Did you get your son circumcised?

[Anonymous]

http://www.care2.com/causes/colorado-becomes-18th-state-to-not-fund-circumcisions.html

Because it's medically unnecessary!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WHO and NIH are pretty good sources. And, by the way, DC has relatively high rates of HIV - especially among nonwhite populations. Maybe you're white and figure your son would never have sex with an HIV positive black man or woman.

No one is saying circumcision is mandatory. Just that it is fine and has benefits.

I'm pretty sure that condoms are much more effective at preventing HIV than circumcision, so is consistent use of anti-retroviral medications among people who are HIV positive. In fact, I had an ex-boyfriend who was *gasp* black and HIV positive - we used condoms every time and I am still negative. I will teach my un-circumcised son to use a condom EVERY time he has sex to help prevent pregnancy, and transmission of HIV and other STDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I are currently debating whether to circumcise our son (not born yet). His primary concern is that, in this area, our son would be the odd man out if he were not circumcised and that would be traumatic for him. I am interested in hearing how many people did or didn't circumcise (the reasons behind that decision are less important). The last DCUMs discussions on the topic are over 3 years old and the trend may have changed quite a bit since then. I would also love to hear, from those of you who didn't circumcise, whether your boys have felt "different" or ostracized as a result.

Thanks so much for your help!

No. Nobody I know does. The doctors never mentioned it as an option either.

[Anonymous]

Crazy anti spankers, crazy anti circumcisers, crazy anti declawers ... I have had enough of you crazy women on DCUM for a long time! Bowing out to the real world now.

[Anonymous]

We circumcised our son, after giving it quite a bit of thought. Males in my family are not circ'ed, DH's family are.

My brother actually (who is not circ'ed) really recommended that we do it, which is part of what swayed us. He's older, and has had some issues with not being circ'ed and almost had to do it later in life.

Either decision is correct. I know it's tough!

[Anonymous]

We had DS circumcised. I had no preference either way, but DH was circ'd in his early 20's and had a painful recovery and wanted DS circumcised as an infant. FWIW, DH says once he'd healed sex felt the same as before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHO and NIH are pretty good sources. And, by the way, DC has relatively high rates of HIV - especially among nonwhite populations. Maybe you're white and figure your son would never have sex with an HIV positive black man or woman.

No one is saying circumcision is mandatory. Just that it is fine and has benefits.

Everyone agrees that being circ'd decreases the rate of HIV transmission. But the WHO is not intending to advise US parents. So they are not a good resource. The WHO is weighing risks and benefits worldwide, not those in the US. I don't have to think my son will never have unprotected sex to understand that the risk/benefit ration calculated by WHO does not apply to him.

Actually, you haven't read the studies (there were three). All three were ended early because the researchers stated that the evidence was so strong in favor of circumcision for reduction of HIV transmission that they could not ethically continue to run the study. However, there are huge problems with this approach. First, the circumcisions were done on adult males and required a period of abstinence that was impossible to control for, which most certainly reduced the amount of overall sex the men were having - this was amplified by the fact that the study ended early. Second, there is a cultural component that the studies ignore, which is the practice of "dry sex," in the cultures where the studies were conducted, which create an environment of much greater friction in the vagina, which makes transmission of HIV from male / female sex much more likely. The studies showed absolutely no reduction in transmission of HIV transmission from male to female or male to male. Only female to male, and this is highly likely to have been influenced by the "dry sex" issue.

While the bias of this group should be obvious by its name, if you're open to learning more about this, consider reading these issues. We did not circumcise but came close to doing so with our first because my husband simply thought it had never been a problem for him, so why not do it for our son. After research, however, we both became convinced it was the wrong choice for our family.

Our OB (another opposing circ) pointed us to this site and said it was very well researched, and as evidence-based as it gets.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

[Anonymous]

Here is a link to the study that found 117 neonatal deaths per year. Most experts think the number is greater due to hospital reporting practices.

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=a14d1e17c8364f348af25492d4a8dd3c&pi=5

[Anonymous]

We did not. Seemed like a needless procedure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We had DS circumcised. I had no preference either way, but DH was circ'd in his early 20's and had a painful recovery and wanted DS circumcised as an infant. FWIW, DH says once he'd healed sex felt the same as before.

What is the right age to get the end of your penis cut off? I am sure it is just as painful for infants but they don't have the right to object...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We had DS circumcised. I had no preference either way, but DH was circ'd in his early 20's and had a painful recovery and wanted DS circumcised as an infant. FWIW, DH says once he'd healed sex felt the same as before.

What is the right age to get the end of your penis cut off? I am sure it is just as painful for infants but they don't have the right to object...

Oh for gods sake... I am sure your infant would object to getting shots, blood taken, and other things as well. As parents you make these decisions for them knowing you are trying to do the best thing for them. Life is not peaches and cream and no infants should not be allowed to make such decisions even if they could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We had DS circumcised. I had no preference either way, but DH was circ'd in his early 20's and had a painful recovery and wanted DS circumcised as an infant. FWIW, DH says once he'd healed sex felt the same as before.

What is the right age to get the end of your penis cut off? I am sure it is just as painful for infants but they don't have the right to object...

Oh for gods sake... I am sure your infant would object to getting shots, blood taken, and other things as well. As parents you make these decisions for them knowing you are trying to do the best thing for them. Life is not peaches and cream and no infants should not be allowed to make such decisions even if they could.

Oh for gods sake... Circumcisions are an unnecessary procedure. Whereas getting immunizations is a necessity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We had DS circumcised. I had no preference either way, but DH was circ'd in his early 20's and had a painful recovery and wanted DS circumcised as an infant. FWIW, DH says once he'd healed sex felt the same as before.

What is the right age to get the end of your penis cut off? I am sure it is just as painful for infants but they don't have the right to object...

Oh for gods sake... I am sure your infant would object to getting shots, blood taken, and other things as well. As parents you make these decisions for them knowing you are trying to do the best thing for them. Life is not peaches and cream and no infants should not be allowed to make such decisions even if they could.

Oh for gods sake... Circumcisions are an unnecessary procedure. Whereas getting immunizations is a necessity.

Actually pp I never said it was necessary and I am not pro circumcision BUT enough with the bullshit comments. Some posters including yourself stop at nothing! Leave people and their own decisions alone. For some ppl they might believe it's necessary and it's none of your fucking business to judge them! They are not hurting their children or taking their rights away. I truly wonder how some of you believe the diarrhea that pours out of your mouths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually pp I never said it was necessary and I am not pro circumcision BUT enough with the bullshit comments. Some posters including yourself stop at nothing! Leave people and their own decisions alone. For some ppl they might believe it's necessary and it's none of your fucking business to judge them! They are not hurting their children or taking their rights away. I truly wonder how some of you believe the diarrhea that pours out of your mouths.

Not the PP you're quoting (either of them) but I think that's the point. If one circ's, one IS hurting their child and taking his rights away. Period.

[Anonymous]

Nope, didn't do it. Did a ton of research and decided against it. For the most part people seem to do it to look like everyone else which i dont believe is a good enough reason to cut genitals. Historically, I read somewhere that it become so popular in the US because of puritanical belief that it would decrease masturbation. All that said, afterward I saw reports regarding decreasing HIV transmission and it does make me wonder if I would have done it now. For now I plan on teaching him the importance of safe sex.