Should women stay out of the circumcision debate?

[Nikki Stone1]

There is a real debate as to whether or not infant male circumcision is acceptable. I know men who were circumcised as babies that resent what was done to them without their knowledge or consent. I know others who have no problem with it.

As a woman, I have always stayed out of these debates, figuring it was a guy's body, a guy's issue. But I wonder if women should remain silent on this issue. Any thoughts?

[Katherine Brengle]

1. Considering I said that they should have a voice in the abortion debate...

then yeah I feel entitled to chip in on this one.

Honestly, from a civil rights perspective, I have no idea what the protocol should be. But I can attest to the general ickiness of the uncircumcised variety...

Then again, that may very well just be social conditioning, so I have no idea...

[Lisa0825]

10. It's social conditioning. (nt)

[Mutley]

319. The uncircumcised variety is fine as long as they keep it clean.

[Olney Blue]

2. As a female, I don't know about circumcision.

But I truly appreciate men who openly and loudly support my right to choose.

[Jersey Devil]

240. Well, perhaps the guys can give you some "tips"

Sorry! I couldn't resist that silly impulse. :silly:

[Olney Blue]

297. LOL. Good one.

[swimboy]

3. It's hard to define what staying out of the debate would mean.

I think a woman should prevent her infant son from being circumcised, so the son can make an autonomous decision later. That preventive step might land her right in the middle of the debate.

[Dora]

4. When my son was born

I asked my husband to make the circumcision decision, and I told him that I would support his choice regardless of what he decided.

[Nikki Stone1]

23. That sounds like what I would do. I figure it's a guy thing

But, maybe mothers should have some say

[One_of_8]

60. Um, aren't we forgetting single moms?

Sometimes, there is only one parent around. I had a baby and the dad chose not to participate. So that means I made all the decisions regarding my son, from the time I learned I was pregnant until he was nearly five.

So I'm scratching my head wondering how you can think that maybe women should have no say. Sometimes, you gotta step up and make a decision. I made it on behalf of my son, as I made all the other decisions affecting him.

I diagree that the decision should only be made by the father, or by males. If both parents are involved in a child's life, I think both should have input on health decisions, or if you prefer, medical choices.

[Dora]

138. I didn't say, "women should have no say"

I said I gave the decision-making to my husband.

He and I discussed the pros and cons, as well as social and cultural issues. We also discussed the very real concern of pain to our son.

After all this discussion, I asked my husband to bear the responsibility of making the decision, and I gave him my nondiscriminating support.

[One_of_8]

290. I didn't say you did say that

I was actually responding to the post just above mine, which said that "perhaps" women should have a say-so. I was merely pointing out that sometimes the only decision maker around is the mom. I have no problem with how you and your husband arrived at the decision.

[Warpy]

56. Little boys want to look like daddy

and I know a lot of women who went between cut versus uncut when they remarried and had sons who wanted to look like the new daddy.

If daddy's around, it should be his decision.

[Dora]

140. Warpy

Part of me wanted to "give" (as if I could) the decision to my husband because I felt it so unfair that I experienced so much "more" of the pregnancy and childbirth than he did.

Of course, he experienced the act of witnessing the entire process which is important, but I wanted him to have a sense of ownership of the experience (not ownership of our son, we never own our children).

Thanks for the validation.

[Hamlette]

101. I made the decision for my son, not my husband

what is this nonsense about it being a man's decision? The hospital didn't ask my husband, they asked me. And what's this about "looking like their fathers?" Silly.

My son is 23. When he was born they were advising against it. They gave me literature to read. 1.5 pages of why not to do it and a few reasons why you should do it. The reasons in favor of it were things like: so they can look like dad, or look like everyone else. NONE of them were good reasons. The reasons not to do it were health reasons.

The decision should be made on medical information and nothing else. Why in the world would you worry about being different?

[Dora]

139. I don't know what "nonsense" you're talking about, sister.

I didn't say it was a man's decision. I said I asked my husband to make the decision, and that I would support it.

I have no worries about being different, trust me.

[Hamlette]

183. it's cosmetic surgery, on an infant

on a part of the body very few people ever see.

I didn't mean to sound shrill or dismissive but I wouldn't turn over a decision about cosmetic surgery of my infant to anyone. Not even my husband.

When I heard how they did it (they prefer the parents not be in the room, strap the baby down in four point restraints, arms and legs strapped to a board), and heard a child scream when it was done on him, and heard my son scream when they stuck him to draw blood....I didn't have the stomach for it.

[Dora]

226. Well, our experience was very different.

My husband was with our son the entire time, the doctor (with 50 years of experience) used an anesthetic, the only "restraints" were my husband's and a nurse's gentle hands, and my husband tells me that our son didn't utter a peep throughout the procedure. This was not a traumatic experience for our son - not by any stretch of the imagination.

I know that there are bad circumcisions, and I know that infants have been treated like objects and denied anesthetic and other terrible, terrible things. This was not the case for us.

I don't have the stomach for barbarity either. I trusted that the procedure would be done gently and mindfully, and it was.

[sui generis]

308. thank you for the reality check

the only news that makes the news with people who already have a bias is bad news and horror stories. They ignore everything they don't want to hear.

It's fine - I believe they should be able to make that choice for their child. I just don't want them to legislate taking that choice away from my family because of the choice they think should be right for everybody.

It is so hard to keep busybodies out of our lives, even on DU. My goodness.

[sui generis]

307. the decision should be made on unbiased medical information

if you had a pamphlet like that it sounds like there was some bias.

And another thing, you're wrong about "nothing else". If you place a lot of meaning on it culturally then make your decision based on it culturally. Those are the same values that your child will hopefully have, so it makes no difference.

Sounds like you have an odd marital arrangement. Also the fact that the hospital staff who did not ask both you and your husband means that they had an intended outcome as well.

Do you think they give that literature to jewish women in the absence of their husbands? Makes you wonder.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

300. Not your decision to make

No one has the right to mutilate someone else's genitals. This should not even be a decision for parents to make. Baby boys should be left intact and when they grow up if they do not like their foreskins they should be the ones that decide to have it removed.
You cannot undo the damage once it's done. Let the boys be given the choice. Don't take it away from them.
My boys are very glad I kept them from being cut up.

[sui generis]

312. did you ask your boys? What did they compare to?

wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that conversation.

"should be" This is not a normative world, and a world of complex cultures and choices. Taking away choices to make things the way they "should be" is culturally insensitive. Unless you plan on outlawing circumcisions for the jewish population or the muslim population, and furthermore, enforcing it and punishing violators, then this whole discussion is beyond absurd.

explain what you plan to do about the jewish problem then. Or the muslim problem. I would bet that YOU are very glad you had the choice to make one way or the other.

Anyway, people have been "mutilating" their genitals since long before your ancestors were sacrificing christians in the woods of merry olde england, and civilization hasn't ended.

[cynatnite]

5. You've got a point if a law had to be created around it n/t

[Minnesota Libra]

6. Only to the degree that men stay out of the abortion issue. nt

[hholli11]

7. his body, his choice...

I've heard that uncut men have better sexual experiences. I think we should let men have control over their own peckers. :)

[cynatnite]

8. It would be nice if some men would control their own peckers

:sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Self-Delete

nt

[sui generis]

228. I say we do a study!

Put this silly hearsay to rest.

It's all subjective. You would have to control for the same sex partner, the same level of sexual desire with that partner, the same psychosexual dynamic, the same sexual activities, length of foreplay, foreplay activity, etc., and the same degree of sensitivity in everyone, and that's just not possible. Premature ejaculation and conversely reduced sensitivity don't distinguish between helmets and anteaters - it's just a roll of the dice for about 1 in 4 men (based on recent real studies) and appears to be more psychological than physiological.

Everything we "hear" about other people is just anecdotal and any other study that makes such an absurd claim can't possibly be scientific.

Yeah, men should have control over their own, but most of the issues from phimosis to poor hygienic habits develop in children and are problems for life, so really families should have control over their own children, and psychologically healthy men should be a little less obsessed with their dicks.

Muslims do circumcision as part of the rite of passage into manhood, most of the rest of the circumsized world does it to the infant, and then a few guys with anteaters think everyone should have an anteater too. That's just weird.

Now they're obsessed with OTHER people's dicks. Tell me that ain't a little fruity.

[depakid]

9. I don't see how there's all that much of a debate

on a rational level.

As an emotional deal, maybe. But when study after study comes out that shows that circumcision dramatcially decreases the risk of HIV infection, one would hope that the tendency would be to follow the science and give your child that measure of protection. Don't see why a woman should exclude herself from thinking about that.

[Lisa0825]

15. It's not as clear as you state.

I'll have to look up the info later, but there were specific issues with the studies that I read about. In general, even most medical societies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, do NOT recommend circumcision.

[depakid]

29. The evidence looks pretty good at this point

unfortunately, as I mentioned- there's a lot of emotion in the "debate," so running a pub med search won't yield many abstracts (academic publishing $$$ thing, I'm guessing).

I expect that the results will continue to pour in in that direction, though.

[Lisa0825]

31. See below for well-documented references (nt)

[Nikki Stone1]

16. I hadn't heard about the HIV thing. Most of the arguments for circumcision

are myths, including the hygiene one, but HIV protection I hadn't heard about, Is there a study out there to look at?

[Yupster]

165. How is the hygiene argument a myth?

Having a warm, wet, protected place where sweat, urine and semen collects is of course a hygiene concern.

Of course it can be reduced by frequent washing, but it's just common sense that having a warm, wet place like that is going to be a hygiene concern to some extent. The hygiene issue can be reduced very greatly, but it is always going to be there.

[Touchdown]

242. Yeah, that warm, wet place destroys your eyes too.

The glans is an internal organ, like your eyeball. Circumcision slices off what is essentially the protector of the glans. All that sweat, urine, semen, etc. is natural. I don't see anybody advocating the removal of eyelids because of the bacteria farm that they are.

90% of human males, and 100% of animal males get no more infections than circumcized human males. Species don't go extinct because of foreskins.

[sui generis]

248. not wiping your ass is natural too

but most of us use toilet paper.

In fact washing one's hair and pits and brushing one's teeth is unnatural.

Life is organic, but we're not monkeys any more, you know.

[Touchdown]

271. So it's REEEEAAAAL hard....

to get a boy to play with his cock in the shower, huh?

[sui generis]

306. non sequitor

afraid you'll have to connect the dot for me. To something.

Hey there are lots of places besides the shower, by the way.

[Yupster]

280. Can't argue with you there

Circumsicion will no doubt not lead to the extinction of the human race. It's just not that big of a deal.

Smelliness is also natural. Can't argue there either.

I went to college in Europe and lived with a family that limited me to two showers a week. I think they thought even that was extravagant. I can guarantee that smelliness is natural and is practiced in many places, or it was 25 years go when I went to college there anyway.

[fleabert]

273. there are two studies, both of which are badly flawed.

a condom is all that is necessary to properly protect both a circumcised and uncircumcised man. (of course, not having sex is the only foolproof way, but you know what I mean)

the studies were conducted using questionable control groups, mostly men who frequent prostitutes in Africa, where condom use is not common and HIV is rampant. The circ'd group was mostly made up of those in relationsips.

[Lisa0825]

21. Here's one article on the subject of HIV

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

Circumcision and HIV infection: review of
the literature and meta-analysis

Summary: Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection. Study designs have included geographical analysis, studies of high risk patients, partner studies and random population surveys. Most of the studies have been conducted in Africa. A meta-analysis was performed on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.

[Lisa0825]

26. more info:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
"The United States HIV incidence rate is 3.5 times higher than that of the closest advanced industrialized nation. Storms 28 and Nicoll 32 noted that the high incidence of male circumcision in the US did nothing to prevent the spread of this infection. Nicoll, in fact, states that "the US is the industrialized country most burdened with HIV."32"

"Sociocultural confounding factors. Poland makes it clear that circumcision is not performed at random. Circumcision is a socio-cultural marker that may indicate wide differences in social and cultural practices among different groups and tribes. For example, circumcision incidence in the U.S. is lower among poor and Hispanic people.6 Circumcision (and, conversely, intactness) are socioeconomic indicators that may relate to differences in sexual behavior, hygienic behavior, and access to medical care. Failure to control for these confounding factors is a frequent source of error in such studies.

Circumcision changes sexual behavior. Circumcised men have a greater tendency to engage in riskier, "more highly elaborated" sexual practices.31 Such behavior includes unsafe sex (less frequent use of condoms, which deaden sensation even more for circumcised men; anal sex, or sex with multiple partners). This may contribute to the high rate of HIV infection in the United States, where circumcision rates are still of epidemic proportions."

[depakid]

38. One needs to control for these factors

Sometimes, you can do that statistically, although the gold standard is a randomized trial where you follow the cohorts and document the results between the groups.

[FlaGranny]

260. I would view any study which stated the following

as extremely suspect (in other words, total, complete nonsense):

"Circumcision changes sexual behavior. Circumcised men have a greater tendency to engage in riskier, "more highly elaborated" sexual practices."???

[Touchdown]

285. Friction vs. movement.

Intact penises move within the foreskin, simple movement. Circumcized ones rub up against the vaginal walls, or uses friction to gain sexual release. This is what must be done for sexual gratification when 70,000 nerves God gave you are severed off by a Doctor looking to fatten his wallet. $600 a procedure...and insurance pays it.

[RobertSeattle]

287. I heard the trend is that the trend is downward though

One of those health insurance cost cutting things.

[FlaGranny]

338. My post was not advocating

for OR against circumcision - just the ridiculous statement in that article that circumcision makes men engage in more dangerous sexual practices. Does it make them engage in more anal sex, go to more prostitutes, change sexual orientation, or increase the number of their sexual partners? Don't think so.

[depakid]

35. For every one you cite- I can cite another

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that male circumcision may provide protection against HIV-1 infection. A randomized, controlled intervention trial was conducted in a general population of South Africa to test this hypothesis.

CONCLUSION: Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa. (Preliminary and partial results were presented at the International AIDS Society 2005 Conference, on 26 July 2005, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16231970&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

[sui generis]

246. an abrasian on a highly vascularized area of skin

can facilitate infection with many things including HIV. Foreskins are highly vascularized, and microscopic abrasian can result from the simple mechanics of sex in some cases.

As I understand it, HIV 1 is more highly infectious through mucous membranes than other variants, which also means women in developing countries can be more easily infected through sex and fewer exposures.

