Asked about son being Circumcised?

Question

I asked a question yesterday for advice on what to do for my seven month old son once he gets circumcised tomorrow. I had an overwhelming response of negative feeback. First of all, I live in Canada... for the surgery, the doctor administers a local anisthetic (can't spell that) so its painless. As for adults having it done and losing their sexual feelings and all, my son is seven months old, so thats not a problem for me. My husband is done, and believe me, we have no problems! With the arguement that the reason childre have problems now is because of doctors forcefully retracting the heads of bbies penises, you sir, are more incorrect than you can imagine. The apparent rule of thumb here is to NOT pull it back at all. You know what happens with that idea? The foreskin grows over to the point where the boys cannot even pee properly because the foreskin is covering the penile opening. I know this for a fact as my step son had to be done at 5 years old.

Also, my 6 year old god twin god sons have to be done now for the same reason. I happen to think that an uncircumcised penis is severely unattractive...and I believe, without a doubt, that I am doing the right thing for my son, regardless of what you narrow minded people think. Again, I live in Canda, and the problems that were mentioned in some of the answers don't exist, do your research, see for yourself!!!

Answer 1

I'm not sure what your question is...but I support your decision to have your son circumcised. We live in Canada as well and our son was cercumcised when a baby. It is painless and overall a great decision. I also think that if his Dad is done then it's great for them to "match". I would imagine it would be hard for a small boy to wonder why he and his Dad look so different and then to wonder if there was something wrong. (I work with small kids and believe me they do wonder these things they just don't always know how to ask about it). So overall I would say good for you...stick to your guns and ignore the idiots who want to question if you know what's right for your own child.

Answer 2

nicely up till now I truthfully have theory that circumcise device was once only a non secular ingredient and a decision of the mummy and pa. Then this 300 and sixty 5 days after the convention on HIV in Montreal only this month, has concluded, that the circumcisions be complete. learn have stated that there have been precise risks for the uncircumcised than the circumcised character in contracting and spreading this decease. So now different than, being air purifier, and watching bigger, there's some documentation from the scientific community that circumcision is larger than clever by ability of way of being lowering the opportunities of spreading or contracting this poor decease. So for me that is nicely adequate. Do your factor for the sector well-being and have your son circimcised.

Answer 3

You are amputating the same nerves in your son's penis that an adult male looses. He just won't know how badly he has been wounded for many years.
IT IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR YOU? of course not, it is not your penis! But is is the same one that he will want to have in good working order when he has a mate.
As far as you and your husband, you are young yet, do you intend to give up sex after 40. The nerves he is missing will cause more and more problems as he ages.

You are going to have your son mutilated, remove 80% of his pleasure, because he might have a problem? 85% of the world's males are not circumcised, problems are rare.

Answer 4

What do you want? Hooray you mutilated your baby out of ignorance? Just because his dad had a part amputated without consent as an infant and you are to stupid to learn how to care properly for your son's normal and natural body?
Forcible retraction is not what causes phimosis. It is normal, until puberty, for the foreskin to be non-retractile. Being fused to the glans is what keeps foreign matter out and therefore keeps it clean. You don't scrub out a girls vagina, so you shouldn't scrub underneath an infant's foreskin.
The foreskin is not some monster that will grow over the meatus and not allow your son to pee. That is pure ignorance! 85% of the men in the world live their whole lives without being strangled in the night by their wayward foreskins.
Your stepson was probably cared for by another ignoramus and could have been cured in a far less invasive and permanently damaging way.
As for being attractive. EWww! Who cares what a mother thinks of how her child's GENITALS look!!!!
So many women are conditioned to think an amputated penis looks right, but it is solely cultural conditioning and not your right to inflict your SEXUAL PREFERENCES UPON YOUR INFANT SON!!!!!
You are an ignorant butcher!

Answer 5

Apparently lots of people are against it. BUT, they try to say the baby is held down and the skin just sliced off. Like a butcher or something. I know there can be complications (skin being too tight, etc.) but, there can be complications with aspirin you took this morning. Everything has a risk. This one is low. An uncircumcised penis can harbor lots of bacteria if not cleaned properly - which can lead to problems for a woman later in his life. I personally think uncircumcised penis' are disgusting. If you & your husband agree, that is all that matters.

Answer 6

Unnecessary Circumcision
By George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H.

