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

[Anonymous]

To answer original poster, I am in DC but originally from Europe. My family would be weirded out if they had to change a diaper and see a circumsized penis. It would just look too strange. No big philosophical ideas about it.
I am glad that since the circ/no circ proportion for new babies is 50/50, my DS won't be alone in this.

[Anonymous]

No one complains about a circd penis, many will complain or have physical issues with an uncircd. Since the change in stance by the aap in 2012 the rate of the circd should increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one complains about a circd penis, many will complain or have physical issues with an uncircd. Since the change in stance by the aap in 2012 the rate of the circd should increase.

Stop bullshitting answers that may lead to uninformed parents circumcising their sons please. Physical issues with intact penises are rare - and not more common than with circumcised ones. In fact the risks of circumcision like infection, bleeding, too much or too little cut, uneven cuts, necessary second or third cuts to fix messed up circs, less sensitivity during intercourse in adulthood etc. etc. are far more common than actual physical problems with intact penises.

No one complains about a circ'd penis because it is private, embarrassing to admit for men etc. They will just think what's happening to them is how it's supposed to be. Sadly.

The only reason doctors change their opinion on circ yes or no is if insurances cover it or not. If insurance covers doctors will recommend circumcision. It is ALL about making money. Nothing. Else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I strongly recommend you and all pro-circ parents talk to doctors outside the US or actually informed doctors within the US. You will get very different responses than what you probably expect. Circumcision is common practice in the US, yes. Ask a doctor in Europe "So should we circumcise our son after birth?" and let's see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I strongly recommend you and all pro-circ parents talk to doctors outside the US or actually informed doctors within the US. You will get very different responses than what you probably expect. Circumcision is common practice in the US, yes. Ask a doctor in Europe "So should we circumcise our son after birth?" and let's see what happens.

There is a huge difference between "it's not necessary and I don't recommend it" and the crazy PP's "abusive mutilation" overreaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one complains about a circd penis, many will complain or have physical issues with an uncircd. Since the change in stance by the aap in 2012 the rate of the circd should increase.

Stop bullshitting answers that may lead to uninformed parents circumcising their sons please. Physical issues with intact penises are rare - and not more common than with circumcised ones. In fact the risks of circumcision like infection, bleeding, too much or too little cut, uneven cuts, necessary second or third cuts to fix messed up circs, less sensitivity during intercourse in adulthood etc. etc. are far more common than actual physical problems with intact penises.

No one complains about a circ'd penis because it is private, embarrassing to admit for men etc. They will just think what's happening to them is how it's supposed to be. Sadly.

The only reason doctors change their opinion on circ yes or no is if insurances cover it or not. If insurance covers doctors will recommend circumcision. It is ALL about making money. Nothing. Else.

Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs , penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection.
For female partners, male circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer, genital ulceration, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and HPV. Although male circumcision has risks including pain, bleeding, and infection, more serious complications are rare.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

[Anonymous]

Lack of circumcision:

• Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections in infancy. Risk = 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 for uncircumcised infants and 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 for circumcised infants. Higher risk of UTI at older ages as well. Overall lifetime cumulative prevalence of UTI = 1 in 3 for uncircumcised males compared with 1 in 20 for circumcised males, respectively.

• Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: namely kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

• One in ~400–900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis, which occurs more than 20 times more commonly in uncircumcised men. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require complete or partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is extraordinarily rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figure of 1 in 100,000).

• Higher risk of prostate cancer (50–100% higher in uncircumcised men)

• Is associated with 3-fold higher risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. This includes balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), balanoposthitis (inflammation of glans and foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin that will not return after retraction). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown or much rarer in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10–50. Risk of these is even higher in diabetic men.

• Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate 1 in 10 older children and men requiring circumcision later in life, when the cost is 10 times higher, the procedure is less convenient, and the cosmetic result can be lesser, as stitches or tissue glue are required, as compared with circumcisions done in infancy.

• Increases by 2–4 fold the risk of thrush and sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes (HSV-2), syphilis, chancroid, Trichomonas vaginalis and thrush.

• Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 2 to 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STIs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

• In the female partners of uncircumcised men lack of male circumcision is associated with an up to 5 fold higher incidence of cervical cancer (caused by sexually transmitted HPV), genital herpes, Trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis (formerly called “Gardnerella”), and possibly Chlamydia (which is a cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility from blockage of fallopian tubes, and ectopic pregnancy).

Getting circumcised will result in:

• Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.

