Circumcising?

Question

As a mother of two boys, I'm curious to know why did you choose to circumcise or not circumcise and would any of the new research that has been coming out affect your decision?

Here are some links to some new AIDS and STD research.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070307-12451700-bc-us-circumcise.xml

http://www.physorg.com/news86339340.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1141513
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/fishman/2006/circumcision.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593753/
http://www.circinfo.com/parents_guide/gfp.html

Answer 1

I also have two boys. They are both circumcised. We decided this for a few reasons:

1. cleanliness (hubby nurse and saw so many infections - ewww!)
2. same as father

We found a doctor (actually jewish doctor) in Sydney who performs the operation when baby only 1 week old. So no nasty memories. It is done with the bell method.

My poor husband didn't have his done until 7 years old. Traumatic. Has never forgotten it. Poor guy.

My boys - clean and healthy.

Answer 2

Last semester in my biology lecture, I had to write a report on the pros and cons of circumcision, and the conclusion of my paper was pretty clear; Generally, it is not beneficial for your son.

Some things mothers should think about:
- Circumcision is only a popular choice among the citizens of the USA, the Philippines, and S. Korea. The majority of the world does not believe in the cutting of the foreskin for purposes other than medical reasons such as phimosis.
- Many believe that the foreskin's removal will promote better health and hygeine. This moisture and skin cell mixture (called smegma) is found under a man's foreskin, and is a natural lubricant which ALL mammals have. And yes, women have it, too, and we don't have little bits of ourselves removed to be "cleaner." If someone is worried about this build up, rinsing with warm water in the shower every day is more than enough to stay "cleaner."
- The removal takes away up to 80% of penile skin, and can make the penis up to 25% shorter.
- The foreskin's removal would be analogus to the removal of the female clitoris -- a loss of 20,000 nerve endings!
- Having no foreskin desensitizes the head of the penis (glans). After the removal, the glans will always rub against the male's clothing, essentially making it callused, and drier and rougher than it should be. The foreskin is intended to keep the glans healthy.
- If the foreskin were useless, why is it there in the first place? Why hasn't the penis evolved without a foreskin?
- Though the foreskin's removal has been shown in studies to slightly reduce the risk of developing HIV/AIDS or STDs, safety measures such as condom usage should be commonplace anyway.

Circumcision has recently been declining in popularity in the United States, and the American Academy of Pediatrics states there is no reason for circumcision unless there is a medical reason.

I don't personally have any children, but if I ever have a boy, I will choose to keep him intact.

Answer 3

I had my son circumcised and thought nothing of it. Mainly because at the time, I was very religious in the church, and also I, too, am circumcised. But now, I would at least think it over first. There are pros and cons. Pro: they would probably fit in better and it would not be awkward when they become sexual. Con: you apparently lose a lot of your sensation with a circumcision. I now wish I had not been circumcised myself.

Answer 4

No new research would ever effect my decision. Women, by virtue of their anatomy and being the insertive partner will always be more likely to pick up stds, utis and yeast infections. The risk for women is much higher than it is for uncircumcised men. And frankly, I think we need a procedure to help women avoid stds, not men.

Is there some sort of genital alteration I can get my daughters so their labia won't have all that smelly urine caught in it and those "ugly" folds of skin? Maybe trim it up and bit and kinda turn it inside out so everything dries out and rubs on their underwear all day long? So it's not so moist, smelly and disgusting in there?

Ha ha, just kidding! I'd never cut pieces off any of my children when they are born. Anymore than I'd have them tattooed or breast implants placed or their bones broken and reset so they could be taller. I like them just the way they are, the choice to change their natural state is up to them. I will support them if they wish to do so, I'll even pay for the surgery if I can. But I won't do it without their knowledge or permission.

Answer 5

Those nice studies also pointed out that circumcising females also reduced risk. The study is highly flawed. The men and women studied in Africa who were circed were also more religious (which is why it was done in the first place), and are less likely to be promiscuous or adulterers. It's misleading.

