Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess for the reason for infections is that the generation born in the 60s-80s in the US was heavily circumcised. Since those are now the parents, it makes sense to me that they are not teaching their uncirced sons how to clean themselves, because they don't know.

But nothing special has to be done. There is pretty much nothing to teach other than to wash yourself thoroughly which kids should be doing anyway.

I disagree. Before the foreskin retracts maybe. But once it does you must rinse underneath it. By that age kids are unsupervised in the bath and if mom or dad doesn't know to tell son, I can see it not occurring to everyone.

You really don't have a clue about a natural penis do you. No, you do not need to rinse underneath any more than you need to "douche" your vagina.

Natural penis? I didn't realize that circumcised penises were somehow fake. I'm sure that there are many men out there who will be quite surprised to learn that.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is really beyond it's use, but I wanted to share one observation. Although more American doctors are getting used to seeing circumcised boys, a good deal of them don't know, themselves, how to treat an intact penis. There are frequent stories shared on the Moms on the Hill listserv about boys who weren't circumcised but later had to be. In many of the cases, they're discussing boys where the doctor said they must circumcise at like, six, for failure to retract, etc, and most experts suggest that this is too soon. Additionally, some parents were mistakenly told to try to retract their sons foreskins and this caused injury or adhesions. I have one friend whose pediatrician, before she knew it, forcibly retracted her son's penis. In another instance, a friend took her child to children's for a suspected UTI (as it turns out, he did not have a UTI, instead, it was chafed and sore from the mesh of his bathing suit) and instead of trying to collect a urine sample, the ER doctor forcibly retracted the penis and catheterized him. I can absolutely understand why hearing these stories would scare a new parent into circumcising, although it's a medical knowledge gap, not the fault of the intact penis itself (which is why I think we see so many fewer such instances of circ due to problems in Europe despite the majority of that population being intact). Anyway, I can understand this because my college boyfriend had a "botched" circumcision. Too much foreskin was removed from his penis (he was a twin born a few weeks early, which can increase the risks) and he had painful erections. This is EXTREMELY rare, but it still colored my own view when we were deciding what to do with our son. (We did not circ).

It's not an easy decision for many, despite the strong feelings here. The status quo in this country has been circumcising for so long that it was unquestioned for a long time. I think that, combined with the fact that most men who have had it done don't actually grow up to regret it (unlike my college boyfriend - I wonder if he ever had anything done about it?) makes it hard to turn the tide.

I do think the tide is turning, though. Insurance is definitely paying for it less and less often.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And yes, honey, I do get to have an opinion, and the reason you have your knickers in a twist is that you know my feelings DO matter. Many, many like-minded men and women are moving to change things. Some say there will never be a ban, but some of us are working towards that end. And the pro-circ crowd knows it, and they're scared, and that's why there is so much intense pressure on the medical community to come up with supposed medical benefits when everyone knows that they don't apply to western cultures, are hugely overshadowed by other, more effective measures. We don't chop off breasts prophylactically, unless you have reason to know you have a genetic predisposition to having breast cancer and you make that choice for yourself as an adult. Now, let's say that the Roman Catholics felt that breasts of women should be cut off as soon as they began to develop. You could still make the convincing argument that doing so would greatly reduce instances of mastitis or breast cancer or what have you, but others might say "hey, your child should make that choice for herself!" Or, transfer the "breast" issue to adenoids, tonsils, or gallbladders if your concern is that breasts are arguably more useful than a foreskin . The point is, we don't concern ourselves with prophylactically removing any other body part, INCLUDING a mere mole, unless there is something about it that leads us to think retaining it is likely to be problematic.

The Johns Hopkins research that has been badly distorted by those quoting has in fact been disputed by numerous other credible studies and, um, reality (none of those predicted dire consequences have come to fruition in Europe).

So save it. I don't care if you worship a toaster orbiting your back yard, you don't get to just do anything you want to a child (including your own) and pretend that your god demands it, so everyone else should shut up and butt out.

I think you have a vastly overinflated sense of your own importance. No, your feelings don't matter, and no, no one is scared of you.

Anonymous wrote:
And yes, honey, I do get to have an opinion, and the reason you have your knickers in a twist is that you know my feelings DO matter. Many, many like-minded men and women are moving to change things. Some say there will never be a ban, but some of us are working towards that end. And the pro-circ crowd knows it, and they're scared, and that's why there is so much intense pressure on the medical community to come up with supposed medical benefits when everyone knows that they don't apply to western cultures, are hugely overshadowed by other, more effective measures. We don't chop off breasts prophylactically, unless you have reason to know you have a genetic predisposition to having breast cancer and you make that choice for yourself as an adult. Now, let's say that the Roman Catholics felt that breasts of women should be cut off as soon as they began to develop. You could still make the convincing argument that doing so would greatly reduce instances of mastitis or breast cancer or what have you, but others might say "hey, your child should make that choice for herself!" Or, transfer the "breast" issue to adenoids, tonsils, or gallbladders if your concern is that breasts are arguably more useful than a foreskin . The point is, we don't concern ourselves with prophylactically removing any other body part, INCLUDING a mere mole, unless there is something about it that leads us to think retaining it is likely to be problematic.

The Johns Hopkins research that has been badly distorted by those quoting has in fact been disputed by numerous other credible studies and, um, reality (none of those predicted dire consequences have come to fruition in Europe).

