Non Jews and Circumcision - Question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The man has to be under anesthesia for almost an hour, there are hundreds of stitches and the penis swells up 3-4 times it’s size. It’s not something that comes without risk.
Man I know had to have it done as the foreskin wasn’t retracting even at age 19.

Wow. That would be horrible if it were true (actually, some guys would probably like to claim the 3x-4x thing).

Try a little swelling for a couple of days, treatable with OTC meds

https://myhealth.alberta.ca/Health/aftercareinformation/pages/conditions.aspx?hwid=ug3919

A friend whose son had to be circed as a teenager said she & her husband didn't regret not doing it when he was a baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White, non jew and our son was definitely circumcised. It is hard enough to get our son to wipe and wash hands after going to the bathroom. If not circumcised, you will be dealing with having to help him clean himself for a long time. And yes, I have seen the infections when not cleaned properly.

Oh please. My 15 year old intact son has never once had a problem. And neither have my intact daughters, who also have folds, nooks, and crannies and also produce smegma as all normal mammals do. The "infection" dog won't hunt, because it's a complete myth.

As a mom, not having grown up with a penis, I had no idea I was supposed to pull the skin back to clean my baby boy. I was really embarrassed when I went to the pediatrician and she discovered that the tip of my son's penis was red and swollen because of the smegma buildup that we hadn't been cleaning properly. As a preschooler, we regularly have problems with his penis getting red and sore (he will complain it hurts) when he doesn't clean properly. Pretty soon, he will be of an age when mom and dad can't help him. I'm glad it wasn't an issue for your son but it is for some kids.

This is false information. You are not at all supposed to pull the foreskin back to clean it. Ever! The foreskin is fused to the glans of the penis in infancy by the synechia, aka the balanopreputial lamina, a membrane that fuses the two skin surfaces together. In infancy, there is literally no space for anything to accumulate under the foreskin because it is attached to the glans exactly like the fingernail is bonded to the nail bed.

Your pediatrician gave you outdated information that could in all likelihood have led to or be leading to damage to your son's penis if you are still following the advice to retract and clean. Premature and forced retraction can cause tearing, bleeding, and scarring as you prematurely separate the foreskin from the glans. The AAP says don't do it.

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/bathing-skin-care/Pages/Care-for-an-Uncircumcised-Penis.aspx

http://arlingtonpediatrics.com/files/2014/07/Care-of-the-Uncircumcised-Penis.pdf

Soap is also highly irritating to mucous membranes, and should never be used on the inside of the foreskin any more than it should be used on the inside of the vagina or labia.

Sorry for the confusion. I realized that I didn't mention that my son was circumcised but he was a premie so the doctor left a bit of skin. As a baby, he looked like he wasn't circumcised. We were told he would grow into it and it would look circumcised when he was older. I wasn't suggesting the doctor told me to pull back skin that was attached. His skin retracted and I was told we needed to clean under the skin everyday. I have seen the exact advice on every website because of the risk of infection. He has experienced the redness and soreness when he doesn't clean well. I realize it is a controversial topic. To each there own. For us, the benefits outweighed the risks / harm. Others may disagree. Do what feels right to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless there is a medical reason (at birth) or religious belief, I recommend against it. Although more problematic and/or painful later in life, circumcision can be elected by the male if needed or desired. Children are NOT property and parents should NOT be the ones who change the body God/Nature has provided in their child-- unless imminent for health/quality of life. I was circumcised shortly after birth-- wish I had been left intact. There are pluses and minuses with respect to health, sexual pleasure and other factors-- but parents, PLEASE LET YOUR SON DECIDE-- not you.

Why does this make it okay?

Because beliefs about God are important to human culture? Geez, I didn’t circumcise our son, but please.

So you're cool with families that circumcise their daughters because it's part of their religious beliefs? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It can't be OK to circumcise one gender because religion without also being OK to circumcise the other because religion.

I’m “cool” with people doing minor surgical procedures that do not significantly impair genital function in the name of their religions, though I do not choose to do those procedures on my own children. There is a wide range of female circumcision practices, some of which I would not be “cool” with. I’m not sure why it’s so difficult to not be so black-and-white and my-way-or-the-highway about this.

[Anonymous]

If it was suppose to be cut off, men wouldn't be born with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White, non jew and our son was definitely circumcised. It is hard enough to get our son to wipe and wash hands after going to the bathroom. If not circumcised, you will be dealing with having to help him clean himself for a long time. And yes, I have seen the infections when not cleaned properly.

Oh please. My 15 year old intact son has never once had a problem. And neither have my intact daughters, who also have folds, nooks, and crannies and also produce smegma as all normal mammals do. The "infection" dog won't hunt, because it's a complete myth.

As a mom, not having grown up with a penis, I had no idea I was supposed to pull the skin back to clean my baby boy. I was really embarrassed when I went to the pediatrician and she discovered that the tip of my son's penis was red and swollen because of the smegma buildup that we hadn't been cleaning properly. As a preschooler, we regularly have problems with his penis getting red and sore (he will complain it hurts) when he doesn't clean properly. Pretty soon, he will be of an age when mom and dad can't help him. I'm glad it wasn't an issue for your son but it is for some kids.