I chose not to circ. We have no religious reasons to. I saw a video of a baby boy being circed and couldn't do it after watching it. My husband looked at it too and said NO. My husband wishes he still had his. Intact men have less sexual dysfunction issues as they age, it's a natural lubricator, and really ups the pleasure. I want my son to enjoy sex to it's fullest. G*d didn't make any mistakes when designing us, and I feel it's wrong to remove anything that is intended to be there unless it needs to be removed.

It's a personal choice. Choose what you and your husband feel is best.

Answer 6

Circumcised or not, there's the same risk of getting HIV and STD's if the boy is not using the proper protection!!! Now for the foreskin to get infected if it is not cleaned properly from the age of adolescent on up, is different from HIV and STD's. Yeah, I didn't circumcise my boy and his father is circumcised. Who wouda thunk? Seriously, who cares if you do or don't. As long as the child is healthy and you raise him to know he needs to a be wearing a condom outside of marraige (if he gets HIV while married that is a whole other topic)!!

Answer 7

We chose not to circumcise our son for a few reasons. For one, his father is not. We felt it would have more of an impact to look the same as his father during the years of curiosity rather than the years of locker rooms where most boys don't really stare at each other and are fully aware of what circumcision is. My husband never once in his life had any type of infection of his penis or anything that could have been related to foreskin issues, and we didn't forsee a problem in teaching our son how to clean himself. I know there have been arguments about the increase in spreading STDs, but I hope to instill in my child the importance of safe sex and if he chooses to not wear a condom before he is married, having foreskin is not going to increase his chance of getting or passing a STD, sleeping around will.

Answer 8

I chose to circumcise because my father was not, until he had several infections and had to be at 67. He had to be catheterized and in the hospital for three days at least. It was very serious and painful. Although I do believe that circumcision in a newborn IS painful (Even in my drug induced stupor, I heard my son scream out), I think it is much better and easier for him in the long run. My husband was circumcised when he was 12 for some reason and neither I nor my son should have to go through that anxiety.

Answer 9

First of all, the penis of a child belongs to the child, not to the parent. Secondly, there is no valid reason for mutilating the child's penis. No medical organization in the world endorses the procedure. The latest research is inconclusive and mostly conflicts with former research. While some may indicate that Africans may be safer circumcised, the intact men of Europe avoided mass infections, while the circumcised Americans died by the thousands. New evidence actually shows that secretions of certain glans present in the foreskin fight off the HIV virus. This is in direct conflict with the previous African studies.

Somehow, mankind has survived without circumcision for thousands of years until Harvey Kellogg started promoting it as a cure for masturbation in the late 1800s. That experiment promptly fell short of its goal, but the love of money by those with the knives brought reason after reason for continuing the practice. To date, most of those reasons have been proven false. Europeans continue to leave their sons intact and suffer no ill concequences.

Many contemporary American physicians now recommend leaving baby boys intact, including those of Jewish heritage. Unfortunately for boys, the custom has become a religion in its own right, captivating the actions of ignorant young parents swayed by emotion. It also generates millions of dollars in revenue, not only from the procedure itself, but from the trafficking of foreskins for the manufacture of skin care products.
While it is blatanly illegal, it goes unnoticed, all the while little boys are deprived of something they would enjoy as adults from the added measure of sensations produced by the thousands of nerve endings inside the foreskin.

We wonder why American boys are so aggressive and destructive. Could it be from the harm suffered at a time in their lives when they should have been protected? Could it be from the betrayal of those so entrusted?

Answer 10

the studies also show that female circumcision prevents std/hiv infections.and some studies have shown that circumcised people are more likely to get infected.
as female circumcision takes place in societies where male circumcision is simultaneously performed and the so-called AIDS belt corresponds largely with regions where circumcision (either male or female) is not practiced, a correlation also exists between female circumcision and lower HIV transmission rates."