Poll: Did you leave your son intact?

Question

The routine infant circumcision rate for males here in the US peaked around 90% in the 1960's because earlier generations considered the foreskin to be a germ magnet and thought that circumcision was a cure-all for everything from masturbation to blindness to mental disorders. The rates have dropped to under 50% in some states today and are still declining due to the results of more comprehensive studies on the foreskin and its function in sexual health. With a near 50/50 chance for a son to be circumcised today, I'm curious.

Did you leave your son intact?

Answer 1

Yes, we left our now seven year old son intact.

We decided that it was not our place-even as his parents-to surgically alter his body for cosmetic reasons. And-as you pointed out-the reasons circumcision was first introduced have been disproven, so aside from religious customs, the only reason to have it done now is for cosmetic reasons.

It has not been difficult to teach our seven year old son to properly care for his penis, and he has not had any issues with it due to poor hygiene. It takes about five seconds to properly wash it when he bathes.

I find it quite ironic that people view circumcision as a necessity for boys, due to hygiene. Yet those same people view female circumcision as genital mutilation (which it is-for both boys AND girls), even though a female has a higher risk of infection and many more crevices that need to be cleaned. But, we manage to teach our daughters to properly clean themselves and if/when they get an infection, we treat it-without mutilating them.

The United States is the ONLY country where routine infant circumcision is still a custom. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine infant circumcision. I recently read an article about how even many people of Jewish descent are choosing not to circumcise their sons. I believe that in the not-so-distant future, circumcised males will be the minority here in the United States, as they are worldwide.

Answer 2

I don't understand the "so he'll look like his dad/brother/uncle/grandfather" explanation for circumcision. You wouldn't have your baby's arm cut off if his father was an amputee, would you? It's the same argument. Just because the father or a sibling has been scarred this way doesn't justify scarring sons and brothers for the sole purpose of having matching sets. Circumcision serves only one purpose and that is to desensitize the penis. It started in the Victorian era in the midst of the masturbation hysteria (because masturbation led to all sorts of health problems, don't ya know) and it lives on today because previous generations have been taught by the generations before them that being cut is normal and preferrable. If it was normal, our sons would be born without a foreskin.

As for health and cleanliness, what do you think is cleaner? A baby's penis with foreskin still intact or a baby's penis with an open wound on its tip? The only reason people think that an uncut penis is unclean and susceptible to infection is because those previous generations have been taught that the foreskin is supposed to be retracted and thoroughly cleansed. Wrong. An uncut baby's penis is much, much easier to clean than that of a circumcised baby. Foreskins are not supposed to be retracted for cleaning. If they are forcefully retracted, the resulting micro-tears could cause infection. If your child is intact and you're caring for his penis properly, there should be no concern of infection. It will retract on its own starting around age 3. By then, your son can learn to retract and clean under his foreskin just as circumcised boys learn to clean their members. Even in the event of infection, over the counter anti-fungal creams will take care of the problem. Surgery isn't prescribed for girls who experience these same infections. Circumcision isn't the answer.

It's been proven that the foreskin is an erogenous zone, itself, full of nerve endings. Cutting it off to permanently expose the glans (head) makes a baby look as though it's in an abnormal and permanently aroused state. Cutting off the foreskin of a baby boy is the same as cutting off the clitoral hood of a baby girl. These prepuces have an evolutionary reason and purpose and that purpose is to protect the glans in males and the clitoris in females. Why some parents see fit to surgically alter their children this way is beyond me. The foreskin is not dirty and it is not a blemish to be removed. It's your son's first defense against infection and it protects the glans against outside irritants.

The only person who should be making the decision to circumcise is the person who will be directly affected by such a decision. Let your child decide. If you're worried about him being teased because he's not circumcised, stop. Teach your child to be proud of his body and remind him that he was left intact because that is how he is supposed to look and that there is nothing to be ashamed of.

Answer 3

You bet he is! I wouldn't have dreamed of cutting off his eye lids if my doctor said i should so why would i cut off parts of his penis just cuz everyone else does? It is not necessary and now that us woman are wise enough to read up on things instead of just listening to what our doctors tell us we are better/stronger people. We at least now have a choice and if its an educated one then we should feel proud of ourselves. If you read up on circumcisions and vaccines and still decide that is whats best for your children then go for it but at least educate yourself on the stuff before you do it!
WHY, WHY would your reason for circumcising your son be "to look like his father" are you kidding me???? That is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard, so if the father was in a wheelchair would you break your child's legs so they would look alike? Good lord, at least own up to it and say you did it cuz that was the choice you made, not so he could "look like his father".

Answer 4

1 yes and 2 no

Answer 5

I did. My reason? His father is in tact and has never had an infection during his 27 years here on Earth. He cleans it properly and we have a great sex life, in case anyone is wondering. Just because the rest of society does it does not mean that it's best, so I decided to go with my instincts and leave him intact.

Answer 6

I do not have a son... hope for one in the future.

but he will remain normal.

religiously, culturally, medically, morally.... for my family it is the only option.

ps: I'm sitting at my computer holding an "intact" 10 month old boy who's learning to hold his own bottle of his mother's breastmilk :) ... typing w/ 1 finger is not easy :)

Answer 7

Yes I left my son "intact" his father and the men in both our families are not circumcised.

Answer 8

We sure did. They/ We have what we have for a reason. Keep it clean while we change them then teach them to keep it clean on their own.

Answer 9

Of course!

When my sons turn 18, they can pierce, amputate or tattoo any part of their own body they want to, including their foreskins, as long as they don't tell their mama. I don't want to know.

Answer 10

No way. Men get such a complex over their penis' anyway, I didn't want other kids making fun of my son (like in gym class), or heaven forbid, the first time a girl sees his penis when she's never seen an intact one before. "WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR PENIS??" He doesn't need that. I think they look ugly when left intact. My husband made the final decision, and he's more of a penis expert than I am. It was his call, and he said to do it, so we did.