Circumcision?

Question

Lets hear all your opinions on it. Should it be done on babies or adults? Keep in mind, on babies they get no anethesia. On adults, you at least get a local and the understanding why it's being done.

Would or or did you do it to your son?

Which "way" do you prefer? Which looks better?

Answer 1

I've heard all the arguments. I've seen infant boys being circ'd. I've seen adult males both circ'd and uncirc'd. I see no reason to have an infant circ'd.

I did NOT have my son done.

As far as looks.....on adult males, an erect penis looks the same either way. The only way you can tell is if it is flaccid. Honestly, ladies, how many of us pay attention the them unless they're erect? As far as hygiene goes....they learn it the same way they learn to brush their teeth, by their parents reminding them to do it! It's no more "dirty" to be intact than it is to be circ'd, provided he has good hygiene. If he ISN'T clean there, he probably isn't clean anywhere else on his body either, so why would you even get that far?

Answer 2

It shouldn't be done on babies. It has been shown time and time again that there is no compelling medical reason at all; it is taking a way a choice about that individual's own body, and a private and sensitive part of their body as well. I also think it is barbaric that it is usually done without anaesthetic (they don't always use EMLA cream, but that is not sufficient for this type of operation) and don't see how people can't believe it doesn't have some sort of subconscious impact. Even for religious reasons, just being a child born to Jewish parents does not automatically make you a Jew. I think when a teen or adult chooses to join the church they can get it done then. And yes they will get anaesthetic and they will know what is going on.

I agree that the foreskin has become demonised in some cultures including America. Any body part can have problems, foreskin included. But they are rare and easily treatable. It's very similar to noses. Imagine if everybody had them cut off. They could still breathe and smell (just like circumcised men can still have sex and come). However they wouldn't get as much snot/bogies, they wouldn't get red itchy sore inflammed nasal tissue with a cold, and people who got used to a noseless culture would prefer the look. It's just like that with the foreskin. The foreskin has a purpose and function and provides pleasure. An localised infection in the area, easily treated with antibiotics, is not reason for removal. Also, another reason uncircumcised kids in America often have so many "problems" is because normal occurrences like ballooning are considered to be problems, or the problems are caused by improper management of the foreskin. The foreskin is attached to the glans for the first few years of life, often until puberty, but many people even doctors don't know it and think it should be able to retract for cleaning, sometimes they even force it back. This CAUSES infections, adhesions, mis-diagnosis of tight foreskin etc.

I would never do it to any sons of mine.

I think an adult male can do whatever he wants with his own penis. I do think people considering circumcision should be fully informed though.

Looks I think intact looks so natural and works well I don't like the look of circumcised as much because it doesn't look normal, but I can see how people used to it can think it looks better.

Answer 3

If you are thinking about doing it Watch one being done FIRST.

Should it be done on babies or adults?
Adults - because it's there body and they have a say on it.

Would I or did I do it to your son?
I wouldn't do it to my sons, It's not mine to take if he wanted it done when he was a teenager then I would be happy for him to have it done.

Which "way" do I prefer? Which looks better?
Well since I am circumcised and being circumcised is all I have ever knowen. It would have to be circumcised.

I don't agree with parents doing it to there children there’s no medical reason all these myths on that it stops caner and AIDS are just myths. You shouldn't do it for religious reasons either, we don't stone woman to death any more so why should we circumcise our little boy's.

Some religions believe in circumcising woman and the US have banned that, So why don't they ban male circumcision.

Answer 4

1) First of all, get your facts straight. Babies DO get local anesthesia. The AAP clearly states that EMLA cream and a penile block should be used and nowadays most circumcisions are performed with pain relief.
Older children get general anesthesia as can adults.

As to the why, well a baby may not understand why, but it also doesn't understand why it's being vaccinated and we still do that without their consent or understanding.

2) Both my sons are circumcised for religious reasons. Any future sons will be as well.

3) It's not about "the looks", so my prefernce is irrelevant.

Answer 5

Circumcised is a cultural and often religious choice. It is preformed on an infant without anesthesia because it is over so quickly the anesthesia is more dangerous than the procedure. I believe it is a more attractive choice than the "natural" look and I did choose this option for my son and would gladly pay for any other man-child in my family to have it done (some insurance won't cover as they state it is "cosmetic"). Studies show that women whose husbands are circumcised suffer fewer infections and are less likely to suffer cervical cancer. Also as far as male health goes it is definitely cleaner and they are less likely to develop certain infections and urinary issues as well. You will get lots of flame for this question but I hope you get some good clear responses to. Good Luck!