Anyway, it's always funny how everyone wants to justify who they are themselves by trying to force everyone else to be like them. The anti-circ crowd is just shrieky and statistically absurd considering that the great grand majority of men don't give a damn one way or another about their own weeners, much less someone else's.

[mconvente]

324. yep

"The anti-circ crowd is just shrieky and statistically absurd considering that the great grand majority of men don't give a damn one way or another about their own weeners, much less someone else's."

That pretty much states it. To call circumcision "genital mutilation" is highly excessive, IMO. Give me a break...

[wildeyed]

78. This is relatively new information.

I did not have my son circumcised because at the time, I could see no reason to do so. If I had known about the HIV studies, I might have made a different decision.

Course he can always have it done himself when the time comes. And really, he shouldn't be having unprotected and/or promiscuous sex, regardless.

[depakid]

103. It's very new information

that's only been really well documented and replicated in the last year or two.

I think a lot of people get caught up (for lack of better words) in a "psychology of prior investment" or a "buyers remorse" type thing.

And they shouldn't.

Parents for the most part try to do right by their kids with the information that they have. For example, when I was growing up, it was still thought (in parts of the South, at least) that kids should be right handed. So I got "trained" to be right handed, even though I'm a natural lefty. Some things that I learned on my own like archery- I do left handed- and I can't hit the broad side of a barn any other way. Others, like penmanship or throwing a baseball I do with my right. Oh well...;)

[wildeyed]

105. With kids, you are always trying to do the best for them,

and I have found that there is always new info coming along that contradicts what I thought before, and my kids are still little! By the time they are grown, I will be able to write a book about my well-meaning parenting mistakes. :sigh:

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lisa0825]

115. THANK YOU!

And welcome to DU!!! :hi:

[wildeyed]

120. Um, I didn't circumcise my son.

I have no hangups one way or the other about circumcision. I only stated that if I had known about the HIV studies, I might, the operative word being might, have made a different decision. I have not done any serious research on the HIV studies because, having opted not to circumcise my son at birth, I don't think it would be a good idea to do it now, at four years old. If he wants it, he will have to make that decision himself when he is older.

As far as condoms, yes, I will teach my son to wear them, or better yet, forgo sex until he is ready for a committed relationship. But you know, kids make their own decisions and some of them are bad. As a parent, I will try to protect my child from needless suffering anyway I can. My daughter will receive the new injection they have that protects against the papilloma virus that causes cervical cancer, even though I prefer that she not have sex until she is in a committed, long term relationship. Because, again, kids sometimes make bad decisions. God knows my judgment was execrable at that age.

[depakid]

131. LOL- I do have an agenda.

It's called science and public health.

When I was a bit younger, reason trumped emotional responses and loaded language.

It would be nice if it got that way again sometime....

(hint: that means- you have to take the time read the most up to date material for yourself and make an informed decision).

[Touchdown]

238. Not "study after study". ONE study.

...by the AMA, which was contradicted by another same study by the American Pediatrics Association, which drew the opposite conclusions.

Even so, you hyperbolic vebiage is spreading disinformation. The AMA study said there is a "slight decrease" in infection rates, not enough to warrant a national policy of circumcision. Your useage of the word "dramatically" is nothing more than propaganda.

[depakid]

251. Man, you need to learn how to research

It's not that hard.

Keywords go in here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

[VelmaD]

11. On female "circumcision"...we should scream and holler...

on male circumcision...I think that should be up to the boy/man in question to decide. I've had men cut and un-cut and it frankly didn't make me a bit of difference. I'm just not sure how I feel about it being done to children too young to make an informed choice.

on edit: I really don't see how you can compare the two - circumcision and abortion. But whatever. Have fun.

[Warpy]

47. The equivalent operation to male circumcision is hymenectomy

The equivalent for males to FGM is having the penis chopped off and the balls left behind.

Think about it before you post nonsense equating male circumcision with the drastic mutilation performed on girls and misnamed "female circumcision."

[VelmaD]

75. I didn't equate the two...

my reply came from the fact that the OP didn't include whether they were talking about female or male circumcision in their headline. That would be why I said we should scream and holler about female "circumcision"...which you should have noticed I put in quotes. Sheesh.

[fleabert]

210. actually, the equivalent is a hoodectomy-

when the clitoral hood is removed.

the foreskin and hood are very similar in nerve makeup.

both are barbaric and digusting in my book.

[Katherine Brengle]

61. You also can't compare male and female circumcision --

when a girl/woman goes through this, she is permanently injured to the point of being in constant pain and never being able to enjoy sexual activities.

Male circumcision may be a weird practice, but I haven't seen or heard any evidence that it has any negative effects on men's quality of life--I have, however, heard that it has positive effects...

(I know you weren't comparing them, but I figure someone will at some point...)

[seabeyond]

12. gave birth to two boys. told hubby, was his decision. i knew nothing

i wasnt going to decide this one. whatever he wanted to do. so, in my view, should a female stay out of circumcision debate,

yup

[rocktivity]

181. You didn't stay out of the debate

You made the decision that your husband was best qualified to make the decision and told him so!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Mind_your_head]

13. No, absolutely not should women be silent on this.....

...especially if you are the mother of a son.

As a mother, you are entrusted with making 'good decisions' for your children when they are too young to be able to be able to make good decisions for themselves.

I'm glad that I never had sons, b/c 'back then' I probably wouldv'e chosen for my son to be circumsized....knowing what I know now, I would never let that happen - and I've explained these beliefs to my daughters should THEY some day have sons (however, it's still up to them to choose for their own families some day, and I will respect the decision they make).

[cynatnite]

17. Hubby and I both made the decision with our son...

We researched and found studies going either in support or against it for a variety of reasons. This was almost eight years ago when we found out a boy was coming.

After a lot of discussion, we decided to go ahead with it. Haven't regretted it.

It's a decision parent/parents should make and no one should feel pressured either way, IMO.

[Mind_your_head]

33. With all due respect, if your son was an infant he didn't have any

'say' in the matter. And you and your husband might not have any 'regrets' (and neither does your 8 y/o son at this point, b/c being circumsized is "all he knows" and he's a child still) b/c it doesn't really affect you.

Like I said, I wouldv'e done the same thing ~ but now that "I know more", I don't think it's the best thing to do.

Peace,

M_Y_H

[cynatnite]

42. and waiting until he was older???

When it's far more difficult and dangerous is better?

Sorry, that just doesn't fly at all. Parents make decisions in regards to their children all the time. They do what they feel is best even if others don't agree.

My kids don't go to church. It's a personal decision we made because we don't believe it would be good for our children. It drives my RW mother crazy and she's constantly trying to find ways to get us to relent. It ain't going to happen.

[Warpy]

43. With all due respect, there's a reason a newborn infant doesn't

have a say in the matter and the parents do. Think about it.

[Mind_your_head]

49. When I "think about it" ..... I come up with

no one would choose this for themselves...so it must be 'forced upon you' when you don't have a say.

What did you mean?

[Warpy]

64. On the contrary, some DO choose this for themselves when the

operation is a far more serious one.

Babies have their decisions made for them because they lack the ability to make decisions, period.

Do you also feel potty training was forced on you? Formula? Nappies?

Sheesh.

[Mind_your_head]

69. You're mixing apples w/oranges......

potty training is not in the same realm as an unnecessary operation.

You're too smart, Warpy, to offer up such a weak (strawman) argument. I'm surprised!

Btw, Formula? I prefer breastmilk, thank you.

[cynatnite]

72. My oldest daughter was not breastfed when I had her...

she went straight to bottle.

It's all about parental choices we make. Some may not agree with them and that's okay. Discussions like this are useful, but parents who make ones others don't like shouldn't be made to feel like shit either.

In the end, the government has no right to interfere in the personal choices of their citizens.

[Warpy]

74. It is equivalent, in fact

because the kid wouldn't decide to do that on his own, either, if he had the capacity to decide, which he doesn't.

My statement farther down that men who resent being circumcised as infants are covering for other issues--big ones--stands.

[Mind_your_head]

83. THAT is the point....."the kid wouldn't decide to do that on his own"

So, why is it being done to them? It's not necessary. It's probably not even 'good'.

[shanti]

102. and some men

wish it was the way it was originally....but it's too late to change that, isn't it? one is reversible, one isn't. the choice NOT to circ seems pretty clear.

that said...all four of my sons were cut, because their FATHER insisted upon it. this was 16-29 years ago. my choice would be different now.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. My wife & I did the same, but came to the opposite conclusion.

When it came down to it, in the hospital, we both sort of had an epiphany that, if the decision was making us so miserable, maybe there was a good reason we didn't want our kid cut.

And we haven't regretted it since, either.

But I agree, individual parents need to make the call- I don't know how else you could handle it, because the practice is not going away any time soon. (Both my family and my wife's family are Jewish).. We have enough unenforceable laws on the books as it is. I happen to think we made the right decision, but everyone has to follow their own path, and your mileage may vary.

[cynatnite]

46. Completely agree!

Not all decisions are going to be the same when it comes to kids...we just cross our fingers and hope for the best.

If our son comes to us and is pissed we circ'd him, we'll deal with it.

Just imagine what would happen if the govt. decided all infant boys should be circ'd. For some reason, that wouldn't surprise me.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. Nah, they'll have us all lobotomized, first. nt

[Lisa0825]

121. I think the govt should stay out of it,

but for example, I read that in Canada (not sure if it was certain provinces, or country-wide) insurance won't cover it because it is considered a cosmetic procedure.

[seabeyond]

28. bah hahah, well, i trust my hubby to equally be able to make "good

decisions" for his children too......

[Mind_your_head]

40. It's really easy to tell who is circumsized and not in this......

....hubby's often just want their 'boys' to just 'be like them'.....that is often the extent to which many (not ALL) men think about this issue. How many men really question their own circumcision??? Really?

They're circumsized, it's 'worked' for them...that's all they know.

[cynatnite]

48. I've never met a man who questioned his circumcision

Most of the ones I met really didn't care. They don't remember. Why would they even think about it?

This just confuses me.

[Mind_your_head]

53. Insightful men do think/wonder about it

(there's not a lot of them out there ~ but there are some).

There's also a whole world of men who AREN'T circumsized (and GLAD that they aren't)....but if you live in the US they are more difficult to find b/c here in the US we just cut 'em regularly.

[cynatnite]

57. So if a man doesn't have issues with his circ...

then he's not insightful or thoughtful?????????

They're shallow or something?

That's a hell of a big paintbrush you're carrying there.

[seabeyond]

66. so in all your insightfullness, if a man doesnt agree with you

he isnt insightful. pretty offensive

[Mind_your_head]

89. I expect anyone man or woman to be able to explain

their thoughts on any particular issue. If they can't explain themselves logically/reasonably ~ and there's plenty of room for anecdotal evidence to be added to the dicussion ~ I don't think they understand the issue themselves, and they're just spouting off 'talking points' that they've learned through the years, w/o any genuine thought/insight behind it.

[cynatnite]

95. What do you consider genuine thought/insight?

Just curious as to whether anyone can meet your idea of genuine thought/insight.

[seabeyond]

100. bullshit. own your words. if a man doesnt agree with you

he isnt insightful. all the rest is filler. you really dont give a shit about any logical or reasonable discussion. you require no discussion what so ever. you firmly have your beliefs. at least be honest enough to own it.

[Hotler]

113. I'm insightful, centered, and grounded and have ...

not once lost sleep over Mr.Happy wearing a turtleneck.

[sui generis]

247. the real test is if you lose sleep over other people's window treatments

If you lay awake at night scheming to make sure every purple helmeted love worm has a set of peekaboo drapes, then you're probably not as grounded and sane as you think.

;)

[Touchdown]

243. Yes you did. 6 months ago.

Me. I questioned it, and you chose to ignore me. Nice liar.:eyes:

[fleabert]

277. many have questioned it...

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html

http://www.tlctugger.com/

google: foreskin restoration

[seabeyond]

51. damn good thing i have a hubby that goes beyond what you suggest

we dont take our parental responsibility lightly.

[cynatnite]

54. And if a man has issues with his circ...

his feelings should be taken in consideration when it comes to his son. This is a parents' decision. No one else.

[Mind_your_head]

63. yes, that's true....it is the parent's decision

and it shouldn't be taken lightly (just done b/c that's what happened to the dad, or that's what the hospital says is 'procedure').

After careful consideration, the decision (whatever it is) should be respected.

[swimboy]

289. Here's what I don't understand

You say "This is a parents' decision. No one else." You see, I think it does involve one other person. And that person, and only that person, should get to decide as an adult if they want to elect to have part of their sexual organ removed.

[Neil Lisst]

14. Women should be heard, of course.

Moms have an equal stake.

I think there are sound health reasons to cut, and the cultural imperative and expectations of females suggest cutting is a good way to go.

I know guys who are livid they were cut as babies, however. Of course, I don't agree with them, but there you are.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Actually, the American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

I don't think it's a place for the law to go; there are plenty of reasons why I think individual parents need to make that call themselves, one way or the other. But I was circumcised, I always assumed any son of mine would be too-- but when our son was born, my wife (who is Jewish) and I couldn't bring ourselves to have him cut unless it was absolutely necessary.

IMHO, circumcision is not necessary. Nature doesn't generally stick body parts on people willy-nilly ('scuse the pun) without at least some decent reason. (And yes, I know that men have nipples) That said, however, I think individual parents have to cross that bridge when they come to it. But my experience is that the reality of considering doing it with your kid in front of you is VERY different than thinking about it in the abstract.

[depakid]

55. Actually, what they're saying

is that they're not prepared to weigh in on the accumulating evidence. Yet. Lots of reasons for that- and given that it's an American institution- some of them are economic. Bottom line is that professional organizations are conservative (in terms of accepting "new" or "controversial" doctrines).

[Warren DeMontague]

106. No, what they're saying is that there are studies which show SOME

benefit in terms of lower UTI rates, for instance- but those are NOT sufficient to warrant recommending surgery. The consensus is, that if people want to do it for aesthetic or religious reasons, that's their choice- but there is not enough MEDICAL cause to recommend that people do it.

And if anything, things are moving away from circumcision. The 'new' 'controversial' thing to do is to NOT circumcise. When I was born, everyone was, pretty much. I'm not even sure how much of a choice my mom had in the matter. They just did it.

