Circumcision - Husband thinks that if we have a son he should be circumcised, because Daddy is...?

Question

Men out there - - would it have scared you - or did it bug you that you "looked different" than your Daddy??

Answer 1

Nope. And I'm a teenager and uncircumcised. I don't get any bull about it. Sometimes some guys are curious about it and ask a question; but nothing more. I'm from California and I'd say that my generation was about 50/50.

You have to remember that circumcision isn't as common as it was before. It was almost universal before, now it's about 50/50 in the USA, with some states as low as 14%. So in some states being uncircumcised is now the majority, especially on the West coast.

Here are the official statistics from the government for the USA:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/

That's if you're from the USA.

If you're from Canada the rates for circumcision are much lower; 9% is the nationwide average.
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/Canada/

As for the rest of the developed world (Europe, Asia [and Latin America; but they're not that developed]) they don't circumcise newborns. Yet we still have higher HIV/AIDS rates than them according to the CIA statistics.

Cleaning isn't an issue, really. You just slide the foreskin and rub the head, which takes a few seconds and feels good. In young children and babies, however, the foreskin doesn't slide back so feces/poop can get into the head.

As for my daddy... hmmm, I can honestly say that I don't pay attention to his nor does he to mine. =P

As you can see from the statistics, many parents are choosing to leave their sons uncircumcised so they can choose instead.

That, and many doctors aren't supporting circumcision anymore. New studies (one from this month) from the British Journal of Urology have found that it reduces sensitivity, pleasure, and increases masturbation difficulty (which is what it was made popular for by Dr. Kellogg [yes, the cereal guy] back in the 1800s).
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells

And here are the other risks and statistics of circumcision:
http://forums.govteen.com/showpost.php?p=3069995&postcount=2

Answer 2

No offense, but that's a pretty dumb reason for circumcision - that's a purely cosmetic reason and thus has no medical benefit. In any case, your son and husband probably won't be comparing their penises. And there are many reasons why circumcision probably isn't a very good idea.

First of all, circumcision is painful on the infant (see link 1). Sometimes it's still painful even if anesthetic is used, because infants respond differently to anesthesia and it can even be dangerous. Furthermore, infant circumcision does carry its own risks and complications, some of them are quite severe (link 2).

Even if a circumcision "goes well," it will still have removed many nerve endings found in the foreskin, thereby reducing sexual sensitivity (link 3). Other studies have also found that circumcision reduces sexual satisfaction/pleasure for not only the man, but the woman as well (links 4, 5).

If you're concerned about hygiene, don't be. The foreskin is very easy to clean and keep clean if you know how (link 6). In the US, several generations have gone by without seeing many foreskins, so knowledge on how to clean it has faded. Good hygiene of the foreskin and penis can prevent a lot of problems, including infections.

If you're concerned about increased STDs, again don't be. Statistically, there is no significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in regards to getting STDs. Well publicized is the recent research that has shown circumcision can reduce the rate of contracting HIV. Far less publicized it is the study that indicates good hygiene essentially negates this benefit; with proper and prompt hygiene, there is no statistically significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in regards of contracting HIV (link 7). Since no one really knows the cause-effect relation between circumcision and HIV, this is still a subject of heated debate (link 8). One thing is clear, good hygiene + safe sex (i.e. condom use) >>> circumcision.

See the last 2 links for further info and discussion on circumcision. In my opinion, a cosmetic reason for circumcision is a very weak reason (especially if he - your son - doesn't have a say in his own body). If the foreskin is functioning normally, the guy maintains good hygiene, and he practices safe sex, then it's probably more beneficial to keep the foreskin. At the very least, if he wants to get circumcised later he has that choice; the converse isn't true.

Answer 3

Absolutely not!! I am circumcised, and my son is intact (not circumcised). Circumcision is unnecessary, and quite possible harmful to the adult Male's perception of sexual stimulus.

If your husband had his eye gouged out, or his arm amputated, would you do the same to your baby?

When your son is old enough, you can explain that in"the old days" doctors cut the skin off the penis, because they thought it was better, but we now know this is not true. There is was no reason to cut your penis so we left it alone"

Your son will understand, and maybe even feel sympathy for your husband.

Your husband will likely reject this assertion and claim "I am fine, junior will be too" But this is a type of denial, no man wants to even consider his penis has been lessened, made to be less sensitive, reduced. I am sure you can understand that.

Please, please educate yourself about this! A foreskin is not a useless flap of skin. An article out this month in the British Journal of Urology describes the special and numerous fine touch receptors in the human prepuce. It is much more than just skin, is is analogous to your clitoral hood.

America is biased against the prepuce. Be smart seek the truth yourself!

Good luck, and best of luck with your son!

