The Great Parenting Controversy - Circumcision!

[lameremusicale]

What are your thoughts on circumcising infant boys?

I know that it is considered "normal" in the United States to be circumcised but in reality, our country is in the minority! Circumcision is not normal in the other big, developed countries.
There are a lot of myths surrounding it - that uncircumcised men are "dirtier" and more at risk for disease / infection / etc. All of this is very untrue.

I believe that baby boys are born 100% perfect and I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if I allowed someone to chop off bits of him when he was born. I am proud to have an intact son, and I'm very pleased that the circumcision rate in America has dropped to 60% and is on the decline. It is no longer "weird" to have your natural parts!

So, what do you think? Would you / have you circumcised your boys?

(Note: I don't judge other parents, especially older ones.. if you have an older boy, chances are you had him circumcised because there used to be a lot of false information in the medical community about the care and health of an intact boy. Even if you have a younger son and still circ'd, it's not my place to say you did something wrong... so don't get defensive, it's all friendly debate ;p)

[dreamyxo]

I don't have a son but if i did I would leave the decision up to his father.  He has a lot more experience in that area than I do.

[lameremusicale]

I see a lot of people who say they would leave the decision up to the father... I worry about that because if the father didn't do the proper research and was only going off of "I am circumcised so my son will be too!", they are harming a baby for no reason :/

My boyfriend is circumcised but he made the decision NOT to do that to his children. I am lucky to have such an informed man

[tberglund]

What are your thoughts on circumcising infant boys?

I have known men with and without their foreskin. Those with, say they like it better, but it does take a bit more effort to keep clean, not an inconvenience, just a fact (for them). Plus, they have never experienced being circumcised. There is no frame of reference.

The ones without their foreskin are mostly indifferent, because they have not known any other way of being, since they were circumcised at such a young age. Again, there is no frame of reference. However, I haven't met anyone that is circumcised that ever told me they would like to have their foreskin back.

People who have their babies circumcised, make a decision for that child (adult-in-training) without consulting them or even considering what that child might want for themselves.

As a mature adult, a man can decide if he wants to be circumcised. Usually it is a religious requirement, anyway. A baby can't pick their religion.

[v1deo_junkie]

I get what you are saying, but I think you are missing the health advantages to this argument.  Men without circumcised penises are far more likely to get infections, bacteria, and certain STD's that those of us who are circumcised don't have to worry about.  I understand your point of view is that it is a religious choice, but when you are a baby you don't have a choice on vaccinations either.  You might not like drugs or want to receive a vaccination if you are a scientologist, but it is the parents duty to make that decision for their child.  As a parent your job is to make decisions for them that they are unable to make.  I can't imagine any guy who has been circumcized who would want to go back.  I knew this guy who was uncircumsised and he had tearing that was "excrutiantingly painful."  It is a health issue, not just a religious one.  In my opinion a good parent will have this done for their child.  The child will have far less issues if he has this done.  Furthermore, if you wait then it will be painful for the child later on.  When they are just a baby it is not really that big of a deal.  I have a circumcised *bleep* and I would kill someone if they made me slap a foreskin on it. 

[tberglund]

Good Point. If I had a boy child, I would probably have him circumcised; but intellectually, it makes more sense to let the adult decide. The parents' duty then would be to teach their child to practice good personal hygiene. Show them how to keep clean.

In response to infections and stds; who in their right mind would have sex without std protection - using a condom? If I had to go through my youth again, I would be scared to death to have sex with anyone.

Maybe it is better to be circumcised. I'm glad I'm a girl and so is my daughter.