In recent years, the debate on circumcision has been conducted on a relatively low plane, with proponents arguing that circumcision may prevent some rare conditions. Opponents of circumcision argue that it simply has no medical benefits, and is a violation of a man's right to grow up with an intact body. Perhaps the subject can be simplified and raised to a higher plane by focusing on the positive value of the foreskin.
Before birth, the glans penis is covered with skin. This skin is not loosely attached. Indeed it is as tightly attached to the glans as is the skin on the hand.
At approximately 17 weeks of intrauterine life, cells in the area of separation between the future foreskin and the glans initiate the process of creating the preputial space (the space between the glans penis and the intact foreskin). This process is completed by the age of 3 years in 90% of boys, but it may take as long as 17 years (sic) for some boys to have a fully retractable foreskin.

At birth, the separation of the foreskin from the glans has just begun. The newborn's penis is, of course, not yet fully developed. Not only does circumcision interfere with its development, but it requires that the surgeon tear the skin from the sensitive glans to permit removal. As a result, scarring occurs, the surface of the glans thickens, and the urinary opening often gets smaller.

If physicians would simply leave the newborn's penis alone, as Dr. Benjamin Spock recommends in the latest edition of Baby and Child Care, the foreskin would be left to fulfill its several functions. In infancy, the foreskin protects the glans from irritation and from fecal material. In adulthood, the function of the foreskin may at first seem obscure. The shaft and the glans of an intact (uncircumcised) man's penis are covered by skin. Retracting the foreskin reveals the glans and makes the skin on the shaft somewhat loose. Of what use is this redundant skin? During erection, the penile shaft elongates, becoming about 50% longer. The foreskin covers this lengthened shaft. It is designed to accommodate an organ that is capable of a marked increase in diameter, as well as length.

In addition, the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis and can enhance the quality of sexual intercourse. Anatomical studies demonstrate that the foreskin has a greater concentration of complex nerve endings than the glans. If there were any possibility that the foreskin could contribute significantly to sexual enjoyment, is that not a cogent reason for rethinking our motives for this ritual procedure?

History shows that the arguments in favor of circumcision are questionable. At the beginning of this century, one of the reasons given for circumcision was to decrease masturbation, which was thought to lead to insanity and other "morbid" conditions. We now know that circumcision does not prevent masturbation, nor does masturbation lead to insanity.

More recently, circumcision was promoted as a means of preventing cervical cancer in the man's sexual partners; this notion has been proved incorrect.

The current excuses are that failure to remove the foreskin may contribute to urinary tract infections and penile cancer, but neither of these contentions has been proved. Even if either were correct, the risk of urinary tract infection in an uncircumcised infant is only one in one hundred. Performing 100 mutilative surgeries to possibly prevent one treatable urinary tract infection is not valid preventive medicine - it is just another excuse.

Penile cancer occurs in older men at the rate of approximately 1 in 100,000. The idea of performing 100,000 mutilating (by definition) procedures on newborns to possibly prevent cancer in one elderly man is absurd. Applying this type of reasoning to women would lead to the conclusion that removing all breasts at puberty should be done to prevent breast cancer.

One thousand years ago, the Jewish sage Maimonides said that the effect of circumcision was "to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when... deprived of its covering from the beginning."

Who has the right to order or perform such surgery on a newborn infant? I contend that no one does - certainly not the physician who should know better - since there is no proven medical reason to do so, and the procedure is known by many to be harmful. Circumcision can always be performed in adulthood for men who desire it, with fully informed consent.

Physicians who continue to perform routine circumcision are not only harming infants but are also harming the integrity of the medical profession. It is hard to accept that these physicians - many of whom have been circumcised themselves - are using their medical licenses to continue this contraindicated practice. This is tragedy perpetuating itself.


Your son's penis will be injured the same way as an adult's would, actually it may be more severely injured because of it's small size, a small mistake will grow into a larger problem. The problems often do not show up until years later when the boy becomes sexually active. This is why doctors like to do circumcisions, by the time the victims problems become evident they have moved on or have retired so they never catch hell for their mistakes (and boy do they make them).

You just admitted that you think an uncircumcised penis is unattractive, is your opinion a valid reason for mutilating your son? How much time will you be spending over the next 80 years looking at your son's penis? Really only a few months right? He will have to live with it for the rest of his life. If the circumcision causes problems, as I have pointed out a lot of them do, he will have to live with it all his life.

Those boys needed a better doctor not a circumcision.

Nobody is supposed to point out that circumcision is a violation of a boy's right to a complete body?

Why am I so p***ed off about this? I can't stand the thought of what was done to me being done to any more boys.

Answer 7

All my sons were circumcised before they left the hospital. My husband is circumcised as well and we chose to have our sons look the same. It doesn't hurt them, they get a local and it takes about a week for the incision to heal.

Here is a link for those who may need some more information.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/circumcision.html