did you circumcise your son?

[Anonymous]

I really wonder why so many people take other people's opinions on this issue so personally. Not just here. Everywhere else too.

[sandpapertongue]

ahh..nevermind.

[Anonymous]

I am Jewish, so did go ahead and circumcise my son but opted for anesthesia versus a mohel (I actually used a pediatrician who became a mohel). I recently returned to DC from Berkeley, CA. With the exception of one friend, none of the boys we knew well were circumcised (none were Jewish either...) All mother's group discussions always quickly reduced the choice to an act barbarism. I took a birth class and the doula who ran it confronted me in front of the group about how important it was for little boys to retain their "papoose" even after I maintained politely that it was a cultural decision. Berkeley is an extreme enviornment, but probably a predictor of how the majority of mainstream, liberal and educated people are headed.

[Anonymous]

Yes, we did - deciding factor was my dad, who was born in Europe and not circumcised. He said if he had a son he would definitely circumcise - said not being circumcised had caused him a lot of physical pain at times over the years (I didn't really ask for details). Religion played absolutely no role in the decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i read in several places that babies often don't cry during circumcision because they actually go into shock, because of the pain. i am not sure if this is true, but it made sense to me that if someone cut off part of my body, i'd go into shock. i am curious if anyone has seen research supporting this.

it does seem very hypocritical to me that we so willingly do this to boys and call it circumcision, but wouldn't think of doing it to girls (and we judge harshly those in other cultures who do it to girls and call it mutilation).

the difference is that in boys the skin is cut off while in girls the whole clitoris is removed and often the vulva is stiched shut with only a small opening for urine and menstruation to come out.

So, you think it would be okay if we just wanted to cut off some of the girls skin - say maybe, her foreskin? You wouldn't have a problem with that? There is actually some research that shows that removing the girls foreskin could help prevent some UTIs. What do you think, should we start taking off baby girl's foreskins? It would definitely make it easier to clean.

By the way, even removing the girls foreskin - heck, even just putting a tiny cut in her foreskin - is still illegal by US law. Any and all cutting of baby girls, from the most benign to the most horrendous, is all forbidden in this country.

I'm not defending any type of circ practice, for boys or girls, but I do think it's important to note that in the cultures that circ girls, they are doing it specifically to make sure her sex drive is reduced/eliminated and she doesn't sleep around. The reason is very different from why people circ boys.

Actually, "Baby 411", Dr. Fields and Brown's book, says that one of the original reasons for the practice of circumcision in the U.S. was as an attempt to decrease masturbation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i read in several places that babies often don't cry during circumcision because they actually go into shock, because of the pain. i am not sure if this is true, but it made sense to me that if someone cut off part of my body, i'd go into shock. i am curious if anyone has seen research supporting this.

it does seem very hypocritical to me that we so willingly do this to boys and call it circumcision, but wouldn't think of doing it to girls (and we judge harshly those in other cultures who do it to girls and call it mutilation).

the difference is that in boys the skin is cut off while in girls the whole clitoris is removed and often the vulva is stiched shut with only a small opening for urine and menstruation to come out.

So, you think it would be okay if we just wanted to cut off some of the girls skin - say maybe, her foreskin? You wouldn't have a problem with that? There is actually some research that shows that removing the girls foreskin could help prevent some UTIs. What do you think, should we start taking off baby girl's foreskins? It would definitely make it easier to clean.

By the way, even removing the girls foreskin - heck, even just putting a tiny cut in her foreskin - is still illegal by US law. Any and all cutting of baby girls, from the most benign to the most horrendous, is all forbidden in this country.

I'm not defending any type of circ practice, for boys or girls, but I do think it's important to note that in the cultures that circ girls, they are doing it specifically to make sure her sex drive is reduced/eliminated and she doesn't sleep around. The reason is very different from why people circ boys.

Actually, "Baby 411", Dr. Fields and Brown's book, says that one of the original reasons for the practice of circumcision in the U.S. was as an attempt to decrease masturbation.

I realize that. But it's not the reason done it's done today. Plus, it never worked. FGM works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i read in several places that babies often don't cry during circumcision because they actually go into shock, because of the pain. i am not sure if this is true, but it made sense to me that if someone cut off part of my body, i'd go into shock. i am curious if anyone has seen research supporting this.

it does seem very hypocritical to me that we so willingly do this to boys and call it circumcision, but wouldn't think of doing it to girls (and we judge harshly those in other cultures who do it to girls and call it mutilation).

the difference is that in boys the skin is cut off while in girls the whole clitoris is removed and often the vulva is stiched shut with only a small opening for urine and menstruation to come out.

So, you think it would be okay if we just wanted to cut off some of the girls skin - say maybe, her foreskin? You wouldn't have a problem with that? There is actually some research that shows that removing the girls foreskin could help prevent some UTIs. What do you think, should we start taking off baby girl's foreskins? It would definitely make it easier to clean.