• Improved hygiene.

• Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.

• Much lower chance of acquiring HIV, the AIDS virus, heterosexually.

• Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer.

• Slightly lower risk of prostate cancer.

• More favourable hygiene for the man’s sexual partner.

• Much lower risk of cervical cancer and Chlamydia (and thus infertility and other problems) in the female sexual partner.

• More favorable sexual function and experience, with no reduction in sensation during arousal or in the sensitivity of the flaccid penis.

• A penis that is regarded by most men and women as being more attractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lack of circumcision:

• Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections in infancy. Risk = 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 for uncircumcised infants and 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 for circumcised infants. Higher risk of UTI at older ages as well. Overall lifetime cumulative prevalence of UTI = 1 in 3 for uncircumcised males compared with 1 in 20 for circumcised males, respectively.

• Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: namely kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

• One in ~400–900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis, which occurs more than 20 times more commonly in uncircumcised men. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require complete or partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is extraordinarily rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figure of 1 in 100,000).

• Higher risk of prostate cancer (50–100% higher in uncircumcised men)

• Is associated with 3-fold higher risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. This includes balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), balanoposthitis (inflammation of glans and foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin that will not return after retraction). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown or much rarer in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10–50. Risk of these is even higher in diabetic men.

• Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate 1 in 10 older children and men requiring circumcision later in life, when the cost is 10 times higher, the procedure is less convenient, and the cosmetic result can be lesser, as stitches or tissue glue are required, as compared with circumcisions done in infancy.

• Increases by 2–4 fold the risk of thrush and sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes (HSV-2), syphilis, chancroid, Trichomonas vaginalis and thrush.

• Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 2 to 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STIs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

• In the female partners of uncircumcised men lack of male circumcision is associated with an up to 5 fold higher incidence of cervical cancer (caused by sexually transmitted HPV), genital herpes, Trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis (formerly called “Gardnerella”), and possibly Chlamydia (which is a cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility from blockage of fallopian tubes, and ectopic pregnancy).

Getting circumcised will result in:

• Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.

• Improved hygiene.

• Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.

• Much lower chance of acquiring HIV, the AIDS virus, heterosexually.

• Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer.

• Slightly lower risk of prostate cancer.

• More favourable hygiene for the man’s sexual partner.

• Much lower risk of cervical cancer and Chlamydia (and thus infertility and other problems) in the female sexual partner.

• More favorable sexual function and experience, with no reduction in sensation during arousal or in the sensitivity of the flaccid penis.

• A penis that is regarded by most men and women as being more attractive.

All perceived risks are fairly non existent anyway and the majority of the pro's you listed are mostly conjecture. A minor surgery on an incontinent, helpless, individual who has to stew with an open wound in a soiled diaper. Sounds wise and completely without risk. DH has had sex before and after his circumcision and I've been with circ'ed and intact men and intact was better. For DH too. Hard they look pretty much the same and hygiene really isn't an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs , penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection.
For female partners, male circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer, genital ulceration, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and HPV. Although male circumcision has risks including pain, bleeding, and infection, more serious complications are rare.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

Cutting of the foreskin reduces risk of getting infected with HIV...you don't seriously believe that, do you? Have you even thought about what kind of ridiculously stupid assumption that even is? The only two things that ACTUALLY reduce risk of HIV infections are:

- not having sex
- using a condom

I can not believe how uninformed people are. This is America, isn't it...? Wow. The ONLY thing that needs to be done to make sure you don't catch STDs is using a condom. Always. Wow...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I strongly recommend you and all pro-circ parents talk to doctors outside the US or actually informed doctors within the US. You will get very different responses than what you probably expect. Circumcision is common practice in the US, yes. Ask a doctor in Europe "So should we circumcise our son after birth?" and let's see what happens.

There is a huge difference between "it's not necessary and I don't recommend it" and the crazy PP's "abusive mutilation" overreaction.

Circumcision is abusive mutilation. Abusive because it is unnecessary surgery on a newborn without that newborn's consent. It inflicts a wound, it inflicts pain - it is abusive. Mutilation because it takes a completely healthy part of a baby boy's body and cuts off a piece of it which is supposed to be there. Which nature made the way it is in order to protect the sensitive head of the penis. It gets cut off because America's messed up society these days thinks it looks better that way.