This is false information. You are not at all supposed to pull the foreskin back to clean it. Ever! The foreskin is fused to the glans of the penis in infancy by the synechia, aka the balanopreputial lamina, a membrane that fuses the two skin surfaces together. In infancy, there is literally no space for anything to accumulate under the foreskin because it is attached to the glans exactly like the fingernail is bonded to the nail bed.

Your pediatrician gave you outdated information that could in all likelihood have led to or be leading to damage to your son's penis if you are still following the advice to retract and clean. Premature and forced retraction can cause tearing, bleeding, and scarring as you prematurely separate the foreskin from the glans. The AAP says don't do it.

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/bathing-skin-care/Pages/Care-for-an-Uncircumcised-Penis.aspx

http://arlingtonpediatrics.com/files/2014/07/Care-of-the-Uncircumcised-Penis.pdf

Soap is also highly irritating to mucous membranes, and should never be used on the inside of the foreskin any more than it should be used on the inside of the vagina or labia.

Sorry for the confusion. I realized that I didn't mention that my son was circumcised but he was a premie so the doctor left a bit of skin. As a baby, he looked like he wasn't circumcised. We were told he would grow into it and it would look circumcised when he was older. I wasn't suggesting the doctor told me to pull back skin that was attached. His skin retracted and I was told we needed to clean under the skin everyday. I have seen the exact advice on every website because of the risk of infection. He has experienced the redness and soreness when he doesn't clean well.

But the risk of infection, redness and soreness resulted because you circumcised him, so his remnant foreskin didn't function as an intact foreskin would have. This is not what normally happens when you don't circumcise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless there is a medical reason (at birth) or religious belief, I recommend against it. Although more problematic and/or painful later in life, circumcision can be elected by the male if needed or desired. Children are NOT property and parents should NOT be the ones who change the body God/Nature has provided in their child-- unless imminent for health/quality of life. I was circumcised shortly after birth-- wish I had been left intact. There are pluses and minuses with respect to health, sexual pleasure and other factors-- but parents, PLEASE LET YOUR SON DECIDE-- not you.

Why does this make it okay?

Because beliefs about God are important to human culture? Geez, I didn’t circumcise our son, but please.

So you're cool with families that circumcise their daughters because it's part of their religious beliefs? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It can't be OK to circumcise one gender because religion without also being OK to circumcise the other because religion.

I’m “cool” with people doing minor surgical procedures that do not significantly impair genital function in the name of their religions, though I do not choose to do those procedures on my own children. There is a wide range of female circumcision practices, some of which I would not be “cool” with. I’m not sure why it’s so difficult to not be so black-and-white and my-way-or-the-highway about this.

You're right, there is a wide range of female circumcision practices -- many people don't know that. The World Health Organisation has a classification system:

http://who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/

So you're OK with the ones short of total infibulation? It would be OK with you if people believe that they should excise the clitoral hoods of their daughters, a la Type Ia (removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only), for religious reasons? That shouldn't significantly impair genital function.

The WHO -- and the U.S. for that matter -- have a zero tolerance policy for even the mildest forms of female circumcision that are at least structurally analogous to male circumcision, although the male prepuce is much larger than the female prepuce so removing it results in a much more significant alteration of structure and function.

I am pretty much black and white when it comes to human rights. Baby boys don't deserve any less protection or consideration than do baby girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless there is a medical reason (at birth) or religious belief, I recommend against it. Although more problematic and/or painful later in life, circumcision can be elected by the male if needed or desired. Children are NOT property and parents should NOT be the ones who change the body God/Nature has provided in their child-- unless imminent for health/quality of life. I was circumcised shortly after birth-- wish I had been left intact. There are pluses and minuses with respect to health, sexual pleasure and other factors-- but parents, PLEASE LET YOUR SON DECIDE-- not you.

Why does this make it okay?

Because beliefs about God are important to human culture? Geez, I didn’t circumcise our son, but please.

So you're cool with families that circumcise their daughters because it's part of their religious beliefs? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It can't be OK to circumcise one gender because religion without also being OK to circumcise the other because religion.

I’m “cool” with people doing minor surgical procedures that do not significantly impair genital function in the name of their religions, though I do not choose to do those procedures on my own children. There is a wide range of female circumcision practices, some of which I would not be “cool” with. I’m not sure why it’s so difficult to not be so black-and-white and my-way-or-the-highway about this.

You're right, there is a wide range of female circumcision practices -- many people don't know that. The World Health Organisation has a classification system:

http://who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/

So you're OK with the ones short of total infibulation? It would be OK with you if people believe that they should excise the clitoral hoods of their daughters, a la Type Ia (removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only), for religious reasons? That shouldn't significantly impair genital function.