[depakid]

133. Seems to me that

a 70% protective effect against HIV infection isn't just "some" benefit. It's a huge benefit- nearly equivalent to vaccine efficacy. If the protective effect continues to hold up (it's been replicated several times) at even 1/2 or 1/3 that rate- that's a pretty damn compelling MEDICAL CAUSE to consider.

And as a responsible person- I'd sure as hell consider the studies on their merit, if I were expecting a newborn son- rather than wait for the Academy to fool around for several years with their internal politics.

[Warren DeMontague]

154. It's not "internal politcs". It's the considered decision of the physician

community.

Listen to it, don't listen to it- but there is not sufficient MEDICAL evidence to justify circumcision. The AIDS studies you mention (IF the effect shown in certain studies holds up- a big "IF") have not been shown to be definitive. If anything, they show a correlative effect- which is not the same thing as causation.

But, whatever. There's nothing you could throw at me that would EVER cause me to regret my decision not to have my son circumcised. I held him in my arms immediately after he was born and watched him howl when they pricked his feet to get glucose levels. At that moment, I said to myself, "there's no way I'm letting them cut him unless there's a damn good MEDICAL reason." Our doctor- a very smart, up to date guy who was more than willing to do the procedure- echoed the AAP and said no, there is no overwhelming medical reason to do it.

And we heard all the arguments from all sides- one thing you notice when you have kids is, everyone's got an agenda- but, if and when you get to that point, you and your SO will have to make that call for yourselves.

Peace.

[Neil Lisst]

68. I'm the father of sons, so it's hardly an abstract concept.

I think it's justified simply for cultural reasons, whether there are health benefits or not, but it's a personal choice.

Nature may have a reason for everything, but that reason may be we were running around naked with our business hanging out, something we don't so any more.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. Yeah, I've always been of the opinion that there's a subconscious desire

to physically distinguish ourselves from other animals that is behind it. Who knows. Probably in the desert several thousand years ago, there were more solid health reasons for it as well.

In terms of cultural reasons, like I said, my wife is a practicing Jew, Half of my family is Jewish- so we're all over the cultural reasons. But if you mean what the 'majority' of boys look like out there, at least here on the West Coast it's now something like 50-50. So the argument that an uncircumcised kid is going to look vastly different than all his peers doesn't necessarily hold water. Besides, I've got a good friend who isn't, and we were all born when something like 95% of boys were circumcised-- and he did fine when we were in college.

That said, I'm perfectly comfortable with the way my business is arranged, I've never felt 'robbed' of anything vis a vis a foreskin. But when it came to my own son, I just couldn't bring myself to let them do it.

[Yupster]

168. I've always wondered about that too

Early homo-sapiens running around the bush naked had good reason to not be circumsized.

[Lilith Velkor]

127. (And yes, I know that men have nipples)

Funny how men don't tend to get their nipples chopped off. I hope that doesn't become fashionable while I'm alive, as I would find it aesthetically very distasteful.

[fleabert]

18. No.

Not in regards to infant circ.

over my dead body will anyone cut off a part of my child's body. period.

and no, I wouldn't allow ears piercing either.

[LSparkle]

19. Yes

[stop the bleeding]

20. it's not a debate if all sides are not involved in the debating

maybe I am wrong

[sui generis]

22. think of men deciding on female circumcision?

sorry that was probably over the top - opinions and knowledge are welcome, excuse my sharp tongue ;)

Personally I think it's the parents' issue, nobody else should have any input into that decision outside of the family, male or female. The male "sensitivity" argument assumes that all men are equally sensitive to begin with. Personally I think it's a grass is greener mentality though; and the idea that some people want to remove choice from everyone else because of the choices they made for themselves.

From my perspective and experience the men who "resent what was done to them" speak only for themselves and are relatively few. The difference is they want to remove that choice from parents . . . sounds like?

The rest of us are pretty much okay with the little feller and the grass on this side of the fence and wouldn't change a thing (either way), but we have that choice with our own children, and in some cases as an adult with our own bodies should one choose adult circumcision.

[cynatnite]

32. Exactly right

not over the top at all.

It's mostly men who are making decisions about women's bodies. This argument can be taken in a number of directions, but here is where it all boil's down to:

The government has no right to interfere in personal decisions of individuals and/or families. Period.

[Vektor]

24. Hard to say - since a baby cannot make such a decision, typically Mom

would be the one to decide if to circumcise her male infant. Certainly, this can be a decision between the Mom and the Dad, but in the event the Dad is NOT in the picture, which is sadly all too often the case, a single mother would need to be the one to decide on her own if the procedure is going to be done. I guess she'd HAVE to have a say, since an infant cannot decide this.

[Kaylee]

25. My husband made the decision regarding our son....

I felt I lacked the "tools" to make a "truly" informed decision.

[Extend a Hand]

27. my husband and I both discussed it

when our son was born. My husband is circumcised. My ex was not circumcised and then later in life got an infection and had to have it done as an adult (with an infection) and was in EXTREME pain. So we decided to go ahead and have our son circumcised.

[Yupster]

170. We talked and read and talked

long before going into the hospital.

In the end my wife said it was up to me.

Looking back it was some pretty funny conversations. My wife talked about how she and her friends didn't like having oral sex with guys who weren't circumsized and I thought of embarrassed guys in the locker room.

Funny talking about your son getting head before he's even born. Odd conversations to remember.

[NoPasaran]

30. Yes. Men should as well.

[dogday]

34. You know this is basically a parent's decision

and the best time to do it is when they won't ever remember it....

[pitohui]

37. this woman will be happy to stay out of it

there's a debate?

(kidding!)

have to say here is an issue where i honestly can't find it in myself to give a flying eff, the guys will just have to fight amongst themselves

[Warpy]

39. Well, considering they're the primary parent when "daddy"

has done a bunk, then of course they will weigh in on it. They'll either approve or deny it, and it's a matter of culture and personal taste.

In the case of married spouses, then I think the daddy who will raise the kid and who the kid will want to look like has the bigger say.

Men who resent being circumcised as infants are using it to cover up other issues. Big ones.

[fleabert]

44. this is so not true.

"Men who resent being circumcised as infants are using it to cover up other issues. Big ones."

perhaps they just wish their parents had allowed them to make such an impactful decision?

[Warpy]

50. It's a fairly drastic, painful surgery on an older child

or on an adult. A simple procedure with a quick recovery when performed on an infant becomes riskier with every month that passes with an equivalent increase in recovery period.

It's one thing the parents have to decide pretty quickly. Sorry to bust ya bubble.

[cynatnite]

52. You are right...

If it is going to be done, it should be soon after birth. The longer the wait, the harder it is.

We knew a boy was coming so we had time to discuss and decide.

[fleabert]

136. I have already decided.

over my dead body. no bubble burst here.

it's a worthless procedure, completely unecessary as a routing procedure and horrifically painful for infants.

I challenge you to attend one.

not ONE medical body recommends infant circ as a routing procudure outside of medical necessity in the rarest of situations.

i am done. I will not debate this flame bait. my mind is made up.

[sui generis]

229. sensitive guy

funny here we are talking about other people's dicks. Who would have thought we'd run out of things to talk about.

I'm pro circumcision, and if mine grew back I'd lop the fucker off again. Don't want no curtains and drapes and valances and sheers over my glory.

No medical opinions required, but everyone should have their own minds on the topic, about their own weeners.

If I were the legally marryin' kind I suppose I'd have to consider my wife's input into the family decision, but jews and muslims and many other cultures around the world have done this since time immemorial, so I certainly wouldn't advocate taking the choice away from parents because a few guys with anteaters are all freaky about their weeners.

And yes I'm baiting you fleabert :hide: only because this is such a weird topic to be on "fire" in the first place. Silliness.

:rofl:

[fleabert]

268. not weird at all to care about a completely unecessary surgery

that is horrifically painful. if you are going to knowingly flamebait me, I would hope that you would read the full article below before responding. Written by a male doctor in the US.

http://www.nocirc.org/articles/fleiss1.php

snip

Circumcision is almost unheard of in Europe, South America, and non-Muslim Asia. In fact, only 10 to 15 percent of men throughout the world are circumcised, the vast majority of whom are Muslim. The neonatal circumcision rate in the western US has now fallen to 34.2 percent. This relatively diminished rate may surprise American men born during the era when nearly 90 percent of baby boys were circumcised automatically, with or without their parents' consent.

snip

Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.31 The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

edited for clarity...and to add the second snip (no pun intended)

[sui generis]

318. fleabert!

I'm sorry you are quoting nocirc.org.

I think you're taking this subject too seriously and yourself too seriously, but that's my opinion.

Ask one hundred circumsized men how painful their circumcision was (not a forum on nocirc.com). Heck, ask a thousand, or a million. Go ahead, and get back to me with some real facts about how "painful" circumcision is.

I'm not flaming you, I'm challenging you to be a more critical thinker and to broaden your sources.

Here's another one; 80 percent or more of penile skin??????? Lets do some math here. Removing skin makes the penis shorter? What????? I am just rolling on my keyboard now. I'm sorry to mock you, gently, fleabert, but this is pure crap. If you estimate the number of capillaries in a juicy hangnail you will get to fifty feet.

If I were going to play devils advocate and coach a better argument than disinformation, it would be to challenge the historical rationale (to the beginning of written history) for circumcision, with respect to those cultures and choices. It's kind of a weird fascism to have somebody tell me how painful my circumcision was, how my dick 25% shorter than it would have otherwise been (and that's probably a good thing), and that I've lost a brazillian nerve endings, nerves, veins, arteries and capillaries!

Oddly it turns out I wouldn't change a thing, except that if it grew back I'd lop it off again. I wouldn't even remotely consider telling you what I thought was "medically necessary" or not as a criteria for you to be able to make that choice about your family.

People who are doing that here are completely being culturally insensitive and out of touch with reality and history and I would say, progressive values. Don't play the "medically necessary" game, unless you've gotten tired of playing that card in the abortion debate. Oh wait a second, that's the other side's tactic. I know you're not, but my point is not flaming, it is to inspire a broader body of thinking.

[fleabert]

332. hello there!

we will have to agreeably disagree on this.

As a doula, I have encountered this debate more times than I care to recount. I have done the research, from more sources than just nocirc (although I find them quite reliable, since it was founded by a dr. and is made up of men and women alike). I went into my initial research with this perspective:

I had only seen circ'd in person, and only had physical experience with same (obviously), and had no clue about the appearance or performance of uncirc'd. I approached the subject much the way some here do, that I would leave it up to my male partner to make that decision since I did not have the part in question.

After a client asked me for resources to make the decision for their yet to be born kiddo- I was convinced otherwise. I am now 100% on the side of anti-circ. I think it should be up to the individual who owns the body part, not anyone else. I think it is barbaric, having seen it done to an infant. You may not remember, but if your parents had watched, they would. It's one of the saddest things I have ever seen. I feel the same way about male circumcision as I do female. They are not fully equitable physically, but my feelings are, and I feel the action is equitable.

When I presented both sides of the arguement to my client (I did not provide my new opinion to them, that wasn't my job, it was to provide unbiased information- which I did) they came to the same conclusion that i did.

I am passionate about this, let me say it again: I think it is barbaric. Plain and simple.

Ask how 100 circ'd men feel about it and you may or may not get the response you have- it depends on whether or not they have had the opportunity to evaluate the subject without their penis getting in the way- no pun intended!

A circ'd man deciding that he is angry or disappointed about their foreskin being removed without their consent usually has a huge impact on his psyche- it means him saying that his current penile status is imperfect- a rather difficult thing for any man to believe. There are a lot more than physical issues there- I understand that it would be a big deal. Being angry about something you feel you can't change, about something that is tied to 'maleness' and sexual performance and/or happiness, and possibly being angry with your parents for something they did 20-30-40- or 50 years ago is a very big deal. But men do get upset about it. Psychologially it's a big deal to confront those feelings, and I think fear of confronting those feelings has a lot to do with most men not wanting to do so. Especially if their sex life is fulfilling, which it usually is.

Why are there surgeries and implements available to regrow foreskin if no men wanted it back?

Your attempts to confront my take on this will be fruitless, as mine are also, we appear to be set in our opinions. I'm okay with that. I just hope that you understand that my tone, approach, and passion regarding this matter are not unwarrented or just emotional- it's a professional issue for me as well. I know several doulas that will not take on clients who choose to circumcise, I am not one, but I am an advocate for keeping male infants intact until they can make that decison for themselves. It's his penis. and if a client asks my opinion, I will give it to them.

The background and history of circumcision is rooted in religion, masturbation, purtianism, control, and many other factors- and none of it matters to me today- it's a barbaric practice and I condemn it as a routine procedure on infants. Period.

I won't have to worry about it happening- I will have my baby at home so there won't be a chance it would happen without my consent, which would never be obtained anyway. If my kid wants to have it done after he finishes puberty- fine. I would support him in any way I could.

Politically- I absoulutely do not support public funds paying for routine circumcision, nor do I think insurance should pay for it. Same as for female babies. Millions of dollars that could go to prenatal care, indigent health care, preventative care, child welfare, etc... goes to lopping off a perfectly good piece of skin, mostly for how it looks (or will look).

The rate of circ in the 70's-80's was around 90-95%, it now sits at anywhere from 30-50% depending on where you live- more and more people agree that is unnecessary.

Let's just put this to bed- we like each other and I have no desire to have it divide us. I am sure there is some subject out there that you feel passionate about that I think is silly- let's leave it at that and move on- okay?

[Uzybone]

45. I agree with you.

How do you miss something you never knew you had? There is another issue there, and its not the foreskin.

[Inland]

91. Well, yeah. PARENTS decide. I don't know what the gender

of the parent has to do with anything, except the male might have some personal thoughts on his experience that can be shared, but the female might have some judgment on, er, aesthetic issues. Any questions, ask a doctor, of any sex. Sheesh.

[cynatnite]

98. most men can't remember their experience

and I have found that more men care about the 'aesthetic'...well at least within our family. My uncle wanted both his sons circ'd because he was circ'd. Same with my grandparents and their sons. That was their reason for having it done. My mother-in-law told me that hubby's dad said he didn't want the boys to feel 'different' because he was circ'd. It kinda made sense, but we decided that wasn't a good enough reason to go with a circ for our son.

