I have a friend with two kids and she circumcised one of them and left the other intact. Well she admits the circumcised boy is easier to clean and is better, and is for circumcision, and wishes she had it done to her intact now 7 year old. I told her she should have him circumcised now to spare him the pain of doing it later in life. She says she doesn't think she has the heart to put him through that pain now though. Should she have him circumcised? Anyone have experience with a 7 or so year old getting the procedure done? Any advice or info would be great, thanks.
2006-09-20 10:31:36 · 11 answers · asked by Timothy 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
the procedure should be pain-free... they use local anesthetics, and i would bet that the younger the child is, the better and easier to forget about the procedure.
and yes, i believe that it is more hygienic and most of all, not as much of an eye-sore to his future female companions.
compare it to getting a tooth pulled, getting braces, or having the flu...a minor inconvenience, but worth so much.
but, it is best to let the mother decide...it is her child.
2006-09-20 10:35:21 · answer #1 · answered by Cindy 3 · 2⤊ 6⤋
She should have him circumcised, only if she wants him to hate her for the rest of his life! I know because I was cut at age six.
It is easier for her? She only has to guide him for a few years, he will quickly pick up on the benefits of hygiene when he discovers girls. You will not have to remind him to clean under the hood again.
If you do it he will have to suffer with the results for the rest of his life, loss of sensitivity can be so bad that he will not be able to maintain an erection to complete intercourse without Viagra. And then his mate may have to ask him to stop as she is getting too sore to continue because he has to work so hard to reach his own climax. Removal of the foreskin leaves the delicate glans (tip of the penis) exposed to cuts, bruises and burns from which the foreskin naturally protects. A male doesn't have to be naked to suffer injury to the glans, being struck in the blue jean covered crotch can cause a lacerated glans. I learned this at the age of thirteen, and I can tell you the pain of a lacerated glans is far worse than having fingernails ripped out, appendicitis, or rectal surgery.
Complications of circumcision happen too, the rate of about one in ten has some kind of complication. Most of these are not severe (they might seem severe to the victim), but in some cases the penis is lost or is so badly damaged it will never function, and in some cases death has resulted from circumcison. Just do a Google search for 'circumcision complications' and circumcision botched'; the pictures you will find there are frightful. No loving mother could knowingly risk such injury to her child.
Circumcision is now known to serve no medical purpose, other than making doctors richer.
It is easier for her? This doesn't sound like a decision based in love but on convenience. Putting mom in the old folks home will be easier too some day.
No circumcison before age eighteen.
His body. His choice.
2006-09-20 16:30:18 · answer #2 · answered by cut50yearsago 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It's not even a necessary procedure, and the mother would have to be especially careful that the 7-year-old be kept clean while the child healed from this procedure. I'd say let it be at this point. No use putting him through at least a week of pain. He's old enough that if he's not cleaning himself he will be soon. I'm a woman, and I still cringe at the thought of someone having this procedure done to a 7-year-old. At least an infant won't remember it.
2006-09-20 10:44:58 · answer #3 · answered by JenV 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No. There is really not that big of a difference in the long run. The biggest reason not to is this:
If she doesn't do it, he will not be even close to the only person he knows that is uncircumsized.
If she does do it, he will be practivcally the only person in Western culture who remembers his own circumcision.
2006-09-20 10:35:13 · answer #4 · answered by Isaac H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, circumcision for conveniences sake is immoral. there are no good reasons for circumcision anyway, it has been discredited on all but religious grounds.
I don't think women should make decisions about mens bodies just as men shouldn't make decisions about womens bodies.
God made you with a foreskin
2006-09-20 10:42:47 · answer #5 · answered by n2mustaches 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
surely it really is the worst variety of underclothes to get because it makes you seem conceded and that is a turn off for most ladies. Who needs to pass out with someone who cares that a lot about his bulge? that's above basic. -Connor
2016-10-16 01:32:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's had it this long; let him keep it until he's an adult. Then he can decide for himself if he wants to do it or not. He might be traumatized to have to go through it now. Teach the kid how to wash up correctly and he'll be fine.
2006-09-20 14:15:32 · answer #7 · answered by Dave 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think he should be left alone.My boyfriend is not circumcised and its really not that different.He is perfectly healthy and has no problems down there.
2006-09-20 10:43:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
My brother was circumcised around that same age, I don't know the exact age but I think their is more benefit to it because I heard that uncircumcised people have more health risks concerning down there.
2006-09-20 10:37:02 · answer #9 · answered by Suzy Suzee Sue 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Better now than later. I don't know any girl who doesn't find an uncircumcised penis disgusting.
2006-09-20 10:38:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