I can see all the uncirumcised guys chimming in here so I'll give my opinion. Im the father of 2 boys and went throught the same thing wondering what was the best way to go. As for me and my wife we chose to get it done for a number of reasons. Hygine was upmost on the list. We knew boys who had trouble in the past because they didnt clean well enough. Second was the locker room senerio because kids can be mean and ruthless in those situations. Third my wife said she would prefer a circumsized penis to uncircumsized. Im circumsized and Im very happy my parents made that discision fo me and as far as loosing feeling i cant imagine sex could possible be any better than it is already. If i had more sensation at this point i think it might actually be bad cause I know it would be tooooo much lol. well thats only my opinion. oh ya 1 more thing check this site for posts from kids having trouble because there not circumsized, you'll find out theres quiet a few and none from kids that are cirumcised
2006-07-18 03:27:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by kjcdfb 2
·
1⤊
5⤋
I think it's a bad thing. Cutting a piece of a childs penis off for no reason. I can't believe the US actually allows this to happen still! Though the number of them being done per year has went down from 70% in 1960 to 40% today. Why do people always think they can improve the human body by surgery? Some people come up with lots of reasons why they should do it. 1. Hygiene for example. Teach your son to clean it! Woman have a lot more folds but you don't see us trying to cut it off. 2. Peers will make fun of it. - So? Peers make fun of a lot of things. It's what they do. Why are the looking at your penis anyway? 3. Women prefer it - This is true sometimes, but it's a social trait that will change over time. Circumcision is torture. If a man wants it when he's older then more power to him! I would let THEM decide. I'm very bitter that my parents did it to me and I had no choice in the matter.
2006-07-18 02:52:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jim 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is no medical reason for this procedure. The American Paediatric Association does not support it as a regular procedure for infants, except where indicated because of religion.
Removing the foreskin deprives the adult male of about 14 square inches of highly sensitive skin. Foreskin is made up of the same type of cells as the head of the penis, and contains thousands of nerve endings. For that reason, uncircumcized men have much more sensitivity in this area during sex - the whole shaft is involved, not just the glans (head) of the penis.
The AMA, APA, and other national bodies have determined that there may be a slighly higher risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life for an uncircumcized baby; but with appropriate hygene, the risk is minimal, and doctors do not believe this risk is sufficient to recommend routine surgery on a child.
Mothers should ask themself before circumcizing a boy; how would you feel if your parents had cut off part of the clitoris when you were a baby, and reduced the sensation you feel during sexual intercourse as an adult? That's what unnecessary circumcision does to men.
2006-07-18 02:53:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the parents choose to circumcise their son it should be done within the first four days of life. If for some reason the clip can't be done during this time it can be a very painful experience for the child. I'm a mother a two boys and they are both snipped. My father however was premature and was not circumcised. He wanted to be and had it done at the age of 23. WOW! It sucked big time.
2006-07-18 02:47:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
i'd supply a newborn the traditional immunizations. i'd under no circumstances rigidity male genital mutilation, talked about as circumcision, on a newborn. countless of the persons who responded said that circumcision prevents UTI's, and that is carefully unfaithful. a tremendous kind of the UTI's experienced by using non-circumcised children are subsequently of someone forcing their foreskin again to sparkling under, which isn't needed and causes harm. The foreskin isn't grimy, and would not require to be wiped clean under till the guy is able to retract it himself, many times on the age of about 10 or so. It should not be wiped clean under at that age any better than you may douche somewhat one lady of a similar age. Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax. A foreskin isn't a beginning disorder; that is a birthright. ERIC
2016-10-14 22:17:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by ikeda 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
you should have done it a t birth but since he said every precausion will be taken and it will be done in 20 min. you should because uncurcumsized penis look dirty and hangy and skin is every where and circumsized penis are more attractive to women
so unless yo want your sons to have a jacked up looking penis you should get it done and also the bible says you should get your thing curcumsized
And if your son has an uncircumsized penis if he ever has unprotected sex he has a greater chance of getting an STD
2006-07-18 04:02:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I mainly jumped in to point out that being uncircumcised DOES NOT increase the risk of an STD (like one of the users above stated). Thinking that is pure folly.
Also, I would reccomend not having the procedure done, it is far outdated and unnecessary.
2006-07-18 09:57:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
just to give you something to consider. As child grows into a man and becomes older. If his equipment is not used enough the skin WILL start to grow together, the results of this is they can't hardly go take a leak.
2006-07-18 03:52:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by volleyball55morrow 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
unless its medical reason. if not leave it. why bother to waste such money to get a useless piece of skin off the poor boy?
2006-07-18 03:43:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by yahoomel 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Unless is it medically necesasary it is terrible and shouldn't be allowed.
2006-07-18 02:45:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Kate 4
·
0⤊
0⤋