So save it. I don't care if you worship a toaster orbiting your back yard, you don't get to just do anything you want to a child (including your own) and pretend that your god demands it, so everyone else should shut up and butt out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess for the reason for infections is that the generation born in the 60s-80s in the US was heavily circumcised. Since those are now the parents, it makes sense to me that they are not teaching their uncirced sons how to clean themselves, because they don't know.

But nothing special has to be done. There is pretty much nothing to teach other than to wash yourself thoroughly which kids should be doing anyway.

I disagree. Before the foreskin retracts maybe. But once it does you must rinse underneath it. By that age kids are unsupervised in the bath and if mom or dad doesn't know to tell son, I can see it not occurring to everyone.

You really don't have a clue about a natural penis do you. No, you do not need to rinse underneath any more than you need to "douche" your vagina.

Natural penis? I didn't realize that circumcised penises were somehow fake. I'm sure that there are many men out there who will be quite surprised to learn that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess for the reason for infections is that the generation born in the 60s-80s in the US was heavily circumcised. Since those are now the parents, it makes sense to me that they are not teaching their uncirced sons how to clean themselves, because they don't know.

But nothing special has to be done. There is pretty much nothing to teach other than to wash yourself thoroughly which kids should be doing anyway.

I disagree. Before the foreskin retracts maybe. But once it does you must rinse underneath it. By that age kids are unsupervised in the bath and if mom or dad doesn't know to tell son, I can see it not occurring to everyone.

You really don't have a clue about a natural penis do you. No, you do not need to rinse underneath any more than you need to "douche" your vagina.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess for the reason for infections is that the generation born in the 60s-80s in the US was heavily circumcised. Since those are now the parents, it makes sense to me that they are not teaching their uncirced sons how to clean themselves, because they don't know.

But nothing special has to be done. There is pretty much nothing to teach other than to wash yourself thoroughly which kids should be doing anyway.

I disagree. Before the foreskin retracts maybe. But once it does you must rinse underneath it. By that age kids are unsupervised in the bath and if mom or dad doesn't know to tell son, I can see it not occurring to everyone.

You really don't have a clue about a natural penis do you. No, you do not need to rinse underneath any more than you need to "douche" your vagina.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am from a country where circumcision for non religious reasons is non existent. That said the rates of phimosis with consequent circumcision is quite high. Something like 4 out 100 boys end up with circumcision before the age of 15 because phimosis did not correct itself.

All things considered do whatever you want with child, I chose to circumcise both my boys and I have absolutely no regrets. They both went to daycares and I am sure they saw other little boys who were or were not circumcised, they never mentioned anything to me. So I am sure that to the average boy its a non issue. It is interesting though that women have more opinions on circumcision than men.

Please state which country and give a source for your statistics.

Even if they are correct, that would be 96 percent having unnecessary surgery. I don't believe your 4 percent figure but even if it was true, I wouldn't risk surgery on a newborn based on a 4 percent chance they may need it as they get older.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess for the reason for infections is that the generation born in the 60s-80s in the US was heavily circumcised. Since those are now the parents, it makes sense to me that they are not teaching their uncirced sons how to clean themselves, because they don't know.

But nothing special has to be done. There is pretty much nothing to teach other than to wash yourself thoroughly which kids should be doing anyway.

I disagree. Before the foreskin retracts maybe. But once it does you must rinse underneath it. By that age kids are unsupervised in the bath and if mom or dad doesn't know to tell son, I can see it not occurring to everyone.

You really don't have a clue about a natural penis do you. No, you do not need to rinse underneath any more than you need to "douche" your vagina.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess for the reason for infections is that the generation born in the 60s-80s in the US was heavily circumcised. Since those are now the parents, it makes sense to me that they are not teaching their uncirced sons how to clean themselves, because they don't know.

But nothing special has to be done. There is pretty much nothing to teach other than to wash yourself thoroughly which kids should be doing anyway.

I disagree. Before the foreskin retracts maybe. But once it does you must rinse underneath it. By that age kids are unsupervised in the bath and if mom or dad doesn't know to tell son, I can see it not occurring to everyone.

Anonymous wrote:I am from a country where circumcision for non religious reasons is non existent. That said the rates of phimosis with consequent circumcision is quite high. Something like 4 out 100 boys end up with circumcision before the age of 15 because phimosis did not correct itself.

All things considered do whatever you want with child, I chose to circumcise both my boys and I have absolutely no regrets. They both went to daycares and I am sure they saw other little boys who were or were not circumcised, they never mentioned anything to me. So I am sure that to the average boy its a non issue. It is interesting though that women have more opinions on circumcision than men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess for the reason for infections is that the generation born in the 60s-80s in the US was heavily circumcised. Since those are now the parents, it makes sense to me that they are not teaching their uncirced sons how to clean themselves, because they don't know.

But nothing special has to be done. There is pretty much nothing to teach other than to wash yourself thoroughly which kids should be doing anyway.

Do you instruct your daughter to retract her clitoral hood and wash with soap and water underneath there? Do you instruct your son to retract his forskin and do the same? Do you assume they will know how to properly clean their genitalia?

No soap under either hood or foreskin. And don't douche.

And dont worry what others think about the smell. It's natural!