysfunction in later years.

It kind of amazes me that people think circumcised men are the best judge of what it is like to have the exact part of his penis which he happens to be missing.

Well, yes people are judging Now in truth I don't care. I find this all amusing. I was in the room when my second son was circumcised so I know exactly what happened. I have done my research and I have seen first hand, but it seem some assume that if anyone makes a decision that is different from theirs, then obviously they are less educated or poor or didn't do their research.

And on a less serious note, good lord if my circumcised husband enjoyed sex even more than he does, we would never leave the bedroom.

[Anonymous]

And of course I should have proofread before I hit submit. I realize all the typos does make it seem that I am less educated. Just too fast typing with a quick submit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A man is the best judge pp HE HAS A PENIS! Of course the decision should be made together but why do you think you are a better judge? Another woman with her husbands balls in a jar!

20:13 I really like you!

20:13 here. Thanks for the compliment, but I really wish you had read my posts a little more closely. Please please please--the insulting has got to stop--it adds nothing to the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ha Ha. If the worst you can find in my parenting is that I circumcised my sons and mocked people on DCUM who are over the top, then I say I'm a pretty damned good mother.

Calm down, I don't think anyone is judging how good a mother anyone is. I think the PPs point was that since you did not know how circumcision causes damage, then you clearly had not done any real research about it.

Upon researching, one would learn that circumcision forcibly rips off the skin of the penis, and then cuts off what will amount to half of the skin of the adult penis. It often also removes the frenulum, which is proven to be the most sensitive part of the penis. Circumcision can leave scar tissue which is prone to tearing, infection, numbness, skin tags or skin bridges. Circumcision can lead to tight erections, premature ejaculation, dry sex for the woman (necessitating greater use of lube), and erectile dysfunction in later years.

It kind of amazes me that people think circumcised men are the best judge of what it is like to have the exact part of his penis which he happens to be missing.

People ARE judging mothers on this thread... Can you read? There are posts saying if you do it you are hurting your child, it's unecessary and mutilation. If that is not judging a mother and fathers parenting choices then I don't know what you call it. It's unnecessary to make others feel bad for a decision that is not illegal and is still recommended by obs and peds. So yes pp there are people judging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A man is the best judge pp HE HAS A PENIS! Of course the decision should be made together but why do you think you are a better judge? Another woman with her husbands balls in a jar!

20:13 I really like you!

20:13 here. Thanks for the compliment, but I really wish you had read my posts a little more closely. Please please please--the insulting has got to stop--it adds nothing to the discussion.

You are right. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have an interesting perspective in that you chose not to do it, but wound up having a reasonable medical reason to do so. You also sound relatively open-minded and genuinely curious about this debate. So, I'll give you my answer to your question. The big deal is that you are slicing into a newborn baby's penis with no dire need to do so (not you personally of course, as you had a very unique situation. Heck, there are numerous unique medical situations which could justify the amputation of any number of otherwise useful body parts). Also in my opinion it is not simply about the pain or the recovery, which usually goes fine (but of course in a small percentage of cases can go horribly wrong) but the fact that no person should have part of their genitals sliced and amputated without their consent, period. You reference female circumcision, and I agree that female circumcision can be far more serious and debilitating than what we see with routine infant circ in this country. However, there is a type of female circumcision practiced which involves only a small ritual "nick" (ie, a cut, but nothing is removed) in the baby girls clitoris. To answer your question with a question: would you consider this type of female circumcision to be acceptable? Why or why not? Yet regardless of anyone's personal opinion, even this very "minor" type of female circ is still illegal in this country. Why do we provide this protection to baby girls (most of immigrant parents), while we allow a procedure on our own baby boys which is FAR more invasive?

20:13 again, and I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

- Would I consider the "nick" type of female circumcision acceptable? Yes, given that it is done to a newborn (I think male circs have to be under 3 months or they use general anesthetic, which makes it a much more dangerous procedure, so I feel that's a good age at which to limit it) under reasonably sanitary conditions (say equivalent to what a reputable U.S. mohel will use for a home bris).

- Why do I consider it acceptable? Because I don't see the harm.

- Why is this more minor procedure still illegal under U.S. law? Because the law is a blunt instrument. It is very difficult to write and pass effective and enforceable legislation that defines fine lines. Given the very limited use of this more minor procedure, I think it is reasonable to lump it under the same umbrella as the far more widely practiced and more damaging types of FGM. The standard male circumcision procedure still doesn't come close to the "standard" FGM procedure.

