Did you get your son circumcised?

[Anonymous]

Hopefully no woman here has really had sex with enough men to have a statistically valid comparison. For me, circ had more arousal than uncirc.

I guess you could ask someone who was circumcized older in life - though that may have its own problems.

For those of you who want to condemn circumcision, let me come over to your house and tell you all the things that you are doing barbarically wrong to your kids -- including teaching them to be judgmental little beings who can't analyze facts properly. It's a valid choice to do or not do. Oh - and let me condemn your religion or lack of it as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully no woman here has really had sex with enough men to have a statistically valid comparison. For me, circ had more arousal than uncirc.

I guess you could ask someone who was circumcized older in life - though that may have its own problems.

For those of you who want to condemn circumcision, let me come over to your house and tell you all the things that you are doing barbarically wrong to your kids -- including teaching them to be judgmental little beings who can't analyze facts properly. It's a valid choice to do or not do. Oh - and let me condemn your religion or lack of it as well.

This exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I have. I was expressing my personal opinion. Nothing scientific. There's more odor involved, which is not a turn on for me. I don't like the looks of a flaccid uncirc'ed penis. And I feel no difference in vaginal sex. Lubrication's never been a problem for me, so I can't comment on that. I'm not saying this to influence whether someone circs their son or not. Just that I personally diagree with the post I responded to earlier.

[Anonymous]

this thread is getting gross!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not sure you understand basic penis anatomy. The intact man can retract his foreskin and wear it pulled back for days or even a week if he wants to; giving him an approximation of what it would feel like to have no foreskin (the glans gets dried out, rubs on clothes, and eventually loses sensation and becomes keratinized.) A cut man will never know what it is like to have a normally functioning, intact, penis - unless he does some amount of foreskin restoration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I have. I was expressing my personal opinion. Nothing scientific. There's more odor involved, which is not a turn on for me. I don't like the looks of a flaccid uncirc'ed penis. And I feel no difference in vaginal sex. Lubrication's never been a problem for me, so I can't comment on that. I'm not saying this to influence whether someone circs their son or not. Just that I personally diagree with the post I responded to earlier.

Gotta disagree with you. If you had an odor issue, that's just specific to that one guy, perhaps he was normally stinky or he didn't have good hygiene. The uncut men I've been with have never had any odor issues, and I do think it's more pleasurable for oral because the skin is so much more smooth and sensitive. Circ'ed men have so much less sensation on their penis that it takes FOREVER.

Okay, and now this thread is officially skeezy. I'm sorry. Let's shut it down.

[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.

No, this is not really worth thinking about as there is absolutely no comparison. In fact, it is comments like this that lead us who oppose circumcision to question whether those who are supporters of it have done any real research about the matter. A foreskin is a normal, healthy, functioning, useful body part that is an important part of the normal penis. It has a very real purpose for both the man and any sexual partner he may have. The default - as with any healthy body part - would be to leave it completely alone and allow the penis to be whole, as designed. I believe that many who support circumcision actually have no understanding of normal (intact) penis anatomy and therefore view the foreskin as a disposable, extraneous body part (much like your 6th toe analogy). As with any body part, if it becomes infected or damaged, then either medications or even surgery would be a reasonable treatment. The foreskin - just like any other healthy body part - is not especially likely to cause trouble, but in rare cases it can. It is our cultural bias, rather than medical indication, which has taught generations of both men and women that the foreskin is dirty, unhealthy, ugly, and should be removed.

There is a video called "The Prepuce" which you should watch if you are truly interested in researching what the foreskin is all about. It is a good video and fairly technical, and it does not really have anything to do with the circumcision debate. Sorry I can't link it here, but it is easy to find.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I have. I was expressing my personal opinion. Nothing scientific. There's more odor involved, which is not a turn on for me. I don't like the looks of a flaccid uncirc'ed penis. And I feel no difference in vaginal sex. Lubrication's never been a problem for me, so I can't comment on that. I'm not saying this to influence whether someone circs their son or not. Just that I personally diagree with the post I responded to earlier.

You mean kind of like the odor found within the folds of a woman's labia or vagina? Whew, I am so glad that it never gained popularity to slice off a woman's labia to try to prevent any of that odor! So lucky that instead our culture believes that woman can figure out how to wash themselves to reduce any odor. Too bad those stupid men need something cut off instead of learning how to wash!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I have. I was expressing my personal opinion. Nothing scientific. There's more odor involved, which is not a turn on for me. I don't like the looks of a flaccid uncirc'ed penis. And I feel no difference in vaginal sex. Lubrication's never been a problem for me, so I can't comment on that. I'm not saying this to influence whether someone circs their son or not. Just that I personally diagree with the post I responded to earlier.