Answer 4

In Australia the circumcision rate dropped dramatically in one generation. It's now the norm for kids to be intact and the majority of their fathers were cut as babies. Some of my friends were very pro-circumcision when their sons were born but after they grew up a bit they came to envy their intact sons.
Circumcision removes between half to two thirds of the penile skin. It seems a small thing on a baby but covers 15 square inches on an adult. As adults all males use what skin they have or a lubricant to masturbate with. If you have been cut since birth you don't know what you are missing but an intact male can stroke the entire length of his penis using the action of the skin gliding against itself. He can also use a lubricant if he wants to. The gliding action of the foreskin also acts as a lubricant during intercourse and the skin acts as a dam keeping the natural lubrication inside the vagina from drying out. There are specialised structures within the foreskin such as the nerve-rich ridged band and frenulum.
There are claims of protection against HIV from circumcision but this research is contested. They are based on research in Africa, where anal sex is a common form of hetrosexual contraception. Even if true, circumcision offers very marginal lessening of the risk of infection, certainly not enough to say you don't have to wear a condom. The vast majority of males wiped out by the first wave of the epidemic in the USA were circumcised and it certainly did not protect them. European countries, where circumcision rates are around 1% have lower rates of HIV infection and other STDs than the USA.
Similar claims about UTIs and penile cancer are also very marginal. You would have to do about 140 circumcisions to prevent one UTI, which can be treated by antibiotics anyway. Penile cancer is so rare as to be a ridiculous reason to circumcise (about 1:100,000 men in developed countries regardless of circumcision rate. Non-circumcising Denmark has a much lower rate of penile cancer than the US. The major complication rate from circumcisions is around 2% (20 per 1000), mostly haemorrhage and serious infection. This negates the beneficial effect on these marginal claims. A small number of babies actually die from circumcision complications.
In addition it should be noted that the penis forms as one structure, including the foreskin. In almost all cases the foreskin is firmly adhered to the glans at birth, rather like a fingernail is adhered to the finger. To perform an infant circumcision the surgeon firstly has to rip apart the two layers with forceps, which since infant circumcisions are generally done in the USA without anaesthetic, must be agonising even before the actual cutting. After the circumcision the baby stings the wound and the whole raw surface of the glans every time he pees.
Most complications from infant circumcision do not show up until much later in life. These include skin bridges that form as the penis heals and bits of cut and raw foreskin can fuse onto the raw glans. So the real complication rate is much higher.
No medical authority in the world recommends routine infant circumcision anymore. The US is the last western country still circumcising about half its newborn males.
If the newborn penis is left intact then there is no gap between the glans and the foreskin, so there is nowhere germs can collect. Misguided attempts to retract the foreskin at this stage can damage the foreskin. These attempts are the main reason for problems with the foreskin at this stage and subsequent unnecessary circumcisions. As the baby grows he should be encouraged to stretch his foreskin and as soon as he can retract easily to wash with plain water regularly.

Answer 5

I think it's pretty weird for a father and son to be comparing penises. The other differences between a man's penis and a boy's penis are much more dramatic than foreskin differences, and by the time the child gets to puberty, his father should probably keep his pants on when his son is around. So I realy don't understand why it should be an issue if they are different.

Please take a look at the video at http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/ Is this really the way you want to welcome your perfect little son into the world?

Answer 6

I'm not a man, so you may wish to discount this response.

For many people, circumcision is a cultural thing. The anti-circerswill try to tell you it is not an absolute requirement, medically. They also try to argue the cultural reasons but they fail as their own views are flavoured with their cultural bias.

To your husband, however, the cultural norm in North America which sees the majority of males circumcised is important. My assumption is, that as his mother. you would like some fuller reasons to circumcise your son. As a woman I share your desire.

But before jumping into that, let's think about how males might feel first. My father was not circumcised but my brother got it done. Interestingly he was more concerned about other boys his age and whether they were circumcised. (In our area it was almost universal so it made him feel 'regular' to be circumcised like them. (Even though his Dad was not circumcised!) In this cultural thing, then you might want to check with other possible new Moms as to their plans - about 75% of males living in North America today are circumcised! In saying this I hope I am recognising that his opinion as you have suggested it to be is weak! If he is simply reflecting cultural norms and not recognising that his son's peers may have more influence in this than he has, you may want to consider his suggestion more thoroughly.

Now what other reasons might be real for you to consider having your baby son circumcised?

I would submit that it makes cleanliness much easier if you have him circumcised.

I would submit that circumcision is good preventative medicine. During the past 12 months 4 major studies have demonstrated a benefit and I would not be surprised to see the AAP modify their stand (from 8 years ago)which implies that, 'yes, there are benefits as well as risks but they are even enough that they are not currently recommending circumcision for all babies as a universal health measure'. Researching this issue may assist both of you to consider what is best for your son. I hope that medical facts may allow you to consider your husband's 'limited view' based on his own status. However, I would urge you to consider that your husband may want his son to look like him because, for him it is what he knows for males in our part of the world and his own status is 'comfortable and satisfying'.

I may or may not have been fair to your husband's views - if I'm not, it is because I am female and may fail to understand what makes him say his son should be done because he is.

Best wishes, and remember, this is a decision best made together. Some dotor's suggest that a baby boy should be circumcised if his father is and left uncircumcised if that is the way his father is (the 'cultural' argument) - you could do worse than to follow this conventional thinking!

Answer 7

I actually wish i wasnt circumsised. There just isnt any reason to it. Its common sense, wash things that look and get dirty. But its really up to the person i guess. I also dont like how they cut it as children. I think they should as adults because they can make the decision on thier own.

Answer 8

i dont see anything wrong with not circumcising but if your husband wants your son to be circumcised theres nothing wrong with that either that should be between you and your husband. But my son is circumcised and so is my husband and i would always choose my children to be circumcised. Hope that helps ... besides ive heard that guys who arent circumcised are more prone to infections and stuff like that but you can also get infections and stuff from being circumcised so its kind of a 50/50 thing. this should be decided by your husband hes the one whos gotta teach him all the sex stuff when hes older

Answer 9

Daddy should have no right to have his sons penis mutilated just so "he can look like me"If that was a valid reason then any cosmetic surgery would be ok just so jnr could look like snr.

Answer 10

i've had two circumcized boyfriends and one uncircumcized, which is the one i have now. he has told me that nobody has bothered him about it. i like it, to be honest. i don't see why anyone would say anything about it, we all have different bodies after all.