So yes. Circumcision is abusive mutilation of a baby boy's penis. Nobody has the right to do this to anybody and it is just sad that America (which always calls itself an advanced country...) is so far behind when it comes to protecting baby boys from misinformed parents and doctors. I say this again: Most other advanced countries do NOT practice routine circumcision and parents who would ask in those countries would get nothing but a shocked look from their doctor at best before being properly informed and sent home with a very clear "We don't do that here."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lack of circumcision:

• Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections in infancy. Risk = 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 for uncircumcised infants and 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 for circumcised infants. Higher risk of UTI at older ages as well. Overall lifetime cumulative prevalence of UTI = 1 in 3 for uncircumcised males compared with 1 in 20 for circumcised males, respectively.

• Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: namely kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

• One in ~400–900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis, which occurs more than 20 times more commonly in uncircumcised men. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require complete or partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is extraordinarily rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figure of 1 in 100,000).

• Higher risk of prostate cancer (50–100% higher in uncircumcised men)

• Is associated with 3-fold higher risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. This includes balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), balanoposthitis (inflammation of glans and foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin that will not return after retraction). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown or much rarer in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10–50. Risk of these is even higher in diabetic men.

• Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate 1 in 10 older children and men requiring circumcision later in life, when the cost is 10 times higher, the procedure is less convenient, and the cosmetic result can be lesser, as stitches or tissue glue are required, as compared with circumcisions done in infancy.

• Increases by 2–4 fold the risk of thrush and sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes (HSV-2), syphilis, chancroid, Trichomonas vaginalis and thrush.

• Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 2 to 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STIs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

• In the female partners of uncircumcised men lack of male circumcision is associated with an up to 5 fold higher incidence of cervical cancer (caused by sexually transmitted HPV), genital herpes, Trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis (formerly called “Gardnerella”), and possibly Chlamydia (which is a cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility from blockage of fallopian tubes, and ectopic pregnancy).

Getting circumcised will result in:

• Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.

• Improved hygiene.

• Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.

• Much lower chance of acquiring HIV, the AIDS virus, heterosexually.

• Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer.

• Slightly lower risk of prostate cancer.

• More favourable hygiene for the man’s sexual partner.

• Much lower risk of cervical cancer and Chlamydia (and thus infertility and other problems) in the female sexual partner.

• More favorable sexual function and experience, with no reduction in sensation during arousal or in the sensitivity of the flaccid penis.

• A penis that is regarded by most men and women as being more attractive.

Where do you get this BS from? Try telling that to men and their partners in the world outside the US and they will LAUGH IN YOUR FACE. Most of what you said is pure fabrication and the rest is misinformed or misleading. NOTHING above is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I strongly recommend you and all pro-circ parents talk to doctors outside the US or actually informed doctors within the US. You will get very different responses than what you probably expect. Circumcision is common practice in the US, yes. Ask a doctor in Europe "So should we circumcise our son after birth?" and let's see what happens.

There is a huge difference between "it's not necessary and I don't recommend it" and the crazy PP's "abusive mutilation" overreaction.

Circumcision is abusive mutilation. Abusive because it is unnecessary surgery on a newborn without that newborn's consent. It inflicts a wound, it inflicts pain - it is abusive. Mutilation because it takes a completely healthy part of a baby boy's body and cuts off a piece of it which is supposed to be there. Which nature made the way it is in order to protect the sensitive head of the penis. It gets cut off because America's messed up society these days thinks it looks better that way.

So yes. Circumcision is abusive mutilation of a baby boy's penis. Nobody has the right to do this to anybody and it is just sad that America (which always calls itself an advanced country...) is so far behind when it comes to protecting baby boys from misinformed parents and doctors. I say this again: Most other advanced countries do NOT practice routine circumcision and parents who would ask in those countries would get nothing but a shocked look from their doctor at best before being properly informed and sent home with a very clear "We don't do that here."

+1,000,000

[Anonymous]

OP, I co-op'ed in both my sons' preschool classes & had to take the kids to the bathroom. Out of the two classes, only one boy was not circ'ed. Just like people on this board seem to be way more frugal than most people I encounter IRL & more liberal, there also seem to be more fom the fervent anti-circ crowd.

[Anonymous]

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

Many more.

[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.

Different poster, but PP has a point, even if not expressed very well. It's not about wishing that bad things happen (surely no-one does) but the people who insist that they did/are doing the right thing by mutilating their sons just don't get it. It seems that the only way that they will truly understand is if they see the impacts first hand. Most of the impacts are minimal and difficult to "see" but botched circs are surprisingly common.

And yet, even when one son's circ is botched, parents go ahead and justify their decision by cutting their next child.