Gotta disagree with you. If you had an odor issue, that's just specific to that one guy, perhaps he was normally stinky or he didn't have good hygiene. The uncut men I've been with have never had any odor issues, and I do think it's more pleasurable for oral because the skin is so much more smooth and sensitive. Circ'ed men have so much less sensation on their penis that it takes FOREVER.

Okay, and now this thread is officially skeezy. I'm sorry. Let's shut it down.

This is soooooo true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I have. I was expressing my personal opinion. Nothing scientific. There's more odor involved, which is not a turn on for me. I don't like the looks of a flaccid uncirc'ed penis. And I feel no difference in vaginal sex. Lubrication's never been a problem for me, so I can't comment on that. I'm not saying this to influence whether someone circs their son or not. Just that I personally diagree with the post I responded to earlier.

Gotta disagree with you. If you had an odor issue, that's just specific to that one guy, perhaps he was normally stinky or he didn't have good hygiene. The uncut men I've been with have never had any odor issues, and I do think it's more pleasurable for oral because the skin is so much more smooth and sensitive. Circ'ed men have so much less sensation on their penis that it takes FOREVER.

Okay, and now this thread is officially skeezy. I'm sorry. Let's shut it down.

This is soooooo true.

I count this as a bonus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I started out anti-circ, but we ended up having our son circed at 2 months, mostly for special medical considerations, and the experience has made me pro-circ generally.

Before he was born my DH and I argued about it a lot--I'd read all the literature and thought the benefits just didn't outweigh the risks. Although I did feel it was a close call, I had a pretty visceral reaction to the *idea* of having it done. My DH on the other had had also read all the literature and still felt pretty strongly about having it done. For him it came down to "the risks are minor and the benefits are minor, but I'm very happy with mine [circed] and don't know anyone who isn't, so I'd rather have it done now."

We still hadn't decided when DS was born and agreed to wait a few days. Then my newborn DS spiked a fever had to go to the ER--scariest experience of my life. Turns out he had a particularly bad strain of UTI that had spread into the blood. After some consultation with our regular ped, a ped infectious disease specialist, and a ped urologist, they all thought it was likely he had vesicoureteral reflux (urine backing up toward the kidneys) and wanted further testing done.

At that point we asked about the circumcision, and while my ped didn't have a strong opinion, the infectious disease specialist and urologist both recommended it, because it would help prevent future UTIs and because it would make catheters easier (and he would need a lot of them in the coming months). I still didn't feel good about it but I agreed to go ahead with it.

All the docs agreed that we needed to wait until DS was recovered from the first UTI (so I can't imagine doing it to a baby who was STILL in the NICU, yikes!). Once he was, we picked a ped. surgeon (who also practices as a mohel). He had an anesthetic injection, but still cried HARD when we got him back in the recovery room and refused to nurse for several hours--that was very hard for me. But he was back to his usual self within a day.

After the circ, we had a VCUG and a DMSA done, and the diagnosis was grade 4+ reflux (almost the worst possible) and one kidney that was practically non-functioning. We were told to be extra vigilant in preventing another UTI because if he had another one, they'd almost certainly have to do surgery, and the one kidney is so bad that rather than correcting the reflux, they would just remove the kidney. And then our urologist told us it was good we had him circed, because repeat UTIs are common in high-grade reflux, and very new, very good studies have shown that circumcision is highly effective in preventing UTIs in boys with high-grade reflux.

So the way I see it, he lost his foreskin, but it probably saved his kidney.

Now I recognize that this is a unique medical circumstance, and I hope only the most hard-core anti-circ folks would fault us for going ahead with it under these conditions. But two things have now made me generally pro-circ (that is, barring medical issues like ours, I still see no problem with doing it or not doing as you please; I don't believe it should be required either way):

1) Our experience was really not that bad. Yes, it clearly hurt. But it seemed about the same as when his very severe tongue tie was clipped or when he had a spinal tap, and he was acting like his normal self in a day, and healed in <1 week. Now it is a non-issue. I expect we'll have any future sons done, even if they don't have medical issues, because DH wants it done and now I have no problem with it.

2) There are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of infant-circed men that have no problems with it, most of whom are even glad it's done and that happened when they were an infant and can't remember--including my husband. As far as I can tell, the cases of grown men who are unhappy with their circ are few and far between. I think if it were really the problem the anti-circers make it out to be, this would not be the case.