[Inland]

132. All in, or all out, I suppose.

I don't know if it's localized or a time matter, but in my age group we were all circumcised, except one, that I remember, in all the locker rooms I was ever in. I just assumed it was regular, and at any rate, not controversial, until the last few years. I don't think I have ever heard a regret for being circumcised, besides hereing of botched operations or infections, except on DU.

[Huskerchub]

122. You have finally played your hand...

"but the female might have some judgment on, er, aesthetic issues"

So YOU don't like an uncut penis therefore ALL men should be circumcised because after all, some woman somewhere someday might go "ewwww" and we would hate that! I've got an idea...some men don't like women with small breasts hmmmm I think it would be "more aesthetic" if all women were at least a C cup or larger. Well damn, let's force all women to have breast augmentations because someone else thinks it is more attractive. After all "it's a cultural norm, and everybody else has 'em."

As a circumcised at birth, gay male, I find it completely offensive that anyone thinks they have the right to make a unnecessary medical decision for someone else based on something as shallow as what YOU think looks nice.

[Lisa0825]

123. great point!

I had a friend who actually used to dump a guy if she found out he was uncut. Then she fell in love with a guy who was uncut and found out how silly she'd been all these years!

[Inland]

129. Wow, are you a humorless chunk o'Outrage. Joke, dude. Joke. nt

[Another Bill C.]

58. The consequences of circumcision

show up at a later age. The constant exposure of the most sensitive area reduces its sensitivity. This leads to partner complaints like, "You don't find me exciting any more, do you?" or "There's someone else, isn't there?"

In an age where we have frequent bathing and wear underwear, I don't think circumcision is a good idea.

[depakid]

65. Umm...

Do you have any evidence on that???

Seems to run contrary to my experience...

[Warpy]

67. Mine too.

There is no bigger turnoff in the world than that smell from under a foreskin.

When I've left a guy it's been because of what's been happening OUTSIDE the sack, not in it.

[Mr.Green93]

117. Smegma

The love cheese.

[Lisa0825]

118. Not if you clean it properly....

My ex-h was circumcized, and he had way more smell than the uncut men I have been with.

[Yupster]

173. Smegma can be reduced

by frequent washing of course, but it's still going to be there.

It just makes sense that a guy with an extra warm, moist dark, covered place where urine, sweat and semen mixes is going to have more hygiene problems than a guy who doesn't have that place to begin with.

Of course the cleanest uncircumsized guy in the world is going to have less smegma than the dirtiest circumsizede guy, but all other things being equal ...

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Touchdown]

249. Only personal experience. I'm growing a new one.

There's a dermitological procedure/exercise called "tugging" that will grow new foreskin. Once I grew enough to be partly covered, extra skin started shedding off, the grey look became pink, and all those nerves (quite a few) started turning themselves on again.

For someone who claims to think logically, and only wants to talk about "science and facts", you are spreading a lot of questionable propaganda.

Want some facts? Research what active ingredient goes into anti-aging creams (hint: infant foreskins), that hospitals charge not only the cosmetics companies for, but $600 to the parents for lopping it off in the first place. Double profit. Yes, use Oil of Olay, and you are rubbing minced dicks all over your face.

[fleabert]

333. oh no.

big anti-circ person here...

seriously- oil of olay? got a link so i can research the products I use? I knew they were in anti-aging, but did not know which brands. Shit. I use OofO moisturizer and sunscreen. Crap.

I don't know if this is the right thing to say, but I really respect your decision to regrow, and your decison to talk about it- people don't know enough about it. Thanks.

[One_of_8]

80. Well, that's news to me

At what age does this show up? My most recent partner was nearly 50, and sensitivity wasn't an issue. Are you talking 60's and over, cuz it could be more than sensitivity that is causing some of these "consequences."

[seabeyond]

88. i havent seen nor heard of this either. hubby has no issue on lack

of sensitivity, that is for sure. lol lol

dont think he would agree, and i certainly have no complaints

[bleedingheart]

116. complaints of the nature you describe are more than likely the result

of something else other than circumcision...

[sui generis]

234. funny how this is the most common argument

with the least amount of fact supporting it.

Your sexual "sensitivity" is not just related to the state of your foreskin/glans. It's related to spinal aging, circulatory issues, psychology of desire, your available serum nitric oxide, diet, drug use (prescription or otherwise), and general health, not to mention anything that impacts your neurotransmitters.

A little flap of skin is the absolute very tiniest least of anything, and varies by user anyway.

It's funny how uncut guys obsesed with their own weenies think everyone should be uncut, while the other 99.9999 of the male population pretty much don't give a damn.

[seabeyond]

237. thank you. not being a guy.... i was feeling bad, but then....

having a hubby that just loves the feelings and tinglings, i wondered just how true this was. i couldnt imagine that there would be a significant difference, with what he already experiences. thank you for this little reality check. and an "of course"...

[harpo]

59. yes, they should stay out of it

[seg4527]

62. If it wouldn't be so awkward, I would thank my parents for NOT

circumcising me.

[Inland]

94. I think Hallmark makes a card..... nt

[sui generis]

252. ha!

I know I was being a grump yesterday but you are cracking me up today!

Go get 'em tiger!

[Inland]

295. I'm feeling less snarky myself.

But I'll get over that soon enough, no doubt!

[rainy]

70. It should be up to the mother and mothers should not agree

to mutilate their sons.

[depakid]

73. That "logic"

embodies the very same sort of emotional reasoning that the fundies use to withold HPV vaccinations from their daughters.

[cynatnite]

76. Blame the mothers???

:wtf: planet are you living on?

[One_of_8]

82. Judgmental a bit?

[LWolf]

71. Not unless circumcision is postponed until adulthood.

It's not quite the same thing. Adults are the ones who decide what procedures are done, or not done, to infants. Moms and dads have equal say over any sort of procedure done to their infant, as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps circumcision SHOULD be for adults only, so that the man can "choose" for his own body. In that scenario, women can and should leave the choice making to men.

[sui generis]

311. muslims circumsize as part of their adolescent coming of age

it's a rite of manhood, and culturally significant and takes place fairly young. Are we going to make rules or exceptions for religious convictions?

If so, why does religion carry more weight than any other choice? Are you really going to try to interfere with jewish culture this way? Most jewish circumcisions occur in the hospital, not by moyel by the way. Good luck with that.

And what about enforcement? Are you going to have regular penile inspections to see who the violators are? Maybe we'll put that in the Patriot Act and let the president do unauthorized penile inspections of minors.

What would the punishment be? Losing your parental rights for mutilating your child? So that some fundamentalist anti-circumcision busy body can raise your kids with proper weener values?

This is just too much. You people are worse than Gladys Kravitz - and on DU no less! This is like seeing progressives advocate wearing burkas or something.

[LWolf]

313. Just who the fuck is "you people?"

I am one person, with my own legitimate pov. If you don't like what I have to say, you are responding to me, not to "people."

Of course, my post is responding to the OPs question about whether or not women should stay out of the circumcision debate. That suggestion was prompted, if you couldn't tell, by all the women telling the men to stay out of a woman's "choice." It wasn't a question about the cultural or religious validity of genital mutilation.

Context does mean something. My response is looking at a gender question. My answer is that NO, women should not stay out of the circumcision debate unless circumcision will be an adult choice. If people don't think circumcision should be postponed to adulthood, then women should have as much say as men in regards to what procedures will be performed on the minor they are responsible for. I'm not connecting my response to various religious practices at all.

Since you brought it up, though, genital mutilation of either gender without adult consent of the party mutilated for cultural or religious purposes is not ok with me. I get to have that opinion, and I don't have the slightest clue who Gladys Kravitz is. Nor do I care. I don't consider prevention of, or consequences for, any sort of abuse "interfering."

[sui generis]

315. Gladys Kravitz was the nosy busybody on bewitched

cranky cranky I didn't read the same message that you clarified, but I'll take you at your word rather than insisting I read it wrong. I think I read your last paragraph quite clearly though.

Nobody said anything about not having an opinion, but your clarification begs my opinion about the FUCKING STUPIDITY of thinking you could possibly make a law to prevent jews or muslims from doing what they have been doing for thousands of years. Of course you don't care about consequences, you haven't even thought that far and can't be bothered; that much is evident. Go ahead think it through. Instead of the Federal Marriage Amendment, we add a Federal Circumcision Amendment to the constitution. Go for it. It's sure to be the wedge issue of the century. Yawn. It would most certainly be the single largest leap of government into religion the U.S. has EVER made, with both feet.

It's hubris, in addition to your own opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with hubris if you're right, but when I say "you people" I mean you authoritarian people who think everyone should be just like you, and have the nads to call yourself a progressive, and would even legislate your POV if the rest of the sane world would let you, and proudly proclaim you don't care about consequences.

I'm sorry if you took that personally, I was referring to the larger conversation here of kooks who are obsessed with everyone else's business but their own, and by business I mean dick.

DISCLAIMER I know I was button pushing when I said "you people", this flame thread sucks! Needs more cowbell.

[LWolf]

321. I read some of your responses.

I can tell you feel pretty strongly. I'm actually more ambivalent on the subject than you are, as I can see valid points from more than one "side."

It's interesting to me that you are taking the position of liberty, when the liberties you are defending are not the patients', but their parents'.

Where parental rights end and minors' rights begin is not, imo, universally agreed upon. It's still something that cultures are discussing, arguing, defending, etc.. A vital part of reaching some sort of consensus. It really doesn't matter if you are discussing medical care, cultural or religious practices, or any other facet of being human. Whenever the child's rights conflict with the parents' rights, there's going to be tension. While some segments of our society argue about when a group of cells becomes a human child with the right to life, others are arguing about when a child becomes human enough to have "human rights," "natural rights," and "civil rights." I think the topic is bigger than any particular set of "laws," and I'm not proposing any at this point. Some laws are good, some aren't, and most are both. Laws are always changing to reflect the way society evolves. Finding a balance that offers the best chance of "justice for all" is a never-ending process.

[sui generis]

323. I just reread my hot headed response

sorry - I forget that our passions are based on caring, and I appreciate your level headed reply here. I just think it's not really as big a deal as everyone makes of it; but an odd thing that so many of us can get revved about.

That's probably the fault line - I just don't think it's as catastrophic as many believe; I have my own experience to draw on here too! It's odd that so many people think of it as the end of the world, but either way most people who are or are not really don't even think much about it.

Finding a balance is the key - you are being very fair in that view. Thanks for bringing it back to civility!

-sui

[Kazak]

77. This was a real point of contention between my wife and I.

She was rabidly anti-circumcision, and I've always enjoyed being circumcised and figured any son of ours would too, sparing him the pain of having it done later in life. It would've been a real problem for us, luckily for us we were completely surprised by our brand new baby girl! :)

[meg]

79. Since diseases can be passed to women by men without

NO, women should NOT be silent!

[yankeeinlouisiana]

81. They really can't.

Mothers are usually responsible for their children's health. Any and all questions from nurses and doctors (about me or the baby) when I was in labor was directed to me, even if my husband was in the room. We decided not to have our sons circumcised after I found out how the procedure was done.

[cynatnite]

84. I've assisted in the procedure...

and many parents wouldn't like it one single bit. This is why hubby and I took our time in deciding and researching before having our son.

It's been a while since and the procedure may have changed some, but I don't believe all that much.

[Vidar]

85. Sure, just like men have with abortion.

[WinkyDink]

86. Mothers might need to make the decision. Infants have a tough time

with that cognitive stuff.

[Inland]

87. I thought parents always decided for their kids.

It's his body, but he is a child. His parents are going to decide. Or his guardians. Or the foster home physician. If the child is lucky, somebody is caring enough to think about it, so sure, have at it.

[Rainscents]

90. If women have to stay out of this issue...

Man should stay out Abortion issue!

[melissinha]

92. How about psychiatric studies?

I'm a woman so this is all speculation... But I was wondering if future "locker room shower" incidents could really cause a child to feel weird about being "different". But it was so creepy when changing my nephew and having to apply vaseline in those first few weeks.....

[rucky]

108. It really is a parental decision, more often than not. n/t

[butterfly77]

93. Should men stay out of womens' reproductive business...

[Atman]

96. In out, in out, in out, in out. Let's get something straight between us!

Hey, I love these threads. It's like being served softballs. No, wait...that's hardba...oh, never mind.

I'm cut, and even if I DID resent it, what the hell would be the point? Am I gonna sue somebody? Is there a foreskin reconstruction technique available?

I'm reminded of the sage advice of Grampy O'Atman...

Life is like a penis; when it's hard you get fucked. When it's soft you can't beat it.

[cynatnite]

99. The post of the day!

:rofl:

Love that!

[Yupster]

174. There is a foreskin restoration program

There are websites dedicated to it and also websites dedicated to adults who've been recently circumsized after wanting it done their whole lives.

It seems most people are happy the way they are whether they were circed or not, and there are some who are unhappy on both sides.

[Zookeeper]

191. "Foreskin restoration program"?

I'm really biting my tongue here...ahem...

I can't imagine having enough spare time to worry about something like that.

[Touchdown]

250. Yes, and yes.

Somebody did sue his doctor, and he won.

There are numerous foreskin restoration procedures, techniques.:hi:

[Deja Q]

97. If men have a say in abortion, women can have a say in choppin' the cane.

:D


Pity more people can't choose from that young if they want a crippled cucumber or life or not...

[Inland]

104. "Crippled"?

Circumcised is like Superman without ever being Clark Kent. It's like the flag that's never furled.

Uncircumcised is ugly. Circumcised is ugly but cool, like Mick Jagger.





Maybe I've said too much.

[Atman]

130. You've said just enough.

Although the Mick Jagger part freaks me out.

But now that you mention it, my scrotum looks a lot like Keith Richards.

[NashVegas]

156. "Uncircumsized is ugly"

I strongly disagree.

Uncircumsized is like playing peekaboo, but sexier.

[sui generis]

310. well it varies by user

some are peekaboos, some look like african anteaters, and some of them are hardly there, and others you have to pull back the valances and the drapes and the curtains and the sheers and miniblinds before you get to see russel the one eyed muscle even when erect.

(assumes crash position, prepares to be deleted) :rofl:

Personally all other things being equal in a sexual partner I much prefer cut, if I were forced to decide, but really don't care much either way in reality.

[Warren DeMontague]

166. Yeah, but Uncircumcised is Keith Richards.

Circumcised is Bob Weir. Uncircumcised is Jerry Garcia.