In my opinion, the "consent" argument doesn't hold water, because EVERYTHING we decide as parents from the first pregnancy test to the age at which they can start expressing an opinion, and the vast majority of things we decide after that up until they leave for college, is decided without their consent. I didn't have a "dire" need to slice my baby's frenulum (tongue tie) at 5 days old because he wouldn't nurse--it would have been far easier to bottle feed him, even pumped breast milk, but nobody questions that decision, and the procedure seems to be on a very similar level to that of circumcision. Do I eat soft cheese during pregnancy or not? Do we vaccinate on schedule or not? Do we breast feed or use formula? Do we use a hand-me-down carseat or crib, or get the best money can buy brand-new? Do we live in the closer but less safe neighborhood, or the farther but nicer one?

These are all decisions we as parents have to make regarding our kids' health and safety. (I have close friends and family members who decided differently from me on each of these issues, and yet we still treat eachother with respect.) The scientific community has a much firmer stance regarding many of these than it does to circumcision, yet none of them are legislated. Many parents choose against the recommendations every day, because many of these choices are not nearly so black and white as they seem. (For example--used carseats. We took one from my brother, because we knew where it came from, that it had never been in an accident or recalled, and that it was non-expired and in good working order. I would not have used one from craigslist. Yet how many official recommendations make those fine distinctions?)

I just don't understand why the genitals are so much more special than any other body part, or any other safety-related decision we as parents make without our child's consent. There is a world of gray here and, barring any clear and major dangers, parents should be allowed to make the decision that is right for their family, and everyone else should all butt out. That's not to say we can't have a reasonable debate (like this), but the name-calling and nastiness really needs to stop, on this and all other topics.

Lastly, another question for you (and I'm not sure you are advocating for this, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway): what would a law against male circumcision look like? Would it allow procedures for medical necessity? If so, who gets to determine medical necessity? Even if it's pretty open, maybe doctors would be less willing to do it so as not to risk prosecution. Some procedures for the devout religious community would wind up underground, and when that happens the risks almost always increase. Would my son still have been able to have his? Or would he today maybe be missing a kidney instead?

Just some further food for thought.

Well, I could ask you the same exact question. What is so special about the penis that it deserves to have a portion of it amputated at birth just because the parents want to do it? No other parenting choice revolves around performing cosmetic amputative surgery on a one-day-old baby.

Also, so you are fine with holding down an infant baby girl and making a cut in her clitoris for "cultural" purposes. Now, what about if someone wanted to completely remove her clitoral hood? In girls, this is the analogous body part to the male prepuce. Both are called the foreskin. I wonder if you think that would be alright. Again, this is another type of female circumcision which is not allowed here in America - and it is exactly the same as male circumcision, anatomically speaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A man is the best judge pp HE HAS A PENIS! Of course the decision should be made together but why do you think you are a better judge? Another woman with her husbands balls in a jar!

20:13 I really like you!

A circumcised man is MISSING the exact body part in question. He is therefore no better judge than anyone else, as he has no personal experience to draw from. In fact, a woman could have potentially had experience with both circed and intact, and thus be a better judge. (hint - a foreskin can help make sex much more pleasurable for the woman).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ha Ha. If the worst you can find in my parenting is that I circumcised my sons and mocked people on DCUM who are over the top, then I say I'm a pretty damned good mother.

Calm down, I don't think anyone is judging how good a mother anyone is. I think the PPs point was that since you did not know how circumcision causes damage, then you clearly had not done any real research about it.

Upon researching, one would learn that circumcision forcibly rips off the skin of the penis, and then cuts off what will amount to half of the skin of the adult penis. It often also removes the frenulum, which is proven to be the most sensitive part of the penis. Circumcision can leave scar tissue which is prone to tearing, infection, numbness, skin tags or skin bridges. Circumcision can lead to tight erections, premature ejaculation, dry sex for the woman (necessitating greater use of lube), and erectile dysfunction in later years.

It kind of amazes me that people think circumcised men are the best judge of what it is like to have the exact part of his penis which he happens to be missing.

Such a good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A man is the best judge pp HE HAS A PENIS! Of course the decision should be made together but why do you think you are a better judge? Another woman with her husbands balls in a jar!

20:13 I really like you!

A circumcised man is MISSING the exact body part in question. He is therefore no better judge than anyone else, as he has no personal experience to draw from. In fact, a woman could have potentially had experience with both circed and intact, and thus be a better judge. (hint - a foreskin can help make sex much more pleasurable for the woman).

What a complete load of crap. Based on your logic intact men might actually be the deprived ones. How would they know? They have never been circumcised so they have no personal experience to draw from either.

