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

[Anonymous]

Lots of "SAFE" things have occasional terrible results: riding in a car, playing on a playground, eating chicken, crossing the street, walking down the stairs, getting pregnant, flying in an airplane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of "SAFE" things have occasional terrible results: riding in a car, playing on a playground, eating chicken, crossing the street, walking down the stairs, getting pregnant, flying in an airplane.

Oh geeze. These are weird comparisons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of "SAFE" things have occasional terrible results: riding in a car, playing on a playground, eating chicken, crossing the street, walking down the stairs, getting pregnant, flying in an airplane.

Oh geeze. These are weird comparisons.

Do you understand the point? Things aren't deemed unsafe because bad things can sometimes result.

The benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. That doesn't mean that you should do it, but it does mean that getting this worked up about other people doing it is pretty silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of "SAFE" things have occasional terrible results: riding in a car, playing on a playground, eating chicken, crossing the street, walking down the stairs, getting pregnant, flying in an airplane.

Oh geeze. These are weird comparisons.

Do you understand the point? Things aren't deemed unsafe because bad things can sometimes result.

The benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. That doesn't mean that you should do it, but it does mean that getting this worked up about other people doing it is pretty silly.

I'm not worked up about the practice. Here are my points, since you have a hard time inferring them.

1. Some people on this thread are body-shaming infants who are intact. Parents are made to feel like their child is dirty and ugly.

2. OP wrote "SAFE" in all caps. The message this sends to expecting parents who may look to DCUM for information about the procedure is that it is TOTALLY SAFE. The links provided about botched circs and kids losing parts of their actual penis are a response to OP's impassioned opinion that circ is SAFE. I myself wrote that it was "relatively safe," but accidents do happen.

Do. You. Comprehend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ascetics. Lol.

Seriously LOL. Best part of the thread.

[Anonymous]

I have three boys. We circumcised the first because we didn't know any different and the OB acted like everyone did it and it was the right thing to do. All of our friends had done it, DH is circumcised, and my dad, as a 65 year old, decided to get circumcised because it was something that had bothered him his whole life. When DS2 was born, we considered not circumcising him but did it for consistency. Along comes DS3, who had a medical issue at birth and couldn't undergo the procedure. With him, we would have to schedule a surgery, in a hospital, under general anesthesia. That all seems like a lot of risk for an unnecessary procedure. DH thinks we should circumcise DS3 for consistency, but now that I've finally had more time to think and process the issue, I am against it.

I worry how my boys will feel about this in the future. Will DS3 be upset that he doesn't look like his brothers or dad? Will DS1 and DS2 be upset that they were circumcised? Who knows. Our pediatrician in N. Arlington said that with newborn boys, she sees about 50/50 but with boys aged 5 and up, it's more like 90/10 for circumcision, so the procedure is becoming less popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have three boys. We circumcised the first because we didn't know any different and the OB acted like everyone did it and it was the right thing to do. All of our friends had done it, DH is circumcised, and my dad, as a 65 year old, decided to get circumcised because it was something that had bothered him his whole life. When DS2 was born, we considered not circumcising him but did it for consistency. Along comes DS3, who had a medical issue at birth and couldn't undergo the procedure. With him, we would have to schedule a surgery, in a hospital, under general anesthesia. That all seems like a lot of risk for an unnecessary procedure. DH thinks we should circumcise DS3 for consistency, but now that I've finally had more time to think and process the issue, I am against it.

I worry how my boys will feel about this in the future. Will DS3 be upset that he doesn't look like his brothers or dad? Will DS1 and DS2 be upset that they were circumcised? Who knows. Our pediatrician in N. Arlington said that with newborn boys, she sees about 50/50 but with boys aged 5 and up, it's more like 90/10 for circumcision, so the procedure is becoming less popular.

You know, I always wondered about this argument, that sons should look like their fathers. Do boys really look at their dad's genitals and compare? (Maybe they do, I don't know.) I am a woman and don't recall ever comparing myself to my mom in terms of genitals or breasts. Is this a male thing?

In any event, I don't know why this is such a big deal. To me it's like infant ear-piercing. Do it if you want, or don't if you don't want to. We are Jewish and felt strongly that it's a religious commandment for us, one of the most important although we don't follow all of them, as a PP pointed out. So we did it and would do it again if we have another son. If we weren't Jewish, I don't think we would have bothered because there doesn't seem to be a biological need or medical need.

I will say that although I have only been with DH, he certainly doesn't seem to suffer from lack of a foreskin during sex. Maybe it would be even better if he weren't circumcised, but it seems to be pretty damn amazing for him as is, so it's not a problem.

[Anonymous]

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/
This is from 1997 but many of the posters here are still saying the same thing. It doesn't hurt them, they won't remember, or some other brainwashed reason.