Circumcised is Cable. Uncircumcised is a satellite dish.

Circumcised is Whole Foods. Uncircumcised is Trader Joe's.

Circumcised is Los Angeles. Uncircumcised is San Francisco.

Circumcised is Rush Limbaugh greedily licking the empty plastic remains of his oxycontin containers. Uncircumcised is Bill O'Reilly sneaking into a falafel joint with a trenchcoat on.



...And you know what all that tells us, don't you?

That my analogies suck! :hippie:

[sui generis]

235. rush limbaugh couldn't find his dick with both hands and a mirror

I think he resorbed it.

[Yupster]

175. I remember watching a Britsh gossip columnist on some daytime show

long ago. Could it have been Geraldo?

Anyway, I think it was Prince William was just born and the host asked the British woman whether she knew if the prince was to be circumsized?

I don't even remember if the answer was yes or no. Yes I think, but anyway, the woman had the line of the day when she said she thought it needed to be done for sure as it changed a ...

"sausage into a blossom."

You go girl.

[MazeRat7]

110. News to me.. I didn't know there was a debate. Go figure ? (n/t)

[SmokingJacket]

111. I stay out!

Don't have one, don't know what to do with one!

[Lisa0825]

114. I'm amazed at how many people still think 'a boy needs to

look like his daddy' or there is some cultural imperative to it. I do not believe the medical evidence has shifted enough to warrant circumcision, but I have more respect for people who at least are basing their decision on recent studies than those who just buy into anecdotal tales of infections.

Medically, from the research I did, there is a higher rate of complication from the procedure itself than from any later problems of being uncircumcized.

As far as society goes, circumcision is becoming less and less routine in this country. Rates vary from the low 80 percentile in the conservative midwest to the low 30 percentile on the west coast and metropolitan areas. Most European men are not circumcized, other than for religious reasons. In fact, we are the ONLY country that still has a relatively high rate of the procedure for other than religious reasons. It came into vogue in the Puritan times as a way to prevent little boys from masturbating, which was believed to lead to mental illness.

There are MILLIONS of nerve cells in the foreskin. Just because a man says he likes his penis just fine circumcized doesn't mean he might not have had a completely different outlook if he'd been able to try it both ways. In interviews with men who were circumcized later in life, some compared it to what the feeling might have been if they'd been wearing TWO condoms while still uncut. That's a lot of sensation to lose, and I don't think it's quite fair to deny a boy his full sexual experience at adulthood simply because daddy wanted them to look alike, or Aunt Mary's cousin's son got an infection. The stats simply don't back that up.

As far as HIV goes, that has yet to be settled, though most studies I have seen have been picked apart by others for scientific methods. It may just come to pass that they are right, but the evidence is less than compelling right now.

I studied this while working in a urology department, and NONE of our doctors circumcized their sons. All I ask after I debate someone on it is that they actually research the decision as much as they would buying a new car, rather than treating it as a norm.

[Atman]

128. You raise so many interesting issues in that post

"There are MILLIONS of nerve cells in the foreskin. Just because a man says he likes his penis just fine circumcized doesn't mean he might not have had a completely different outlook if he'd been able to try it both ways."

But I can't. I got what I got. I don't complain, none of my partner's have complained directly to me. What the hell is gained by fretting about it. Sex is still fun! I can't recall ever getting laid and sitting back afterwards saying "That would have been good if I'd only had a foreskin!" Another great saying Grampy O'Atman said -- "Sex is like a pizza...when it's good, it's great. When it's bad, it's still pretty good!" Grampy O'Atman was a wise, wise man.

"As far as HIV goes, that has yet to be settled,...

Exactly. You can hardly cement an argument by stating "We don't know yet."

All I ask after I debate someone on it is that they actually research the decision as much as they would buying a new car, rather than treating it as a norm.

I'd take an Audi TT over having half my pecker lopped off any day! But I was young then.

[taught_me_patience]

135. LMAO at women who get worked up over this issue...

most guys I know (including myself) have given approx 5 min of thought to this issue. Being circumsized in NOT a big deal. There is PLENTY of sensation down there. Men who bemoan their circumcision, IMHO, have other issues regarding their penis.

[Mind_your_head]

137. Good post and wise words in your entire post.....thank you.

in summary:

"I studied this while working in a urology department, and NONE of our doctors circumcized their sons. All I ask after I debate someone on it is that they actually research the decision as much as they would buying a new car, rather than treating it as a norm."

[Left Is Write]

125. Not when the women are mothers of sons.

It's my duty as my son's mother to protect him, and that includes protecting him against a procedure I believe unnecessary. Fortunately, my husband and I agree, and my son is uncircumcised.

[DetroitProle]

126. yes and no?

First of all, I don't think its a huge deal. As a circumcised man. Either way, chances are nothing of great consequence will become of the decision.
Naturally...I prefer my way. I'm not a father and don't know if I ever will be. However, I'd like my son to be like me, if I ever had one.
Why would I female be too concerned about it if I'm not? Maybe parents feel more passionate about it than I do.
I can, however, think of one valid reason to take the female partner's opinion into account: religious upbringing.
Luckily, I'm the way I am and would like my son to be, and my girlfriend is Jewish so if we ever make it that far...I doubt we'll have any quarrel. :)

[omega minimo]

134. I dunno-- Let's pull back our thinking caps and put our heads together....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!111

GOOD ONE!

Look at all these replies........................!


btw: who dya think gives birth to those babies? :think:

[ContraBass Black]

142. It's raised a discussion in its own right.

Does the relation to the other thread hold in all of the arguments?

[omega minimo]

145. "Other thread"? Please don't assume

:hi:

[ContraBass Black]

146. I thought this started as a copycat of the

"Should men stay out of the abortion debate?" thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. I'll see your German army helmet

and raise you an anteater.

As for who gives birth to those thar babies, you'll have to ask my wife.

[carolinalady]

141. When my first son was born-

My husband and I had a huge argument about this subject. You see he was not circumcised when he was an infant. Consequently, because he was not taught proper hygiene, he had to be circumcised when he was 12 and it was very painful. You would think he would have wanted it done, but NO he did not. I am a nurse and I insisted that we get it done. I said to him, you will never forget the pain, but he will never remember it. Anyways, this went back and forth and when he was born, I signed the papers and had it done against his wishes. His only retort was that he would not change his diaper until it was completely healed. It never was an issue again and when son number two was born, I did the same thing. I am glad I did it. I have seen elderly men have to be circumcised and I did not want my children to go through that. It has been 15 years since that argument and the boys are fine and the marriage is going to be 20 years strong in June.

[Solon]

144. I would have divorced you immediately, and try to file charges...

for custody of your child. He may not of been taught hygiene, but that is no excuse an UNNECESSARY MEDICAL procedure to be done. Should we have the teeth pulled from people all together BEFORE they get tooth decay?

Let me tell you my story, I was circumsized, unlike many, but probably not that rare, I developed, over time, scabs that lasted until I was almost a teenager, my foreskin, you see, wasn't completely removed, and when it became white and crusty later in life, it started flaking, and let me tell you, nothing compares to THAT pain. I was a child, a pre-pubescent boy who dreaded the ride on the schoolbus because a fucking stiffy was agony all by itself, in addition, it also was a secret to keep from both my parents, until I finally broke down and told them, and they sent me to the doctor, who was able to properly treat it. The only thing to be grateful for is that I at least don't have ED, yet, but the pain will be with me for the rest of my life. Your attitude simply DISGUSTS and appalls me. :puke:

[soothsayer]

148. Dude, you shoulda' told your folks sooner. Sounds awful.

[Solon]

151. It was, but I was a kid, and it was a in a "private" spot...

Its not like I could comfortably talk about having hard ons that hurt when I was Pre-Pubescent, what boy brags about that?

[cynatnite]

149. She said it HAD to be done

:eyes:

[Solon]

152. Why don't you learn to read...

Her husband was NOT taught proper hygiene so he HAD to get his done, but his sons' are a different matter entirely, why not, you know, actually TEACH them something? She went against her HUSBAND'S wishes on this, if it were me, I would have been livid, and the marriage over, but given my experience, could you blame me?

[cynatnite]

155. Well, rather than insult you...I'll just apologize instead for misreading

:eyes:

I do blame you because of the judgment you're passing on her for a decision she made as a parent. I also think you're allowing your personal experience, which is nowhere near the same, to cloud your judgment.

Your shoes are not her shoes...or even her husband's or son's.

[Solon]

157. He is a parent too, with equal say as to what should be done...

that I have a bigger problem with, they should have reached a consensus of some sort, instead she went behind his back, that doesn't bode well for her moral character.

[cynatnite]

159. Where does it say she went behind his back?

Maybe I'm misreading again, but I didn't see that anywhere in her post.

Also, they're still married. I think that says they made peace with the decsion. Still easy to judge people you don't personally know, isn't it?

[Solon]

161. Alright, I'll give you that...

I misread it myself, she did it over his objections, still doesn't say much for her moral character though, or he simply gave in. I view it as on the same level as if, let's say the dad took his 3 year old daughter out and got her a tatoo that said "Daddy's little Girl", even after his wife said no. It just shouldn't be done, and really doesn't make for a healthy relationship.

[cynatnite]

162. I don't see it the same at all...

You don't agree with her decision and you don't think this made for a healthy relationship. That's fine.

But, this still is a private personal family matter the government has no place in.

[Solon]

163. I don't really see a difference between my analogy and what she did...

Let's see, both kids were subjected to a procedure that is not easily reversible, against their will and against another parent's wishes, in addition, neither is done for valid medical reasons. Really, what is the difference? Also, if you noticed, I didn't say anything about the government intervening, I'm mainly offended by people's flippant attitude over a procedure that SHOULD be regarded as a serious medical procedure, with all the serious repercussions that come with it. Callousness of the highest order, including your rolling of the eyes.

[cynatnite]

172. I roll my eyes all the time

:)

Seriously, I do understand your concerns and I don't see either one the same at all. For one thing, in most states, tattooing a 3 year old is illegal.

I'm more bothered by the fact that some people are quick to judge from outside. It's too easy to do and what winds up happening is an unfair rush to judgment. I'm also bothered by anyone who thinks someone should have charges filed against them for doing what they deemed best for their child.

Also, keep this in mind. This medical procedure probably wasn't taken lightly. Physicians have an obligation to explain the negatives and other possible outcomes.

I think it's safe we can agree to disagree on this. :)

[Solon]

180. So the only difference is legality, right?

At least, that is all you brought to the table. Then again, in some state I don't think its illegal, no real cutoff date, and I've seen children as young as toddlers(2-6 years) old that have earrings. To be honest, I view all of these, from Circumcision to piercings as the same thing: Violations of a minor's body without their permission, or even having them be the age of consent, in that case a violation, plain and simple. The ONLY excuse for intervening into a child's body without their permission is for medical necessity only, no more, no less. Also, on you comment about parents not being charged, Christian Scientists are routinely thrown in jail for doing what they think is in their child's best interest. Just a thought.

[cynatnite]

186. Good points

My oldest daughter had her ears pierced at 2 years old. By age five she wanted two more holes and we said no. The middle was five. Wanted to be like her sister. We were okay with that, too. When it comes to that, I see it as more cultural rather than medical.

I didn't, and still don't, view that as some kind of violation.

Keep in mind something else. Many parents still believe that circumcision is a procedure to be done for medical reasons. I saw plenty of parents at hospitals who opted for it because they feel it is better and safer. I assisted many times in circumcisions. I know exactly what is involved which is why I don't believe any parent should take it lightly. Ultimately, it is their choice.

When it comes to religion such as Jehovah's Witnesses, that's an entirely different matter, IMO. They don't believe another person's blood products should be introduced into the human body. This is more serious life and death situation which doesn't compare to circumcision at all.

[Solon]

187. Pierced at 2?!?!?!

Jesus Christ, I can't believe it, hell, my sister had to BEG my parents to even let her have her ears pierced, and that was at the age of 12, what the HELL possessed you to do that to a child?

[cynatnite]

189. Mom's have been piercing their babies for centuries...

where've you been?

You haven't noticed six month and year old babies with pierced ears? It's accepted and done all the time all over the place.

[Solon]

190. Actually, it depends on where you live...

Then again, where I live, babies with piercings is exceedingly rare, most people I know think it should be a choice made when they are at least teenagers, though, then again, there are a LOT of grown women who don't have piercings at all in my area, in fact, there are probably more guys that are pierced around here than women. Besides which, some traditions just need to die, no explanation needed.

[cynatnite]

194. No it does not...

I've lived all over the country and in two different countries. It's no more or less common than anywhere else. There is nothing wrong with this at all.

Plus, it's painless. Thank goodness. I had it done when I was six years old. I got clothes pins and ice before the needle with the string on it got put through my ear. My aunt did it and it still hurt some.

Also, they do close on their own if the earrings are taken out before a certain length of time passes. Sometimes even after having pierced ears for years, they can still close back up.

This isn't a bad or horrible tradition. It's just one of those things and thanks to technology, it's gotten better, safer and painless with time.

[Solon]

201. Still trying to figure out exactly where and for how long...

people have been piercing their ears. Also, bear in mind, as you noted, up until about the beginning of the last century, purposely stabbing someone through the skin for any reason is basically adding the risk of death to them. I strongly doubt that outside of some Maori and African tribes that it was widespread among the MAJORITY for most of history. At the very least, these people risked their kids countinual health, that is nothing to be proud of. Even today, things still happen, including deafness, swollen earlobes, etc. So I don't really see why tradition would be an excuse, its a pretty poor one, regardless of whatever justifications you can come up with. It may be painless, but when it goes wrong, it goes VERY wrong very quickly.

[cynatnite]

203. How much experience do you have with ear piercing?

I didn't not the last century...I said for centuries. It has been a hallmark of beauty and wealth for a hell of a long time...thousands of years if I remember right.

It was and still is very widespread and very accepted throughout society.

And I also said it is better, safer and painless. Stores all over the country offer piercings. They don't have the risks that doing it at home with a needle has. In fact, they don't even do it like that at all.

And I have yet to ever hear about anyone going deaf from getting their ears pierced. As with anything, there is a risk of infection, but that happens when a person doesn't follow the instructions in caring. Most people, parents included, take great care.

When I think about it, I can't remember the last time I've heard of anyone getting infected from a professional doing it.