By the way, even removing the girls foreskin - heck, even just putting a tiny cut in her foreskin - is still illegal by US law. Any and all cutting of baby girls, from the most benign to the most horrendous, is all forbidden in this country.

I'm not defending any type of circ practice, for boys or girls, but I do think it's important to note that in the cultures that circ girls, they are doing it specifically to make sure her sex drive is reduced/eliminated and she doesn't sleep around. The reason is very different from why people circ boys.

Actually, "Baby 411", Dr. Fields and Brown's book, says that one of the original reasons for the practice of circumcision in the U.S. was as an attempt to decrease masturbation.

I realize that. But it's not the reason done it's done today. Plus, it never worked. FGM works.

Same poster again, and then I'll stop. I'm not defending either type of circumcision; I was just trying to illustrate why I don't feel they are comparable to one another. I don't express myself well in writing about this topic. But all I can say is that I've never had a male relative complain to me that he can't get married because he's been circ'd. That no educated woman would take him. But I have two female cousins (sisters) who are facing this potentially life-long disaster right now.

[Anonymous]

Boy due in 4 weeks. When we talked to our OB about it, I mentioned that for dh, everyone was cir'd and dh agreed he would have felt extremely uncomfortable being the only one in his class that was different. I raised that it I'd read things that seemed to say it isn't as common now, even among us (admitted) WASPs. OB said that was BS, and whatever I was reading was biased. She said nearly everyone she delivers does it. She also said there was a wave of people choosing not to around 5 years ago, but it was over and it was back to being standard practice again.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Health benefits. With local anesthesia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boy due in 4 weeks. When we talked to our OB about it, I mentioned that for dh, everyone was cir'd and dh agreed he would have felt extremely uncomfortable being the only one in his class that was different. I raised that it I'd read things that seemed to say it isn't as common now, even among us (admitted) WASPs. OB said that was BS, and whatever I was reading was biased. She said nearly everyone she delivers does it. She also said there was a wave of people choosing not to around 5 years ago, but it was over and it was back to being standard practice again.

The stats are still 50/50 -- your doc is just one datapoint.

Latest analysis:
http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/8/1/64
CONCLUSIONS Strong evidence suggests circumcision can prevent human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome acquisition in sub-Saharan African men. These findings remain uncertain in men residing in other countries. The role of adult nontherapeutic male circumcision in preventing sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections, and penile cancer remains unclear. Current evidence fails to recommend widespread neonatal circumcision for these purposes.

[Anonymous]

and an article on above study:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/circumcision-health-benefit-virtually-nil-study-finds/article1427972/

[Anonymous]

Just surprised to see a few Jewish moms not circumcising, considering it's a commandment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am the poster you quoted. I'm glad that you feel that you "know better" than all these doctors conducting the study, some of which come from the likes of Johns Hopkins and the rest. First, to equate circumcision to certain practices related to female genitalia mutilation is foolish and stupid. It is not the same thing and you know it.

Second, there is no government conspiracy for circumcizing boys. Think about it logically, why would the government care one way or another? Stop being so paranoid.

And third, circumcision done correctly is pretty much painless for babies and there are no reputable studies (key word REPUTABLE) that say there is a decrease in feeling, etc. So many of us weigh what we consider the risks (almost none) to the benefits (cited in the study) and make that decision.

Did you read the Canadian article? Why do you think it is that none of the rest of the world interprets the research the way the U.S. doctors do? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm not talking about conspiracy; I'm talking about cultural bias. Most of the doctors in this country are circumcised, so they have a strong bias for it. That means they are going to downplay risks, and present the benefits as much more weighty than they are. No other pediatric association in the world encourages circumcision; in fact they outright discourage it. You literally have to search far and wide to find a pediatrician who will do a routine neonatal circumcision in countries like Canada, England, Norway, Germany, Italy, Mexico, etc. etc. Do you think they are simply not aware of the great benefits?

Can you name five risks of circumcision? Can you explain what is so potentially troublesome about a foreskin that it must be removed within hours of birth? I think many people circumcise more out of fear than any other reason, and they truly have not explored the risks, nor have they made any attempt to discover how the normal (intact) penis functions.

That is actually pretty funny considering my second son was born in the UK and was circumcised. I can tell you, it is pretty routine over there. No one even raised an eyebrow. So please...you really don't know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You could make a case that there are health benefits to cutting off any number of body parts. Men die from breast cancer. Women die from labial cancer. People break their little toes and get gangrene in them. Why not cut these body parts off at birth? There would certainly be health benefits from doing so, and it's not like they are essential body parts.

Maybe you could tell us, since you seem to have done lots of research on the topic, is the foreskin more prone to trouble than any other body part?

And this is why people can't take you seriously. Yes, getting circumcised is the same thing are cutting off a breast for men. Please...do you really think you sound intelligent when you make these arguments. You seem to think that circumcision is the same as losing a body part. It isn't and you just sound stupid saying as much.

[Anonymous]

Nope, no circ for my two boys. This is the way nature made them, and that's the way they'll stay until they get a choice.