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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have 10000s of nephews because the complications don't occur that frequently or you lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have 10000s of nephews because the complications don't occur that frequently or you lie.

I take that back, she must have had 1000 million nephews, and using her odds the uncircd one will die of penile cancer. The whole post is trolly troll troll troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must have 10000s of nephews because the complications don't occur that frequently or you lie.

I take that back, she must have had 1000 million nephews, and using her odds the uncircd one will die of penile cancer. The whole post is trolly troll troll troll.

Accept the fact that I'm speaking the truth. Maybe the odds are against it but it is the absolute truth.
Now, do I really care about people circumcising their sons? Not really. I'm saying why we didn't. That's all. If you choose not to believe me that's your prerogative.

[Anonymous]

I almost wish for something bad to happen to all the poster's sons who are so vehemently denying that circumcision is anything else than conforming to warped American aesthetic standards these days. Because I know full well that the only way to convince those uninformed, stubborn people not to mutilate their babies penis is if they do anyway and something really bad happens during or after the procedure. And THAT is sad. That first something bad has to happen to your baby, before you properly think about doing it again to your second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I almost wish for something bad to happen to all the poster's sons who are so vehemently denying that circumcision is anything else than conforming to warped American aesthetic standards these days. Because I know full well that the only way to convince those uninformed, stubborn people not to mutilate their babies penis is if they do anyway and something really bad happens during or after the procedure. And THAT is sad. That first something bad has to happen to your baby, before you properly think about doing it again to your second.

I very rarely say this, but you have problems. That bad thing has already happened to your children, so good luck to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I almost wish for something bad to happen to all the poster's sons who are so vehemently denying that circumcision is anything else than conforming to warped American aesthetic standards these days. Because I know full well that the only way to convince those uninformed, stubborn people not to mutilate their babies penis is if they do anyway and something really bad happens during or after the procedure. And THAT is sad. That first something bad has to happen to your baby, before you properly think about doing it again to your second.

I very rarely say this, but you have problems. That bad thing has already happened to your children, so good luck to them.

I said "almost" for a reason. Obviously I don't actually wish for anything bad to happen to anybody...I am not like you so yeah...
However. The only way pro-circ parents will ever understand what they are really doing to their children is if they experience it first hand. Even if you list the facts, even if you provide studies, expert opinions, links...pro-circ parents just refuse to learn the truth. That's sad. Oh wait - you're a pro-circ parent. Never mind...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I almost wish for something bad to happen to all the poster's sons who are so vehemently denying that circumcision is anything else than conforming to warped American aesthetic standards these days. Because I know full well that the only way to convince those uninformed, stubborn people not to mutilate their babies penis is if they do anyway and something really bad happens during or after the procedure. And THAT is sad. That first something bad has to happen to your baby, before you properly think about doing it again to your second.

What a horrible post. The "almost" doesn't absolve you, PP. This post indicates a disturbed mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I almost wish for something bad to happen to all the poster's sons who are so vehemently denying that circumcision is anything else than conforming to warped American aesthetic standards these days. Because I know full well that the only way to convince those uninformed, stubborn people not to mutilate their babies penis is if they do anyway and something really bad happens during or after the procedure. And THAT is sad. That first something bad has to happen to your baby, before you properly think about doing it again to your second.

What a horrible post. The "almost" doesn't absolve you, PP. This post indicates a disturbed mind.

This post indicates someone who is seriously pissed of at parents mutilating their baby boys penises for no reason whatsoever beyond their own disturbed sense of aesthetics. And if you find my post more disturbing than that practice I could not care less about your opinion.

[Anonymous]

PP with the wildly disproportionate responses, you should probably talk to some doctors about circumcision. Even those who don't recommend don't think it is mutilation, abusive, perverse, etc. There is no need for the hysteria. Parents aren't performing them themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I almost wish for something bad to happen to all the poster's sons who are so vehemently denying that circumcision is anything else than conforming to warped American aesthetic standards these days. Because I know full well that the only way to convince those uninformed, stubborn people not to mutilate their babies penis is if they do anyway and something really bad happens during or after the procedure. And THAT is sad. That first something bad has to happen to your baby, before you properly think about doing it again to your second.

What a horrible post. The "almost" doesn't absolve you, PP. This post indicates a disturbed mind.

This post indicates someone who is seriously pissed of at parents mutilating their baby boys penises for no reason whatsoever beyond their own disturbed sense of aesthetics. And if you find my post more disturbing than that practice I could not care less about your opinion.

NP - you really do need some help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I almost wish for something bad to happen to all the poster's sons who are so vehemently denying that circumcision is anything else than conforming to warped American aesthetic standards these days. Because I know full well that the only way to convince those uninformed, stubborn people not to mutilate their babies penis is if they do anyway and something really bad happens during or after the procedure. And THAT is sad. That first something bad has to happen to your baby, before you properly think about doing it again to your second.

There you go, the first signs of losing an argument is to throw out logical counter arguments and start attacking and wishing something terrible happens to the competing view. I rest my case and provide this as a testament to the entire don't circ movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I almost wish for something bad to happen to all the poster's sons who are so vehemently denying that circumcision is anything else than conforming to warped American aesthetic standards these days. Because I know full well that the only way to convince those uninformed, stubborn people not to mutilate their babies penis is if they do anyway and something really bad happens during or after the procedure. And THAT is sad. That first something bad has to happen to your baby, before you properly think about doing it again to your second.

There you go, the first signs of losing an argument is to throw out logical counter arguments and start attacking and wishing something terrible happens to the competing view. I rest my case and provide this as a testament to the entire don't circ movement.

And I am also surprised this person didn't call someone a doo doo face and scream that she is going to tell her mommy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I almost wish for something bad to happen to all the poster's sons who are so vehemently denying that circumcision is anything else than conforming to warped American aesthetic standards these days. Because I know full well that the only way to convince those uninformed, stubborn people not to mutilate their babies penis is if they do anyway and something really bad happens during or after the procedure. And THAT is sad. That first something bad has to happen to your baby, before you properly think about doing it again to your second.

I very rarely say this, but you have problems. That bad thing has already happened to your children, so good luck to them.

I said "almost" for a reason. Obviously I don't actually wish for anything bad to happen to anybody...I am not like you so yeah...
However. The only way pro-circ parents will ever understand what they are really doing to their children is if they experience it first hand. Even if you list the facts, even if you provide studies, expert opinions, links...pro-circ parents just refuse to learn the truth. That's sad. Oh wait - you're a pro-circ parent. Never mind...

Dude! you aren't helping your cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Wrinkley!

[Anonymous]

There is more than one person posting against circ in this thread.