And when it goes wrong...it usually doesn't. That's because they are much more safer than the 'old days' when clothespin, ice and needle were used.

It's a norm and one I have no problems with.

[Solon]

209. Look at what you just said...

I didn't not the last century...I said for centuries. It has been a hallmark of beauty and wealth for a hell of a long time...thousands of years if I remember right.

OK, think about that for a minute, then look at my post about how the MAJORITY of people throughout history did not have it done. It was a sign of wealth, not anymore, but in the past that was true, not to mention that throughout history, most people were POOR, dirt POOR, and couldn't afford to do, or viewed it as impractical, hell in some societies, piercings were outlawed to people outside the nobility! If you want to go by traditions, how about this one, in Ancient Egypt the temple priests used to peirce Cat's ears, should we bring that tradition back? It was also painless, and had a low risk of infection. Just because you see it often in paintings and sculptures doesn't mean it was common among the COMMONERS. In fact, throughout medieval Europe, as an example, and some other societies, the body was considered a temple, and so no piercings or tattoos at all, considered "pagan" or satanic, whatever.

By the way, I'm not against peircings themselves, I had one at the age of 6 myself, granted that was an accident, just a little note, do NOT try to climb one of those child gates when it is at the top of stairs when your a kid. THAT hurt a lot, but the ear peircing, a metal piece when clean through, didn't even hurt, granted, I let it close, but, compared to the rest of the bruises I suffered that day, that was a minimal injury. Not to mention the peirced lip I recieved when I had an accident at work, the penalty for having large canines, and falling on a steel plate, facefirst, that didn't hurt that much either, the cut on my eyebrow hurt worst.

[cynatnite]

214. I'm about done...

I'm really too tired to research ear piercing right now. I'm up past my bedtime. :)

Sure, times have changed over the years, but in many respects attitudes have not. I do agree that now, it's not so much done as a sign of wealth, but it is most definitely done for beauty.

Also, as time went on, more and more common people could have it done. As with anything like this, it became the norm.

And on what happened to you...

OUCH! OUCH! That hurt just reading about it! Did you scar from that? Can you have a piercing there if you want? Are you okay now?

[Solon]

220. No scar on the earlobe...

another note, my earlobes are big, let me just say that they droop down a little bit, so I already have problems related to that, namely zits that sometimes form right on the lobe that hurt like hell. The only scar I got from these injuries is the one that is under my eyebrow, hidden, practically, you have to look closely for it. My lip is the odd one, my bottom left canine went clean through the skin right below my lower lip, so I basically had a hole that lasted for a few weeks, and healed on its own. I kept it clean, etc. The eyebrow injury required a interior stitch, it cut to bone, and also the skin was superglued, I didn't even know they used that stuff for medical procedures.

[Solon]

223. I just wanted to reiterate something...

I said I do NOT oppose piercings as when people who are capable of consent are involved, but I do oppose what you did, which was to pierce a baby's ears. You did it for BEAUTY, as you just said, I cannot believe that you just couldn't wait until the kid even had command of language entirely before you decided to do that altercation to them. It sounds like you have power issues over your own children.

[Zookeeper]

224. I've heard of girls who had infections after a "professional"

pierced their ears, but the problem was the kids not keeping them clean until they were healed.

I had my ears pierced by a friend's older sister when I was eleven (yeah, yeah, "do as I say, not as I do!"). She used Listerine to clean my ears, ice cubes to numb them and and sewing needle for the piercing. It didn't hurt at all, she put the holes in just the right spot on my lobes and I had no infection. I suppose I was lucky on two counts. One being that it all went well. The second being that my mother didn't kill me since I did this as a little "surprise."

BTW, what was the clothespin used for?

[ElboRuum]

264. Good question... Although...

I'd guess that they were for cutting off the blood supply temporarily so that it didn't bleed too much and had a chance to self-cauterize a little after the needle was stuck through. It also probably helped numb the earlobe along with the ice.

I could be wrong, of course. :shrug:

[Zookeeper]

204. Although pierced ears on young girls isn't rare here,

I wouldn't say the majority of little girls have them. I just let my daughter get her ears pierced this year, at thirteen. Now, she wants another piercing in her ears, and my answer will be, "No."

I'm not shocked by piercings or tattoos, but I caution my kids about having something so "permanent" done when they are young. I doubt that any tattoo I would have chosen at the age of 16 would still be pleasing to me so many years later.

I've allowed her to dye her hair red and then purple. She puts together pretty creative outfits, and I think it's great. But, when it comes to (more) piercings....she can do whatever she wants when she turns 18.

[cynatnite]

207. I never said majority...

It's not uncommon. I know some parents with boys who had an ear pierced with them at a very young age.

My daughter got her second holes last year when she turned 15. She wanted another set, but we said no. She hasn't wanted to do anything crazy with clothes or hair...I don't think she really cares too much about that.

Our oldest one got her tongue pierced on her 18th birthday. A big ICK for me, but she loved it. She's had it for four years now and doesn't regret it. She's also got a tattoo.

When it comes to going farther such as more holes in ears, nose or whatever, we won't until they turn 18.

[Zookeeper]

213. I'm always happy to hear about another...

mean old mom or dad who is willing to say, "No."

My oldest is 15 and I can't believe how fast the time is passing. They have a long life in front of them to make choices, they don't have to do everything right now.

:toast:

[cynatnite]

216. I hear you

Can we tell them to quit growing up? :)

[Yupster]

179. This is the problem with all parental decisions though

The problem is there are two parents which is an even number.

You hope you can always reach a consensus on every issue, but sometimes you reach a 1-1 tie and you are each equally adamant in your opinion.

How do you proceed then? It's a tough one.

We really have never had an issue come up that we couldn't solve. Sometimes it's just that the issue is more important to one person than the other so you give in to that person, but if both are absolutely sure that their way is right and you can't compromise, what to do then?

It seems like one partner just doing it anyway without agreement is not an acceptable solution. It wouldn't be to me anyway.

In our case my wife said she'd go by what I said on this issue, but we happened to agree anyway.

[carolinalady]

241. No I did not go behind his back-I was perfectly up front with him

before I signed the papers. He knew I was doing it. He was there at the hospital when I did it. I based my decision on my experience as a trained medical professional. I am so sorry I have upset some people here, but I do not regret my decision one bit.

[carolinalady]

244. I would also like to add-in defense of my character:

Fifteen years ago-a child not being circumcised was an anomaly-at least where I came from. 15 years ago I did not have access to the internet. 15 years ago I was having a difficult pregnancy and working full time as a registered nurse in a hospital. 15 years ago I was taking care of old men who had to have circumcisons that were painful. AND 15 YEARS AGO-MY PEDIATRICIAN FAVORED CIRCUMCISION!!!!!

The more I sit here and think about how a certain person on this thread has passed judgement on me the madder I am getting. So much for respect of others opinions here.
:mad:

p.s. thanks to those that refused to pass judgement on my character. :hug:

[Lisa0825]

245. I don't judge anyone for doing what they thought was best before

more information was available. I DO judge people for treating this as a frivilous subject NOW. Like I said in another post, I just wish people would research this lifelong decision as much as they research what model of car to buy.

[seabeyond]

254. get mad sistah.... and happy 20 yrs marriage.

you did and are doing something right.

[Touchdown]

263. Your regrets/not regrets don't matter.

If your sons resent you for doing it against their father's wishes, and carry that distrust and resentment the rest of your life, then come back and tell us you are happy about butchering your kids. You better pray they don't find out the facts about this, or that they won't care. I know my mother is VERY sorry she let that quack touch me...at least after I gave her an earful.

Cleanliness is a red-herring. Is it really that hard to get a boy to play with his cock in the shower?

Of course your pediatrician favored it. He charged your insurance company another $1200+ to do it.:eyes:

[carolinalady]

270. In my husbands case-cleanliness was not a red herring which is

why he had to be circumcised at the age of 12. It became medically necessary. I can't speak to his cock playing activity at the time since I was only 6 and we had not met yet. Maybe my kid will wish he was not circumcised, but I don't pray he does not find out the facts because I will tell him like I have said here. I made the decision based on the information I had at the time. Hind sight is always 20/20 isn't it? I am sure there will be lots of decisions I have made as a parent that will be up for review in later years. I still had to make them though, and I try to make them out of love for my kids.

[Touchdown]

272. What was the malady?

I question any justification to amputate for the smallest of infections. You don't have to answer, but historically, circumcision was the answer for everything long ago... including nearsightedness.

[carolinalady]

276. If I remember correctly, he told me that he had developed an

infection that caused severe swelling of his penis. I think he was unable to retract the foreskin at all. He is 46 so that was many moons ago and I do not know if nowadays there would have been a better way to treat the problem.

[One_of_8]

293. Hey, no judgment from me

As parents, we make the best decisions we can with the information available to us.

As a side note: My son was circumcised the day after his birth, with topical numbing agent. He did not cry. However, his first shots made us both cry. That was a much more upsetting experience, and he was fussy for a day or two afterward.

The other poster sounds quite young, maybe still young enough not to realize that there is usually more than one side to an issue, and that life choices are not "one size fits all."

[One_of_8]

291. It appears her husband has gotten over it

since they have been married for years.

[ElboRuum]

143. The Debate Is Chuckleheaded...

Why get involved with a chuckleheaded debate?

[Mind_your_head]

147. You posted so 'you got involved' in this chuckleheaded debate now

a) why did you post then? This is a subject you are interested in perhaps?

b) what, exactly, does 'chuckleheaded' mean?

c) Most importantly, and just answer this one if you don't want to respond to 'a' or 'b' .... what are your thoughts?

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[omega minimo]

150. Did you choose your screenname based on your attitude on circumcision?

:evilgrin: :shrug:

[Mind_your_head]

153. ha ha ha....that's a 'good one'

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


ah, NO

[omega minimo]

158. Cut you low

:wow:

[ElboRuum]

225. I'll answer since you asked.

a) I posted not because the subject matter is interesting, or that I've some vested interest in it. Like most males of my age group in this country, what's done is done, and I don't remember the act nor do I feel any particular sense of being cheated out of something or violated in any way.

b) Chuckleheaded means essentially 'boneheaded' except that there is a distinct annoying rattle when the head shakes, like something has knocked loose and is now doing internal damage. Hope this helps.

c) While I answered a and b, I hope this doesn't preclude me from answering c. From what you said, I can detect no admonitions against, material or implied. There are many angles to this debate, all of which make me shake my head in disbelief that such brainwave patterns actually happen. This is not to demean anyone involved, but I feel something compelling within me that instructs me to try and shut this debate down every time I encounter it. I think it may be because the intellectual tradition is demeaned BY the debate itself. It's a lot of nonsense, in my humble opinion, and in this life, I've learned that you pick your battles. No one has the energy to fight them all. Why waste that energy on nonsense? Don't we have enough moral outrage to deal with right at the moment? Again. No offense meant to anyone who may disagree. You asked me what I thought. I'm complying with your request for information.

An infant getting cut is plainly and simply no big deal. You can attempt to attach the ideas of mutilation or choice violation to it, but I believe your right to choose started being violated even earlier when you're born, i.e. did you have a say in that? The fact is that I am very suspicious of any man who claims any of these things because I know of NO ONE who has EVER had a problem with the procedure who's ever had it as an infant, at least prior to internet exposition of this "moral outrage". Now, granted, discomfiture and bitter demons over losing one's foreskin isn't likely to come up in casual conversation, but AS a man who's cut, I'm doubting that it bothers too many at all. You don't miss what you never had (or at least can remember having). It's that simple. To be honest, I think the complaints, while there may be some men who actually DO feel violated by the procedure, or that their right to choose may be taken away from them, are doing nothing more than making a little hay about not very much at all, well intentioned though it may be.

The fact is that while the reasons for performing circumcisions are dubious, the reasons for not performing them are equally dubious. The medical reasons for the minimal HIV protection offered by the foreskin proffered are particularly specious since impenetrable barriers offered by condoms are the only real acceptable protection outside of just keeping it in your pants. That protection offered by an intact foreskin is precisely that, minimal, and you'd have to be an idiot to rely on it. The rest is just, at least to me, a manufactured victimhood.

[Gloria]

160. NO!! Because uncircumsized males affect women's health, namely

in the form of a link between it and cervical cancer.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. So mens bodies should be cut because of what *might* happen to women?

Errrrr.... Whose body is it anyway?

Also, I think the cervical cancer "link" has been debunked.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124770/

Meanwhile, some of the claims for circumcision's benefits—that it's optimal for penile hygiene and that women whose partners are circumcised are at less risk of cervical cancer—haven't panned out.

[Solon]

171. You have to remember, to many people...

Circumcision is apparently something to be defended for no other reason than sentimentality and myth. Stupid reasons, all.

[cynatnite]

176. Well, as far as HIV goes...

Studies have found that HIV incidence in the entire population could be reduced by one-third if there was 100 percent circumcision rate among men. They found that 80 percent of male HIV infections in the world happened through the foreskin of the penis, which was more susceptible to scratches and tears during intercourse.

Conducted by Dr Thomas Quinn from the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore in the US, the study focused on 137 uncircumcised men with HIV infected partners, and 50 circumcised men with HIV infected partners.

Of the uncircumcised men, 40 eventually became infected with HIV, but not one male among the circumcised group contracted the virus. The research was conducted in Orange Farm, south of Johannesburg, in 2003 and released in 2005 and the subjects were men aged between 18 and 24.

Researchers concluded that circumcision could offer 6 percent prevention from infection.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=&art_id=vn20060327055038836C831712

One study already reported from Rakai in Uganda found that female partners of circumcised men had a 30% lower risk of acquiring HIV and several sexaullly transmitted infections (STIs) (HPV, genital herpes, trichonomiasis and bacterial vaginosis) than partners of uncircumcised men Although this difference was not statistically significant, in a plenary on prevention, Professor Tom Quinn of Johns Hopkins University said that this finding is not new and made some forecasts as to how increasing the 20-25% of the world’s male population who are circumcised might slow the spread of HIV.

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/37A87885-0A35-431B-8C8C-6D7A4B1BB9F6.asp

***********

And yeah, if one person is saved from becoming HIV positive by a guy being cut...I'm all for it.

[Warren DeMontague]

177. Presumably once someone is old enough to consent to sexual activity

that same person is old enough to consent to have their own body surgically altered, and make that decision themselves.