The WHO -- and the U.S. for that matter -- have a zero tolerance policy for even the mildest forms of female circumcision that are at least structurally analogous to male circumcision, although the male prepuce is much larger than the female prepuce so removing it results in a much more significant alteration of structure and function.

I am pretty much black and white when it comes to human rights. Baby boys don't deserve any less protection or consideration than do baby girls.

I really don’t care to sort through the typology of circumcisions and give you a list? Some are okay, some significantly impair function. Again, I choose not to circumcise my sons but find you really effing obnoxious. The male circumcision practiced in the US is not an important “human rights” issue in my book. You’re one of those self-righteous people who’d probably have been a zealous missionary in another era.

[Anonymous]

Seems like it's a parental decision that is made for a host of reasons, and basically should be a personal decision. Do what you think makes sense! For us, we circumcised our son and would circumcise another boy if we had one. After reading a lot about it, I ultimately agree with the AAP position, which is that the benefits outweigh the risks (but it's true they leave it up to parents, without a hard recommendation). There is research suggestion higher infection and STD rates...though it is true that these effects are small. Ultimately, we decided it was best. But plenty of people don't circumcise and that's totally fine too.

[Anonymous]

Well-educated, white, (upper?) MC dad here. Neither of our sons (ages 4 and 7 are circ'd), I am not either. My oldest says all the other boys in his school are though, but it doesn't bother him that he isn't, and neither have had any infections, or other problems with their penises, and neither have I. What you decide to do is your business, but there is really no good reason to do it. I think most boys are circ'd because their dads are too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The man has to be under anesthesia for almost an hour, there are hundreds of stitches and the penis swells up 3-4 times it’s size. It’s not something that comes without risk.
Man I know had to have it done as the foreskin wasn’t retracting even at age 19.

Wow. That would be horrible if it were true (actually, some guys would probably like to claim the 3x-4x thing).

Try a little swelling for a couple of days, treatable with OTC meds

https://myhealth.alberta.ca/Health/aftercareinformation/pages/conditions.aspx?hwid=ug3919

A friend whose son had to be circed as a teenager said she & her husband didn't regret not doing it when he was a baby.

We just did this last year with our teen son at children’s hospital and that’s what it was. Unless you viewed the person after surgery you do not know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I really don’t care to sort through the typology of circumcisions and give you a list? Some are okay, some significantly impair function. Again, I choose not to circumcise my sons but find you really effing obnoxious. The male circumcision practiced in the US is not an important “human rights” issue in my book. You’re one of those self-righteous people who’d probably have been a zealous missionary in another era.

Think what you like. I think it's wrong not to speak out about human rights violations and discrimination in whatever form or shape they take -- whether it's discrimination against people of color, women, LGBT, poor people, religious minorities, or other disenfranchised people who have no power and no say in the harms inflicted on them. A whole lot of harm to children is done in the name of parental choice and parental rights, and circumcision is one of those harms. In this country, the circumcision of boys is so normalized and the circumcision of girls is so abhorrent that people don't even realize the cultural blinders they have on. I think it's the right thing to do to speak out against it. If I'd been alive during the age of slavery in this country, I hope I would have been a zealous missionary for abolition. If I'd been alive during the time before women got the vote, I hope I would have been a zealous missionary for full suffrage.

[Anonymous]

It's genital mutilation and I wouldn't do it to my sons. My husband is European and they don't circumcise much over there and he is uncut and I prefer it that way.

Uncut isn't dirtier or smellier or unhealthier. Little boys are taught how to clean themselves just like little girls are.

If a man wants to be circumcised when he an adult then he can go to a doctor and have it done. Parents shouldn't be making that decision for him.

[Anonymous]

We are UMC white people and we did not cut our son. My DH is cut and couldn't find a good enough reason to do it, so we didn't.

My sister and her DH are an interacial couple, UMC, and did not cut their two boys. Dad is cut.

My brother and his wife and UMC white people who did have their son cut. Dad is cut.

Many of our friends fall somewhere in there and have cut their sons. We asked a lot of our friends with boys. Even the more hipster ones seem to have cut as well, which surprised us.

I think it's something that's falling out of favor, but because so many men are cut, they cut their sons. It does not seem to cause huge issues either way, which is why doctors don't have clear YES or NO guidance.

[Anonymous]

We did not circumcise any of our three sons. Husband is Jewish and circumcised. He’s a partner at a big law firm, if that matters. We live in Manhattan (I’m originally from DC).

Our pediatrician says it is about 50/50 at our practice, but that most who circumcise do it for religious reasons. Circumcising is definitely seen as a red state/red neck/uneducated thing here, in the same box as if you are anti vaccination or anti climate change.

[Anonymous]

I've found its the mothers who push for the circumcision. I have a friend who said she thought uncircumcised penises are nasty looking and want her sons to have attractive penises for their future partners. Another friend said she didn't feel comfortable teaching her son how to clean himself if he had a foreskin so she wanted it removed. They didn't really give it a second thought.