As for the idea that a woman is the better judge, That makes about as much sense as saying that guys are experts at female sexuality because they have been in more vaginas and fondled more breasts. News flash: actually having one trumps seeing one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[Well, I could ask you the same exact question. What is so special about the penis that it deserves to have a portion of it amputated at birth just because the parents want to do it? No other parenting choice revolves around performing cosmetic amputative surgery on a one-day-old baby.

Also, so you are fine with holding down an infant baby girl and making a cut in her clitoris for "cultural" purposes. Now, what about if someone wanted to completely remove her clitoral hood? In girls, this is the analogous body part to the male prepuce. Both are called the foreskin. I wonder if you think that would be alright. Again, this is another type of female circumcision which is not allowed here in America - and it is exactly the same as male circumcision, anatomically speaking.

20:13 again, last one before I go to bed.

First of all, many many many people don't consider circumcision to be a "cosmetic" procedure. There ARE medical benefits--though they are small and their worth debatable when weighed against the risks, the benefits still exist. And many others do it for deep and profound religious reasons that can hardly be called cosmetic.

Second, I stated in my original post that I think it's better to do it at least a week after birth.

Third, say a child was born with a 6th toe. Minor and cosmetic, but would anybody argue with the amputation of such toe as an infant? Surely it is better to do it at that age than after they've reached the age of reason, at which point any psychological issues from the extra digit has already started and any surgery is likely to be more memorable and thus traumatic? Obviously not an exact comparison to circumcision, but worth thinking about, no?

Of course no other parenting choices involve amputation at a very young age--there are no good exact comparisons. But surely many other parenting choices have a similar level of gravity/risk, or even more so. SIDS was the third-highest cause of infant death in the US in 2005 (source), but putting your infant to sleep on their tummy, or using crib bumpers/blankets/etc., is not illegal.

And lastly, I don't know enough about FGM to say whether the removal of the clitoral hood alone is truly equivalent. Does it carry the same level of medical benefit and risk? Is it performed under similar conditions? Assuming it is, I would have to say that it is ethically acceptable. (I don't like it, but that is a prejudiced, cultural, emotional response. Much like the common free speech argument--I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.)

But again as I said before, it is very very rare, and the law is a blunt instrument. Thus, it is reasonable to lump it in with other types to further the goal of eliminating the other, far more common and horrific, types. The vast majority of FGM is perpetuated as violence against women, and it is worthwhile to use the blunt force of the law to prevent this actual harm from occurring. There doesn't seem to be a problem with more severe male circumcision, and I've seen no data that demonstrates the standard male circumcision procedure perpetuates violence against men or causes significant harm, thus there is no need for a law.

[Anonymous]

No, we did not. We have two sons. Very glad we didn't, but if one of our sons decides to have it done later in life, We will pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: In fact, a woman could have potentially had experience with both circed and intact, and thus be a better judge. (hint - a foreskin can help make sex much more pleasurable for the woman).

Disagree with that. It makes oral worse. Zero difference with vaginal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[Well, I could ask you the same exact question. What is so special about the penis that it deserves to have a portion of it amputated at birth just because the parents want to do it? No other parenting choice revolves around performing cosmetic amputative surgery on a one-day-old baby.

Also, so you are fine with holding down an infant baby girl and making a cut in her clitoris for "cultural" purposes. Now, what about if someone wanted to completely remove her clitoral hood? In girls, this is the analogous body part to the male prepuce. Both are called the foreskin. I wonder if you think that would be alright. Again, this is another type of female circumcision which is not allowed here in America - and it is exactly the same as male circumcision, anatomically speaking.

20:13 again, last one before I go to bed.

First of all, many many many people don't consider circumcision to be a "cosmetic" procedure. There ARE medical benefits--though they are small and their worth debatable when weighed against the risks, the benefits still exist. And many others do it for deep and profound religious reasons that can hardly be called cosmetic.

Second, I stated in my original post that I think it's better to do it at least a week after birth.

Third, say a child was born with a 6th toe. Minor and cosmetic, but would anybody argue with the amputation of such toe as an infant? Surely it is better to do it at that age than after they've reached the age of reason, at which point any psychological issues from the extra digit has already started and any surgery is likely to be more memorable and thus traumatic? Obviously not an exact comparison to circumcision, but worth thinking about, no?

Of course no other parenting choices involve amputation at a very young age--there are no good exact comparisons. But surely many other parenting choices have a similar level of gravity/risk, or even more so. SIDS was the third-highest cause of infant death in the US in 2005 (source), but putting your infant to sleep on their tummy, or using crib bumpers/blankets/etc., is not illegal.