Topicals woefully inadequate

Rabbi Ariel Asa has performed hundreds of circumcisions. When families request it, he says he puts an anesthetic on the skin, in an effort to reduce some of the pain. But he admits it's not very effective.

"Due to the fact that moyels (the people who do the procedure) do it very quickly and the pain that the baby experiences is minimal, I don't think that the overall benefits are gained," he says.

But the researchers found that while topical anesthetics may help initially, they are woefully inadequate during foreskin separation and incision.

They concluded that if circumcision must be performed, it should be preceded by an injected anesthetic.

In fact, they found the results so compelling that they took the unusual step of stopping the study before it was scheduled to end rather than subjecting any more babies to circumcision without anesthesia.

[Anonymous]

"It really doesn't matter either way."

In that case, why is anybody, let alone so many people, so desperately keen to do it to someone who doesn't need it, doesn't want it, and in all probability never will?

It is certainly sad when the baby dies, loses his penis, or grows up to find (or just suspect) that it has impaired his sex life, or bitterly resents that his choice was stolen from him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"It really doesn't matter either way."

In that case, why is anybody, let alone so many people, so desperately keen to do it to someone who doesn't need it, doesn't want it, and in all probability never will?

It is certainly sad when the baby dies, loses his penis, or grows up to find (or just suspect) that it has impaired his sex life, or bitterly resents that his choice was stolen from him.

Yes indeed. Good thing those incidents almost never happen.

[Anonymous]

I remember guys in college getting it done. They'd walk around bowed cowboy legs for a week.
They probably didn't tell their crunchy granola mamas either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember guys in college getting it done. They'd walk around bowed cowboy legs for a week.
They probably didn't tell their crunchy granola mamas either.

Haha, yeah, let your kid choose! Smooth or flappy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It really doesn't matter either way."

In that case, why is anybody, let alone so many people, so desperately keen to do it to someone who doesn't need it, doesn't want it, and in all probability never will?

It is certainly sad when the baby dies, loses his penis, or grows up to find (or just suspect) that it has impaired his sex life, or bitterly resents that his choice was stolen from him.

Yes indeed. Good thing those incidents almost never happen.

2 of my 4 circ'ed nephews had complications. One had too much skin taken and there was a small cut on the tip of his penis next to his urethral opening. I accompanied my sister when she took her son to several urologists for second and third opinions. All concluded there was nothing they could do to fix it, that he would urinate in two streams, and probably have painful and crooked erections. I was shocked when she went ahead and circ'ed her second son given all the issues with the first.

My other nephew also had too much skin taken and he suffered an infection during the healing process. I didn't ask what the final outcome of that was.

Another sister and I decided that if we had boys we wouldn't risk it. Luckily both of our husbands agreed. My DH isn't American but was circ'ed as a teenager in an attempt by his parents to Americanize him. He knows the difference and wishes he could have his foreskin back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/
This is from 1997 but many of the posters here are still saying the same thing. It doesn't hurt them, they won't remember, or some other brainwashed reason.

Topicals woefully inadequate

Rabbi Ariel Asa has performed hundreds of circumcisions. When families request it, he says he puts an anesthetic on the skin, in an effort to reduce some of the pain. But he admits it's not very effective.

"Due to the fact that moyels (the people who do the procedure) do it very quickly and the pain that the baby experiences is minimal, I don't think that the overall benefits are gained," he says.

But the researchers found that while topical anesthetics may help initially, they are woefully inadequate during foreskin separation and incision.

They concluded that if circumcision must be performed, it should be preceded by an injected anesthetic.

In fact, they found the results so compelling that they took the unusual step of stopping the study before it was scheduled to end rather than subjecting any more babies to circumcision without anesthesia.

Uh... Both my sons had topical, then local. I think that's standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/
This is from 1997 but many of the posters here are still saying the same thing. It doesn't hurt them, they won't remember, or some other brainwashed reason.

Topicals woefully inadequate

Rabbi Ariel Asa has performed hundreds of circumcisions. When families request it, he says he puts an anesthetic on the skin, in an effort to reduce some of the pain. But he admits it's not very effective.

"Due to the fact that moyels (the people who do the procedure) do it very quickly and the pain that the baby experiences is minimal, I don't think that the overall benefits are gained," he says.

But the researchers found that while topical anesthetics may help initially, they are woefully inadequate during foreskin separation and incision.

They concluded that if circumcision must be performed, it should be preceded by an injected anesthetic.

In fact, they found the results so compelling that they took the unusual step of stopping the study before it was scheduled to end rather than subjecting any more babies to circumcision without anesthesia.

Uh... Both my sons had topical, then local. I think that's standard.

Mine too, plus a sugar pacifier.