I mean, by my logic, my son is not a dog, or a cat- where you might do something 'for their own good' with no expectation of them being able to contribute a say in the matter at some point down the road. When the time comes that he asks me why this wasn't done to him, I will explain that, from my perspective, his body belongs to him, and the best available evidence didn't show that this was necessary from a medical standpoint.

But, like I said- that's my decision making process, and I would no more expect to foist it on anyone else as I would want them to push theirs on me.

[cynatnite]

182. I agree with a lot of that

We had our son in 1999 and there still wasn't a lot of information about it available to us. Even the doctor, who we liked very much, couldn't go one way or another because of the mixed data. He basically said we have to decide what we thought was best.

My sister had two sons and decided against having them circ'd. They've done fine as far as I know.

When I look back on it knowing what I know now, I would be lying if I said I regretted it. I don't any more than I regret the abortion I had several years ago.

And like you said, that was your decision making process.

To me, this all boils down to personal decisions made by parents. They have to do what they feel is best for their children and we may not all agree.

[Mind_your_head]

185. So by your logic......we should ban automobiles

"And yeah, if one person is saved from becoming HIV positive by a guy being cut...I'm all for it."

If even ONE person is saved from dying in a traffic accident (since at least 50,000 of us die in auto accidents each year), then we should ban all cars....and I'm all for peace, and love in the world *smile* :hi:

[cynatnite]

188. You're right :)

:hi:

Maybe if more people wore seatbelts :blush:

[Mind_your_head]

193. Wait a minute......don't cave in....I'm not done fighting yet!!!!

....just kidding :-)

Peace (and love), my friend.

[cynatnite]

197. Give me a minute...I'll come up with something

:rofl:

[Mind_your_head]

198. Well, there is such a thing as a 'false friend'.....

just testing the waters. I extended the hand (which was laughed at) so....g'bye....too bad.

[cynatnite]

199. Sorry, if I offended...I was making a joke...

you didn't see the :rofl: I thought it was funny. Not laughing at you at all. I thought what you said was hilarious.

oh, well. :shrug:

[Solon]

195. Why not just go for the entire 100% effective medical procedure...

Just cut it all off, make them Eunichs at birth, that would save many people's lives, after all. :puke:

[cynatnite]

196. Well, you just killed the abortion wars :)

Do you think so badly of me? :rofl:

[Solon]

202. You basically said that my pain was worth it...

to be frank, yes I do think that lowly of you, I don't really know how it can get any lower. :puke:

[cynatnite]

205. You took it to the 'cutting it all off' level...

I knew that to be sarcastic and I made a joke. :eyes:

[Solon]

211. As you said...

And yeah, if one person is saved from becoming HIV positive by a guy being cut...I'm all for it.

By the way, it is NOT SOMETHING TO FUCKING JOKE ABOUT!!!!!!! Callous much?

[cynatnite]

217. Cut as in circumcision

Most refer to circumcisions as being cut.

[Solon]

219. I know what you meant, but you apparently forgot why its not something...

to laugh at either. Unlike most circumsized males, I KNOW what it feels like to have one that went wrong, I view all doctors who perform the procedure as butchers, and like that one poster below, my parents didn't have a choice either. Too bad we couldn't sue the asshole who did this to me, personally, I think he should have been thrown in jail for assault. But then again, other things went wrong that day, I was a 12 pound baby, removed by emergency C-Section, 2 weeks past due date, and my Mother went into the hospital with a cold and quickly developed pnemonia after being knocked out from pain killers for 3 days, this was the 70s, they didn't keep the mothers awake for the procedure. She almost died, I was almost permanently injured in a grievious way. I have no respect for those who advocate this barbaric practice.

[cynatnite]

221. If you knew what I meant, why take it to the level of 'cutting it off'?

And yes, you've told about your experience which is nowhere near the same as anyone else or the reasons why parents make the choices they do. It does NOT mean parents should be jailed over circumcising. That's like wanting to throw women in jail for having an abortion.

People make the choices they deem best. You don't have to agree or even like them, but they are personal choices.

When you advocate having someone brought up on charges and arrested, as you did earlier, you are inviting the government to come into the middle of a decision making process between families and doctors. That does not set well with me at all.

As I said earlier, what happened to you has clouded your judgment to such a degree that you want to condemn all parents who opt for this.

I'm bored, tired and care too little to debate this subject anymore.

[Solon]

222. Actually, they are choices that effect another human being...

Note, this is not about choice, but about the rights of individuals, period. The mother's right to absolute control of their child ends at the womb, period. At that point, there are a number of restrictions that are placed on parents about what they can or cannot do to their child, a good number of them would land the parent in jail if caught. I'm simply saying that adding this barbaric practice in with other abusive practices is reasonable. Remember, its a decision that affects another, it doesn't even really matter that you happen to be a blood relation to that other person. They cannot consent, they are not capable of it, and if parents fail to, or actually run counter to what is in the child's best interest, I believe the Government should step in.

[sui generis]

320. why do you have a pentagram for an avatar?

I believe that my beliefs shouldn't be imposed upon you, using The Government (or any other authority) as my club, even if I think your choices run counter to your own best interest.

Likewise, I have to say that circumcision is not a life or death life threatening barbaric dick cutting torture of infants like you loony toons want everyone to believe.

It's NOTHING, or close enough that people who are obsessed with it are pretty much obsessed with NOTHING. Telling me that my choices about my children, who will presumably also have my values about those choices which are the very least of important choices in their lives after they are themselves grown is stepping way the fuck too far into my life.

I'm dismayed that "freedom" advocates and progressives take this HYSTERICAL, yes I'll repeat that HYSTERICAL view of the DEVASTATION and END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION (mocks loudly, moans, wrings hands, giggles) think their view should be everyone's view.

It's about as important to me as trimming your fingernails. Get over it. Stay out of my life, or I'll put you out of it. The "Government" with a capital G is only effective to people who respect the government's authority in private social matters anyway.

Do you really think that SOME Americans are going to get to tell OTHER Americans what they can and cannot do with their hangnails? Just because it's attached to a dick doesn't make it any more special or holy.

[Solon]

328. Your Argument is patent nonsense...

If you want to do what you want to YOUR body, your welcome to it, tattoos, circumcisions, whatever you want, that is your choice, and your right, to do to YOURSELF ONLY!!!! Its when other people, including your kids, are involved, that problems arise. You do NOT, and I reiterate, do NOT have an absolute right to do what you want with your own child, its illegal to deny them needed medical care, even if it "infringes" on your personal religious convictions, you can lose your parental rights if your child is born addicted to drugs, you cannot beat them till they are black and blue, and you cannot kill them.

There are many practices that are done to infants that are ILLEGAL to do in this country, including tribal and religious traditions that involve cutting their cheeks after they are born, etc. Why should Circumcision be any different?

[sui generis]

329. your presumption is that what you want is more right than what

I want. Why is it that if I think my child should be circumsized for valid or cultural reasons that is less "right" than what you think? Is your only value that a child's body shouldn't be changed in any way? No braces then. No plastic surgery for post cleft palate. What you get is what you get.

You place this value of infringement and arbitrary "rights" on my child with that assumption, and furthermore place an absurd argument on your value that compares my cultural choices to child beating, child murder, scarification, etc., and it's not, except to you. It's not even that to my child if raised in my culture with my values. What's next? Addressing the values of my culture because you think yours are "righter"?

It's a piece of skin. Get over it. To answer the OP if my wife or SO felt strongly enough about it, I wouldn't make the decision mine alone, either way, but it's not a HUGE LIFE CHANGING decision. It's a piece of skin, and I've never missed it and wouldn't want it. My brother is uncircumsized, and he really could care less about it as well.

It's just not that big a deal.

[Solon]

330. Wrong premise there...

First thing first, braces and cleft palate procedure are done for VALID MEDICAL REASONS ONLY. You do NOT get braces for "looks" or a cultural/religious tradition, neither is the cleft palate only for cosmetic reasons. Kids born with cleft palates have difficulty eating and communicating later in life, in fact, I would go so far as to say that if a parent REFUSES to have their kid treated properly for such deformities then that should be a punishable offense.

If you want to know why I feel strongly about it, read this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=797897&mesg_id=800508

Then read this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=797897&mesg_id=801684

Now, if all this happened to you, because of an UNNECESSARY medical procedure, wouldn't you think that others shouldn't run the RISK of suffering the same fate?

[sui generis]

339. you're generalizing from exceptions

hundreds of millions if not billions of men throughout history have not had problems - the problem isn't the circumcision, it's the technique.

Sorry, you still haven't convinced me. Fix the problem - if it's the procedure itself, then make the procedure safer.

Anyway, why is it that my story of not having any problem at all counts for less than a horror story designed to tug at your emotions? No I'm not wrong at all.

And another thing - people claiming to have the only input on "medically necessary" are a danger to themselves. The insurance companies love you. Just repeat after them "it's no medically necessary", the next time you need a hernia repair or a diskectomy or an alograft.

Technically, NOTHING is medically necessary unless it directly saves your life.

[Touchdown]

266. It's my goal to take that "personal choise" away from you.

or any other irresponsible human being that butcheres their children. Smoking is now banned almost everywhere. This will happen too.:hi:

[sui generis]

305. no it won't

you are deluded. There really is not a chance in hell or heaven that you can back up your words, and you know it.

I guess your next steps would be 1. smoking ban 2. skinning sausage ban 3. smoking skinned sausage ban

How old are you? You sound like a teenager, or someone with the approximate cultural exposure of a teenager. I've lived all over this planet and the only place I've seen people idle and bored enough to be passionately concerned with other people's foreskins is in the U.S. What a nation of busybodies.

What next, a ban on pubic shaving? A ban on cutting female hair? That's mutilation in some cultures and a mark of social shame.

Are you going to ban infant circumcision or all circumcision of minors? You'd better learn up on muslim AND jewish culture then before you step in it with both feet. Are you going to enforce this with penile inspections to make sure parents haven't mutilated their children and then send them to jail and take away their parental rights?

If so, you're definitely in the wrong place, but I can't banish you to a muslim country for obvious reasons because you would be equally unhappy.

[mconvente]

326. I'm sorry for your pain, but...

I think you have a vendetta against all doctors who perform circumcisions just because yours went wrong. And you're ideal about having young children's ears being pierced as abhorant is pretty rediculous IMO. Yes, 2 years old is probably too much, but 5 or 6 is ok as long as it's only one in each ear. What's the big deal? If a girl wants to look like a princess and make her feel joyous and happy, why would you take that joy away from here. Yes, I believe in "natural" beauty, but what's wrong for a woman (now I'm talking about a grown woman) to add some flare with makeup and earings and such. I don't know, I can get riled up about some stuff, but circumcision and pierced ears for young kids just aren't the stuff that gets me riled up.

[movie_girl99]

233. I have been married twice and both men are NOT

circumcised. I am 40 and totally cancer free.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

164. the day men starts staying out of the abortion issue

or whether or not feminine hygiene products should be taxed

whether insurance should cover birth control pills

or for that matter welfare

then i can stay out of circumcision issues (though i have no feelings on the subject really)

[mconvente]

327. re: abortion issue

Theoretically, unless you have a entire Congress composed of women and a women President, men will have to have a say in abortion. Even if it's to make abortion 100% legal forever and ever, some men will be the ones that cast those votes now. And I'm sure you wouldn't mind having men on your side marching with you at protests for moral support - unless you wouldn't? :shrug:

Just saying since I'm extremely detail oriented.

[rocktivity]

178. Since so many men are circumcised as babies, yes

After one of my nephews was born, my sister called tearfully from the maternity ward saying he'd been circumcised. It disturbed me that they hadn't even discussed it with her first--I thought it was the parents' choice. As a single mother (and one of five daughters), she had no one to turn to for education or advice.

As you've all demonstrated, circumcision has its pros and cons, and there is disagreement as to whether it's even medically necessary. But I think that's why it's important that women know all the facts--as mothers, they'll be able to make the smartest decision about it on their own, or at least be able to discuss it with the father-to-be beforehand.

:headbang:
rocknation

[cynatnite]

184. Not only that...they need to make it clear to the doctor...

If they did that procedure without your sister's consent, I'd be raising hell. She can sue them.

[Clarkie1]

192. Circumcision is silly and unecessary...worse, it reduces sexual pleasure.

We are the last "civilized" nation in the world who still does this barbaric procedure regularly.

Less than 1/2 of 1% of males in New Zealand and the United Kingdom are circumsized.

"Circumcision of newborns peaked in the United States some 30 years ago at about 85 percent to 90 percent, says Dr George Denniston, president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, a Seattle based-anti-circumcision organization with members worldwide. These, days, those numbers are around 55-60 percent, he says. The rates are even lower In the western states of California, Oregon and Washington, which have a combined rate of 35 percent, Denniston adds. Some states also have stopped covering circumcisions under Medicaid."

http://www.cirp.org/news/iowacitypresscitizen07-28-03/


Table 1: International circumcision rates

Country Year Neonatal circumcisions (%)
United States 2002 60.1% <81>
Canada 2003 11.5% <82>
Australia 2004 12.7% <83>
New Zealand 1995 0.35%* <84>
United Kingdom 1972 0.41% <85>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcised


'Female arousal disorder' blamed on circumcised penises

A New Zealand study found that reduced female arousal and fewer female orgasms
may be linked to women having sex with circumcised male partners. Women reported
they were about twice as likely to experience orgasm if their male partner had a
foreskin.

Nine out of ten women prefer having sex with intact men, the study finds.

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html

Thank God I'm intact!

:woohoo:

[sui generis]

231. anteaters untie!

you are so wrong.

And this is not a national thing. Jews and Muslims and developing world cultures do this all over the world.

It does not "reduce sensitivity" - that's pure unadulterated horseshit. How would anyone possibly know? There are so many factors besides having a set of drapes over your purple helmeted love worm that factor into sensitivity that ANYONE who repeats that crap has an agenda.

All these weird psycho obsessives who think about their dicks all day long have much bigger issues than their little franks.

Be a man, get over it.

[Touchdown]

267. Not horseshit.

I was butchered at birth, and am growing a new foreskin. Once I had some covereage, all those nerves started turning themselves back on. Believe it or don't, but I know first hand that it's true.

And...I can think of only survival issues that are more important than my own sexuality, the very reason I exist and am human. Call it "obsessive" all you want. I don't have a basement to obsess over a model train layout, or a garage to obsess over my Porche, like you so-called "normal men" do.