And lastly, I don't know enough about FGM to say whether the removal of the clitoral hood alone is truly equivalent. Does it carry the same level of medical benefit and risk? Is it performed under similar conditions? Assuming it is, I would have to say that it is ethically acceptable. (I don't like it, but that is a prejudiced, cultural, emotional response. Much like the common free speech argument--I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.)

But again as I said before, it is very very rare, and the law is a blunt instrument. Thus, it is reasonable to lump it in with other types to further the goal of eliminating the other, far more common and horrific, types. The vast majority of FGM is perpetuated as violence against women, and it is worthwhile to use the blunt force of the law to prevent this actual harm from occurring. There doesn't seem to be a problem with more severe male circumcision, and I've seen no data that demonstrates the standard male circumcision procedure perpetuates violence against men or causes significant harm, thus there is no need for a law.

Not the poster you are arguing with, but it's hard to argue with someone like this. Your views are really skewed here. Yes, FGM is perpetuated as violence against baby girls / women in OUR view. In the view of those doing it, it's culture, tradition, and necessary. You say "there doesn't seem to be a problem" with male circumcision, which just shows that you've completely ignored all of the risks and drawbacks that so many people have patiently laid out here. For all your supposed reasonableness, you just don't want to accept the basic premises that there are risks involved with circumcision. I've laid out, a few pages back, my opinions that the risks outweigh the benefits. Studies that demonstrated UTI's (are you the UTI poster?) are much more common in intact babies are flawed and we've said why. Studies demonstrating HIV reduction are DEEPLY flawed and we've said why. UTI's are caused by a number of things - bubble bath and soap can do it (intact or not). Proper care of the penis and foreskin (aka leave it alone!) are important. In the hospital where my son was born, I was absolutely shocked that a nurse there actually was looking at him and tried to move his foreskin down. She was like "when you clean him, you need to get under these folds." If I hadn't stopped her, she might have retracted his penis. So many of the supposed "problems" with intact men come from mistakes that health care providers make (a friend of mine's son was forcibly retracted by his pediatrician before the mom realized what was happening at 12 months).

So if you take away all of the improper care problems, problems with the intact male are rare. If your son suffered one of them, you have my sympathies, but your plight does not convince me that we should all circ our babies. (interestingly, breastfeeding reduces UTI's much more than circumcision, but many of the same people who circ do not breastfeed or do not breastfeed for long. They're willing to cut a piece of baby's penis off to reduce the risks of a UTI but they can't breastfeed? I'm not saying this was true in your case, but it's an issue that baffles me at times and I think goes a long way to illustrate that people are NOT circumcising mainly due to health issues but rather culture, because dad is, or cosmetic).

Like the UTI argument, in fact there is even stronger evidence here, (I've laid it all out above) the HIV reduction works only in a very, very specific vacuum that is not like the situation we have in the U.S. because we don't practice dry sex and much (not all) of our HIV transmission is man on man or needle driven and this only reduces female to male (not male to female) transmission rates. Your child is SO much better off wearing a condom when it comes time for sex.

I do not know what I think about making circumcision illegal. I'd like to see that happen, but I'm not sure it ever will. I think circumcision will slowly go away when medicaid stops covering it in all areas except where there is medical need (this would just be a manner of coding, so I'm sure some practitioners would have nearly all babies with medical need, but it's a start. Private health insurances frequently follow medicaid's practice, and that will make parents face the fact that they're doing cosmetic surgery on a baby, there is no health benefit, there are risks, and they're on the hook to pay for it.

Until then, I just hope more parents can be counted on to do the research and spare their poor babies this barbaric ritual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: In fact, a woman could have potentially had experience with both circed and intact, and thus be a better judge. (hint - a foreskin can help make sex much more pleasurable for the woman).

Disagree with that. It makes oral worse. Zero difference with vaginal.

Have you truly had sex with an uncirced man? For the vast majority, there is no visual difference -- no difference in oral. I do also feel a difference in vaginal, though I'm not the pp you are quoting.

Because of the way the foreskin moves during sex, there's typically little or no need for lubricants. They're far more common in the US.

[Anonymous]

I have noticed that circumcised men have reduced sensation. I lived in Europe and DH is European so of course he is uncircumcised. It's pretty obvious that circumcised men are not getting the full sexual experience. I knew one guy who told me that he was unable to orgasm with a woman due to a botched circumcision. I know that most circumcised men can, of course, orgasm but I do not believe it is the same based on my own experiences comparing the two. Circumcised men can argue this point all they want but as a woman who has been with both, the difference is clear. I'm sorry to say this to the circumcised men. It must be difficult to hear and I can see why they refuse to believe it. For me, the sensation is not significantly different.