[michealmmsm]

I have three sons.  With the youngest being brought into the world 2 months ago.  All of them have had the procedure doen.  I had it done myself.  It looks more painful to an adult than what it is too them.  It really is a good procedure to have.,

[lameremusicale]

I get what you are saying, but I think you are missing the health advantages to this argument.  Men without circumcised penises are far more likely to get infections, bacteria, and certain STD's that those of us who are circumcised don't have to worry about.  I understand your point of view is that it is a religious choice, but when you are a baby you don't have a choice on vaccinations either.  You might not like drugs or want to receive a vaccination if you are a scientologist, but it is the parents duty to make that decision for their child.  As a parent your job is to make decisions for them that they are unable to make.  I can't imagine any guy who has been circumcized who would want to go back.  I knew this guy who was uncircumsised and he had tearing that was "excrutiantingly painful."  It is a health issue, not just a religious one.  In my opinion a good parent will have this done for their child.  The child will have far less issues if he has this done.  Furthermore, if you wait then it will be painful for the child later on.  When they are just a baby it is not really that big of a deal.  I have a circumcised *bleep* and I would kill someone if they made me slap a foreskin on it. 

The thing is, there are no significant health advantages to having a circumcised *bleep*.

The fact is, circumcision is an outdated ritual that began as an oppressive Christian way of actually discouraging young boys from masturbating (sorry for the TMI, guys!! haha) ... as time went by and our society became less conservative in that respect, the medical community didn't want to lose all the money they were getting from performing this useless surgery on all baby boys so they published "studies" that there were advantages to circumcision. This is why so many people believe that it is cleaner, safer, and healthier to have the procedure done.

The information that most receive about it is false. The American Academy of Pediatrics has released a statement saying that circumcision is nothing more than a cosmetic procedure with no significant health benefits. The reality is: the number of infant boys that suffer from complications in relation to the surgery outweigh the number of boys "saved" from a UTI by getting their foreskin removed.

Doctors used to tell parents that in order to clean an intact boy,the foreskin had to be pulled back and the glans underneath cleaned. This is very, very bad. The foreskin retracts naturally anywhere from 6 years of age until puberty (could be 13 or 14 before it moves!)... so because all the parents of intact boys were forcibly retracting, then the men with uncut you-know-whats (lol) were getting serious permanent damage done and the result was more infections, tearing, and sometimes they needed to have the surgery later.
With the knowledge and research we have now, parents know better than to pull back the foreskin, so the risk of boys/men getting infections from not being circumcised is no higher than the infection risk to a circumcised male.


With allll that said, hahah, my boyfriend IS circumcised and he has stated numerous times that he wishes his mother would have just "left it alone".. he suffers consequences from the procedure and it can sometimes be very painful!

[xxmynamesnessaxx]

I get what you are saying, but I think you are missing the health advantages to this argument.  Men without circumcised penises are far more likely to get infections, bacteria, and certain STD's that those of us who are circumcised don't have to worry about.  I understand your point of view is that it is a religious choice, but when you are a baby you don't have a choice on vaccinations either.  You might not like drugs or want to receive a vaccination if you are a scientologist, but it is the parents duty to make that decision for their child.  As a parent your job is to make decisions for them that they are unable to make.  I can't imagine any guy who has been circumcized who would want to go back.  I knew this guy who was uncircumsised and he had tearing that was "excrutiantingly painful."  It is a health issue, not just a religious one.  In my opinion a good parent will have this done for their child.  The child will have far less issues if he has this done.  Furthermore, if you wait then it will be painful for the child later on.  When they are just a baby it is not really that big of a deal.  I have a circumcised *bleep* and I would kill someone if they made me slap a foreskin on it. 

I agree with this 100%... and it was exactly what I was going to say, INCLUDING the someone I know had tearing of his foreskin.  The only thing I can't agree with is having a circumcised *bleep* (because I'm a female).  But I was VERY informed in making my choice for my son, and I'm a proud Mommy of a 16 month old circumcised boy.   

[oldbuddy]

I had it and my little brother didn't. He's dead and I'm not. Nuf said? 

[lameremusicale]

I had it and my little brother didn't. He's dead and I'm not. Nuf said? 

um. tell me you're not serious.

[oldbuddy]

I had it and my little brother didn't. He's dead and I'm not. Nuf said? 

um. tell me you're not serious.

I'm not serious, OK?