did you circumcise your son?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See, this is what makes me thing people who promote circumcision have done no research whatsoever. You don't even know that circumcision cuts off a body part - a healthy body part that is useful and functioning. A body part that rarely, if ever, develops any problems at all. A body part that, if some sort of issue develops, can be treated a lot easier than other body parts. Quite frankly, from a sheer risk-analysis standpoint it WOULD make more sense to cut off all boys breast tissue - because men are much more likely to contract and die from breast cancer than they are to experience any problem whatsoever with their foreskin. Obviously I'm not suggesting that we actually do this, but the point is that there are many other body parts which cause much worse trouble for men than the foreskin, yet somehow people in this country have decided that it is useless and dangerous.

[Anonymous]

I don't get how people can think of the foreskin as "not a body part". Why is it any different than any other piece of skin or part of someone's body? I think in our culture we have started thinking of it as expendable and not really a body part, because that makes us feel better about cutting it off. If we realized that it serves a valuable purpose, we would have to start questioning whether it makes sense to cut it off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get how people can think of the foreskin as "not a body part". Why is it any different than any other piece of skin or part of someone's body? I think in our culture we have started thinking of it as expendable and not really a body part, because that makes us feel better about cutting it off. If we realized that it serves a valuable purpose, we would have to start questioning whether it makes sense to cut it off.

What valuable purpose does the foreskin serve? Because I've been with both circumcised and uncircumcised men and neither had any differences. What exactly can an uncircumcised man do (with his foreskin) that a circumcised man can't do?

And yes, many of us do believe that there are health benefits to being circumcised.

[Anonymous]

I could never mess with my son's body like that. It just feels wrong to me.

[Anonymous]

There are issues with foreskin that can develop later on in life, especially if it's not taken care of. My mom is an RN and she told my cousin, who delivered a boy about a year ago, "Not circumcising your son will be a decision that both you and he regret someday." She explained to me all of the things she had seen as a result of not circumcising, and it didn't sound like anything I wanted to put my son through (when I should have one). She told me about this one guy who was constantly giving his girlfriend yeast infections because he couldn't properly clean his foreskin, and there are medical and hygienic reasons for doing it. It's not about appearance.

In my opinion, it'd be liked if we discovered that there was a flap of skin in our ears that, if removed, could prevent you from ever having to suffer ear infections as a child or having to go into the doctor to remove a wax impaction (which I had several times as a child and they had to use a water machine to get it out and it hurt). It serves no purpose. It's just skin, and if removing it means better health for your child, then I'm all for it. People are seriously militant about this issue and it's ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Why is it only a religious and an American tradition? No one in Europe does it. Why could that be?? I do not consider the Germans or British to be backwards. Do you?

[Anonymous]

The Foreskin

The foreskin (also known as the prepuce) is a portion of skin on the penis that covers and protects the tip of the penis, also known as the glans. It can be a tough world for a glans -- there's abrasion from undergarments, cold winter weather and dry air. It's good to have a protection policy in place, and the foreskin provides that protection for the glans.

When males are born, the skin on the penis extends over the glans, protecting it on day one from the wear and tear it will undergo in that lifetime. The foreskin can account for one-third to nearly one-half of total penile skin.

While its outer appearance is the same as any other skin on the penis, the foreskin is home to many nerve bundles and blood cells, and its inner surface is similar to the inside of your mouth, helping the glans stay naturally lubricated. Between the outer layer and the moist inner layer is a ridged band with additional nerve endings. A piece of tissue called the frenulum connects the foreskin to the glans. It looks (and functions somewhat) like the connective tissue beneath your tongue. When the penis is flaccid, the frenulum tightens to narrow the opening of the foreskin.

Those nerves packed into the foreskin provide additional stimulation during sexual activities. Its lubricating function also assists in sexual intercourse. Additionally, the frenulum (which is removed in some circumcisions) provides stimulation. Since the glans is kept moist and soft by the foreskin, it too is more sensitive to touch.

[Anonymous]

Exactly what I've heard, that guys who are uncircumcised, are able to experience better sexual enjoyment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly what I've heard, that guys who are uncircumcised, are able to experience better sexual enjoyment.

How would they know, unless they got circ'ed as adults?

[Anonymous]

yes! And we didn't had any problem at all. he was 1 day after he was born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

DId you had a C-section? I did... thank GOD otherwise my son or both woulk die. nature is one think... and beeing clean and having few problems in the future is another thing.

[Anonymous]

My intact son is clean and has no problems. I certainly don't appreciate the insinuation that he's dirty because I opted not to have him cut.

[Anonymous]

Same here, 21:12.

[Anonymous]

Please do it - that is one ugly sight as an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please do it - that is one ugly sight as an adult.

I have to agree it's not attractive. That's not necessarily a reason to circ, though. They all look the same when erect.