Answer 6

Would I do it to my son at birth? No.
Would I do it to my son if he requested it later as a responsible child? Definitely

This is an interesting question. The tradition of circumcision, both in the United States and in other countries is one which has changed significantly throughout time.

When looking at circumcision historically, it is vital to differentiate between the the three different reasons boys are circumcised: religion, health, and local tradition. The Judaic and Islamic traditions generally mandate the circumcision is performed at some point in the life of a young male to be accepted by that religion's community, and is thus not an optional procedure for them. Healthwise, you'll probably find boys and men in every country on the planet who have undergone a circumcision to remedy health-related problems with the penis and specifically the foreskin and glans.
Culturally however, it is more difficult to pinpoint the reasons the tradition remains.

It is important to remember that for all the justification of circumcision as a procedure when it first became widespread both in the US and the UK (as well as UK territories including Canada, Australia and New Zealand) it was designed as a method for preventing masturbation and had nothing to do with hygiene. Only over time, as it's ineffectiveness against masturbation became evident, did the medical community begin to justify it as a "healthy" procedure.

The tradition was slowly abandoned in places like Britain (where there is a <10% routine infant circumcision rate), Australia (where the routine infant circumcision rate is now between 10-30% and Canada (roughly 35% routine circumcision rate depending on province). The last two countries to really hold onto circumcision as a standard procedure for the vast majority of babies for non-religious reasons are the United States (where today ~65% of newborn boys are circumcised, varying by region from as low as 30% in the west to almost 90% in the midwest and 75% in the northeast...additionally there are wide variations in rates amongst particular races, with whites more likely to circumcise, usually between 70-80% of newborn white males are circumcised, and hispanics/asians less likely to circumcise) and South Korea, which has a near 80% circumcision rate. It is important to note, however, that the tradition of circumcision in South Korea arose largely as a result of American influence there following the Korean War.

Today, there remains no national medical association in any country that will directly endorse circumcision. In the US, it is neither encouraged nor discouraged, but is noted to have no obvious health benefits, at least not enough to justify the operation as "routine". In the UK, Australia and Canada, the government takes a more proactive stance against circumcision, arguing that the procedure should not be performed at all unless there are certain conditions present in the infant, boy or man, (i.e. severe phimosis) and is classified as a largely cosmetic procedure otherwise.

The United States holds on to the practice mainly as a result of tradition. Parents will justify it saying it is "cleaner" (only marginally, and not if proper hygiene is taught), and will spread disease less (only if your son is promiscuous, doesn't use protection, and even then the incidence of transmission of things like HPV is only slightly higher than that in circumcised males). Otherwise, they usually justify it as "it looks better" (cosmetic), and "he should look like his dad" or "he shouldn't have to stand out in the locker room" (local culture and cosmetic).

Ultimately whether to do it or not at birth is a question that is difficult to answer. Yes, a baby may feel pain even then; however, he won't remember it later in life, which makes it largely a moot point, considering a child, or even adult will feel the pain of recovery significantly, even if he doesn't feel the operation itself.

Infant recovery times are faster, and the risk of complications lower than in adults and children (though young children have similar recovery and complication rates as infants).

Personally, I think we need to step back from this procedure and realize that it is up to our sons to decide what is best for them. This isn't something like vaccination which is a preventative care procedure. This is largely a cosmetic one, with minor health benefits which could be equally obtained from proper hygiene.

That said, I respect parents who do the procedure in the best interest of their child.

Answer 7

Americans have been culturally brainwashed to fear the male foreskin. They are taught that is is an ugly, dirty, disease ridden, piece of skin waiting to rise up and strangle boys in their sleep.

Meanwhile 85% of the rest of the men in the world don't die from having foreskins every day!

I would never cut off my son's prepuce, nor would i have my daughter's surgically amputated.

HERE'S WHY: http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/index.html

Answer 8

circumcision poses less of a health issue, less infections. as a baby, they dont remember it and is only uncomfortable for a few days. and yes, i had my son done when he was born.