So I just don't get what all the hubbub is about. I do think its better to wait a week or so after birth;to only do it on healthy babies (not NICU babies!!); and to have it done by a good surgeon, with good anesthetic, and with followup checks (most hospital newborn circs don't get a followup). But given those things, I think its fine to do it. I also think its fine if you don't want to do it too. It should be the parents' choice, and everyone else should butt out.

I know it is not the same as infant ear piercing, but it is somewhat similar. I think babies look weird with any kind of jewelry, so I would never do it, but if you want to, whatever. The risks are minimal, and the vast majority of girls eventually wear pierced ears anyway. Now as an adult, I rarely wear earrings, and never in my second holes since high school, but I don't regret having it done then. If some cultures tattooed infants, I'd probably feel the same. Not for me, but you can if you want to.

(Lets all be clear--female genital mutilation has been banned because it is completely different. The type that got people up in arms to ban it involves the removal of a LOT more that the foreskin-equivalent, and is usually forced on a much-older girl under unsanitary conditions without any worthwhile anesthetic at all. It also doesn't appear to carry any medical benefit--UTIs apparently increase after FGM--so people need to stop suggesting that "circing" females to prevent UTIs is an equivalent excuse to circing males for the same reason.)

So seriously people, what's the big deal? I don't get it. Do it or don't but please leave others alone.

We had a similar issue, except our son's kidney issues were discovered prenatally. Our ped urologist, who is generally anti-circ, said that it does decrease the risk of infection in cases like this. We followed his advice and had DS circ'ed. I don't regret it one bit. Also, I will say that DH wanted to do it anyways. I'm not from a family that does it, but DH is, and he said that growing up the boys who weren't were definitely made fun of. Not sure how everyone knew who was and who wasn't though!

[Anonymous]

By the way, the formal representatives of the Catholic Church (as opposed to the self-proclaimed ones on this board) oppose San Francisco's anti-circumcision ballot. See statement from the Archbishop of SF:

http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=33652525-d9da-437f-8936-f6f8747ff153

And, by the way, to PP, a toddler's death from being under a *general anesthetic* for a circumcision is not on point. http://gothamist.com/2011/05/05/circumcision_gone_wrong_leaves_quee.php I have no idea why one would have a general anesthetic -- which has substantial risks always. The normal practice is local or none.

And, on the random "study" from a publication I have never heard of doesn't sway me. I have already posted and read reputable ones.

I don't care whether you circumcise your child, PP, but I am intelligent and have read the research, and I choose to do so for mine. Stop trying to legislate your own narrow views.

[Anonymous]

We didn't. My son is only 2.5 but we don't regret it. Our ped says it's 50/50 here in the DC area. May be more unique in the Midwest but doubt it will ever be an issue here. Any surgery would need to be well justified for us and this one didn't feel like it reached that bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I have. I was expressing my personal opinion. Nothing scientific. There's more odor involved, which is not a turn on for me. I don't like the looks of a flaccid uncirc'ed penis. And I feel no difference in vaginal sex. Lubrication's never been a problem for me, so I can't comment on that. I'm not saying this to influence whether someone circs their son or not. Just that I personally diagree with the post I responded to earlier.

Gotta disagree with you. If you had an odor issue, that's just specific to that one guy, perhaps he was normally stinky or he didn't have good hygiene. The uncut men I've been with have never had any odor issues, and I do think it's more pleasurable for oral because the skin is so much more smooth and sensitive. Circ'ed men have so much less sensation on their penis that it takes FOREVER.

Okay, and now this thread is officially skeezy. I'm sorry. Let's shut it down.

I did not find that to be true. I find that the skill and enthusiasm of the oral-giving partner to be a more accurate predictor than presence or absence of foreskin. I've never had it take FOREVER as you say with circumcised men. I also did not experience any difference whatsoever in how sex feels with circumcised vs. intact men. I found that their skill level is a much better predictor of how much fun they would be. You are entitled to your own opinion and preferences in the bedroom, but let's not make them grounds for public policy.

[Anonymous]

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).

I love how niftily you expanded your characterization of families who opt for circumcision! Yes, they are wicked, wicked people who advance upon newborn babies with scalpel in one hand and formula bottle in the other, grinning menacingly as they move. What other evil tendencies might these baby-butchers have? Feed their children non-organic vegetables? Let them play with plastic, Chinese-made toys? Leave them in carseats with the motor running? Oh evil, evil is their name!

Sarcasm aside, suitable as it may be for this argument, do you have any actual data or reason (based on evidence) to believe that families who circumcise are less likely to breastfeed? Care to share sources? Preferably the ones that have nothing to do with your opinion.