[Clarkie1]

298. 90% of the world is uncircumsized. eom

[sui generis]

317. by eom did you mean IMHO?

because I'm sure if you could have supported that statement with fact you would have.

What is the world population? What is the combined population of 60% of America plus the remaining jewish population and the muslim population?

Now be a good little clarkie and do your math again . . .

[alittlelark]

200. Hubby made that choice.... I was unqualified.

[petronius]

206. Why should any intelligent, insightful person stay out of any debate? (nt)

[Nothing Without Hope]

208. Here's an earlier circumcision thread. It's certainly a fraught subject!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4773109

If my child had been a boy, I would have rejected the procedure, no question at all. And that is despite the fact that my husband was in favor of it. No way I would have given in on this issue. As it was, my child was a daughter, so the fight was avoided.

As a mother, I felt very protective of my baby. No way would I allow that to be done; I reasoned that my hypothetical son could choose to have it done later if he wanted. (Not being Jewish, tradition was not much of an issue except that my husband said he thought a boy would want to "look like all the other boys." But that's no longer the case either, now that it's not an automatic procedure in the US.)

[cynatnite]

212. I read sometime ago 60% in the US opted for circumisions

This is always an emotionally charged issue. It's not the first circ thread I've participated in...may not be the last either, but both sides have brought a lot of information to the discussion. I always find it educational...especially as new studies continue to come light whether it's pro or con.

We had our son circ'd and my sister opted not to with her two sons. Both of us have our reasons, but it's not an issue between us at all. We respect each others decisions.

Either way, when parents are informed, they'll make the decisions they deem best for their children. I do think over time less and less will have it done.

[Clarkie1]

215. Check out these statistics.

Less than 1/2 of 1% of males in New Zealand and the United Kingdom are circumsized.

"Circumcision of newborns peaked in the United States some 30 years ago at about 85 percent to 90 percent, says Dr George Denniston, president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, a Seattle based-anti-circumcision organization with members worldwide. These, days, those numbers are around 55-60 percent, he says. The rates are even lower In the western states of California, Oregon and Washington, which have a combined rate of 35 percent, Denniston adds. Some states also have stopped covering circumcisions under Medicaid."

http://www.cirp.org/news/iowacitypresscitizen07-28-03/


Table 1: International circumcision rates

Country Year Neonatal circumcisions (%)
United States 2002 60.1% <81>
Canada 2003 11.5% <82>
Australia 2004 12.7% <83>
New Zealand 1995 0.35%* <84>
United Kingdom 1972 0.41% <85>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcised

[cynatnite]

218. I didn't know about some states not covering it...

That is interesting.

Saving the rest to read tomorrow.

Thanks!

[sui generis]

232. what about Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, South Africa, Somalia

Eritria, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, etc.?

They all circumsize.

Agenda.

[Touchdown]

275. Don't know about the muslim countries, but in Israel

...the rate has been falling for 20 years.

[Clarkie1]

299. Yes, it is still common in less modern-thinking nations. eom

[sui generis]

303. don't we feel superior now

jeesuz what rock did ya'll crawl out from under?

Listen to yourselves - it's not cool to be concerned with what gays do with their dicks any more, but you seem to have found a way to be concerned about other people's dicks anyway.

I'm just cracked up here - this is bizarro world, but at least everyone is flying their true colors here. All your pee pees are belong to me!

:rofl:

[harpo]

227. who would have guessed this would be such a popular topic...

discussion==good

[minerva50]

230. Anyone

It's one of those sure to incite topics.

[CornField]

236. circumcision = abortion -- and I thought Superman had a big leap!

Body mutilation = reproductive rights

Yeah, right.

[sui generis]

255. silly, it's about taking away choice

because a few people obsessed with their own dicks think everyone else should have a dick just like them.

Just the usual mentality that leads to arguments about personal choice. Most guys just really don't give a damn one way or another and the rest of the anti-circ crowd are just a little freaky and weird about everyone else's dick.

Tell me that ain't strange.

[Lisa0825]

256. so the American Academy of Pediatrics is a bunch of freaks, huh?

and most of Europe, Australia, Latin America, etc?

I think the weird ones are the ones who just don't question why this is the only country still hung up on thinking there is a NEED for circumcision, outside of religious reasons.

[sui generis]

257. nope

you clearly have an agenda and you will clearly be kept at bay by the great majority of people who really don't think twice about it.

Yes, quoting authoritative sources without talking about the detail is disingenous.

Technically any procedure done to a child that isn't medically necessary is proper to question, I'll agree. But the "pain" crap is just crap if you understand anything about infant neurological development.

It is obsessive - and guess what, you HAVE a choice today. Don't make your choice the choice of every other family out there. That's not very progressive.

[Lisa0825]

259. I have an agenda? Pot, meet kettle!

I just prefer to see no children go through an unecessary procedure that will affect them for the rest of their lives, whether or not they realize. shoud it be ok to remove half of a girl baby's clitoris? i mean after all, she'd never know the difference if that's all she knew.

Way more people who advocate circumcision speak from a perspective of anecdote and personal preference than science.

I thought progressives believed in science as opposed to blind acceptance of the status quo?

[sui generis]

261. progressives believe in not removing choice

and your information is faulty. That's all -

My agenda, for the record, is that it's the parents' choice, for whatever reasons they decide, not mine or yours.

[Lisa0825]

262. I never said parents should NOT have a choice.

I said I wish they'd put more thought into it, like they would when buying a car. Most medical/scientific organizations are against it, so that says something about the amount of research out there, but people who are FOR it just tend to overlook anything that opposes their view because it is a norm IN THIS COUNTRY. It is NOT the norm in the rest of the world. I want parents to research it and understand it and then make their decision, not make it so bobby looks just like daddy.

[sui generis]

265. fair enough but

it is the norm in any semitic country - the "rest of the world" isn't just Europe.

I agree they should be informed but I'd like to address cultural reasons FOR it as well as reasons not to. I think most parents who do question it only draw on their own experience, which isn't necessarily the same thing as accepting the status quo.

I would circumsize my children, but I wouldn't try to convince anyone else one way or the other with scare materials, authoritative but biased studies or even my own personal rationale.

Who is the real arbiter of the data to make this decision? In a hospital setting could really claim that there would be an unbiased circ counselor, either way, for the parents? There are valid reasons to do either that probably cancel each other out, so it is a zero sum game, shifted only by your personal values and cultural traditions. If I adopted a non-infant boy who wasn't of course I wouldn't.

Ultimately I really don't care about it that much - and it's kind of weird that other people do.

[Lisa0825]

269. I do not argue with true cultural reasons....

like religion. That's way to ingrained to try to change. I don't consider "looking like the other kids in the showers" a valid cultural reason, especially when it's not so highly prevalent anymore anyway. I do think it is outdated and unecessary as a general practice, and I think that the more people who actually put some effort into to researching it, the fewer people will choose to have it done.

[Yupster]

281. It's a big decision, and my wife and myself

put an awful lot of thought and research into it.

It's not like the kid was born and the doctor asked us and we said "doh, we never thought of that."

I expect most parents are like we are. When we make important decisions effecting our kids, we put an awful lot of thought into it.

[Lisa0825]

283. You'd be surprised.

Most people I know whose boys are circumcized just assumed that "everbody still does it" and it must be for a reason. Years ago, that was the truth, but not today. Many had no other reason than wanting the child to look the same as daddy. "What will we tell him when he gets old enough to ask why his looks different?" Well, it THAT's so difficult, how on earth will you ever talk to him about sex?LOL!

I have no gripe with people who truly research it and come to a different decision. I just hate for people to follow along with an outdated cultural norm, if they do not have another compelling reason to make the decision.

[sui generis]

304. here's the problem in a nutshell

who the hell are you to judge "true cultural reasons"? Do you realize how much like "them" you sound?

Is there a list of "true cultural reasons"? What if I'm only half jewish. Do I only get half a circumcision? Do I only have half a true cultural reason? What if, like being jewish is a choice, I choose to circumsize in the absence of a "true cultural reason"?

It's nobody else's business, and I realize that a few activists here have opinions that make it seem like the whole world is embroiled in a battle over this, but it just ain't true.

You really are (and by "you" I mean both sides of the fence) the utter insignificant minority of mankind and the rest of us aren't going to let you do much about it other than have an opinion and make your own personal choices.

Thousands of years of written human and cultural history stand against you - and however much you want to believe that people are being harmed by this, then your purpose should be to educate without bias so parents can make an unbiased informed decision, but given the tenor of your cadre's replies here, I doubt that you don't have bias. I certainly don't care one way or the other because if it really made that much of a difference it would be a much bigger topic.

[seabeyond]

258. like abortion issue. against abortion, dont do it.

you dont like circumcision, dont do it.

simple as that

[DaveJ]

239. Just don't do it!!!

There should be no debate. At 18 he can get all the tattoo's, piercings, and circumcisions he wants.

:evilgrin:

[sui generis]

253. so the next logical step is to outlaw it for minors?

unless the penis' life is in danger?

so funny - it's a parent's issue, and only a very tiny few people, most WITH valences and drapes and sheers oh my are concerned about it.

The grass is still grass on either side of the fence and a little bit of skin doesn't make the tiniest bit of difference if you don't take into account what it's attached to, and by that I mean the man sportin' the little feller.

[Touchdown]

274. The next logical step is to outlaw it for parents.

...or we can drop all smoking ordinances and allow anybody to smoke anywhere they wish, including YOUR HOUSE, since it's a "personal decision" to smoke.

[sui generis]

279. apples and grapefruits

Obviously you think people have too many freedoms. There are more of us than there are of you though, so no worries.

Reductio ad absurdum - that's the argument type you just gave. Stay away from my baby's dick and I won't hurt you.

Plus what are you going to do about those pesky jews and muslims? And if they have a choice, then why shouldn't I?

[Touchdown]

284. I think people have too much control

This isn't about freedoms, it's about control over other's bodies. It matters not whether they are the parents of the owner. I have no qualms about your baby's dick, I do question your pervesion in having it amputated.

Non-orthodox jews agree with me. It's on the decline in Israel.

[sui generis]

302. well then it's a good thing you're not in control

You people really are freaky. You just called me a pervert for being circumsized, essentially.

So you would advocate a law that says that jews and muslims can't circumsize because non-orthodox jews are circumsizing less often? First I need numbers - you pulled that statement right out of your ass.

Second, who cares what a few whack jobs are doing? I really don't think you understand culture at all, and I also think you're making way too much out of this. It's just a flap of skin, and as someone who has slept with nearly as many people as have posted on this thread, I can tell you first hand that either or, neither nor, makes no difference at all.

The only people who have problems with it tend to have focused their life difficulties on the absence or presence of a foreskin, and even if and when they could do something different about it, they will find they still have those same life issues.

Just don't make them everyone else's issues. And don't call me a pervert unless you want to fasitidiously avoid any meetups that I'll be attending.

[Shine]

278. I am a mother who chose NOT to have her son circumcised.

My hubby was circumcised as an infant, and together, we agreed we did NOT want to subject our son to what, in our minds, is an unnecessary and traumatic procedure.

That said, I think it is a PERSONAL decision and one that should be made within one's family.

Who am I to judge others for their choices? I expect the same respect from others.

[Dora]

292. Lovely post, Shine. Thank you.

Reasonable and compassionate as always. :)

[Shine]

294. Thanks, Dora. I appreciate your kind words.

xoxo!
:hug: :pals:

[Nikki Stone1]

296. Great post, and I agree with your approach

nt

[Shine]

301. Thanks, Nikki!

and welcome to DU, btw! :toast:

greetings, from rainy California! :hi:

[genieroze]

282. When men stay out of the abortion issue.

[Bettie]

286. I have two boys

And I left the decision up to their father, since he has a penis and understands the emotional attachment to it better than I ever will. :-)

However, we both did research and I did make my opinion known on the issue.

So, our boys are not circumcised.

Really, it is a decision that should be made by both parents, if possible.

[Fla Dem]

288. Heck no, men jump in like ducks to water on the abortion issue. n/t

[im10ashus]

309. No.

If you are going to have a child, it's something you definitely have a say on. I know my mom sure did.

:-)

[SHRED]

314. Circumcision is barbaric and cruel

PERIOD!

[sui generis]

316. actually, the barbarians didn't circumsize

different culture. Just like jews and muslims must be barbaric and cruel. Of course muslims and mesoamericans think that we are barbaric and cruel because we cut our daughters' hair. Go figure. Everyone thinks they've cornered the market on civilization.

Personally I don't think it's barbaric or cruel, or at least I sure hell don't remember and I wouldn't change a thing. If you big manly penis obsessed men want to have a set of drapes to hide your shy guy russell the one eyed muscle, well boffo for you. I prefer my glory just the way it is. And those values (and attributes), incidentally are passed on to my children so they're okay with it too.

Eating meat is barbaric and cruel; I do that too.

[SHRED]

322. A few facts to ponder

No anesthesia is used.
They strap the boy down.
More skin is removed than the total surface area of the penis.
Many babies pass out and/or puke themselves from the pain, while screaming.
Some die.
Many are disfigured.
The penis head becomes many times thicker and loses sensitivity because it is exposed.

Why not let the individual boy decide when he gets older?

You are wholly ignorant if you "don't mind" or you "don't think" this is barbaric.
Wake the fuck up!

[American Tragedy]

331. No anesthesia? Why not?

I know little about the custom of circumcision, but I see absolutely no reason why a local anesthetic like Xylocaine could not be used for the procedure.

[SHRED]

337. Newborns are too sensitive...ironic

That is what I learned in my birthing classes.

More:

"Some opposition to nonmedical circumcision has involved subjecting infants to needless pain and suffering. Many physicians continue to perform circumcision without anesthesia, and some are reluctant to employ any analgesic measures whatever. "I strongly disagree with the use of any form of analgesia with this procedure," says Dr. Robert Brown, a family physician in Abbotsford, BC. Certainly pain is experienced but this pain does not appear to last any longer than 15 seconds after the procedure, as it is always easy to comfort the infant and have him stop crying."

While some pediatricans and family physicians have begun to use dorsal penile nerve block, currently the only form of anesthesia considered safe for newborns, the procedure requires expertise and till obliges the infant to endure painful needles.

In its new statement, the CPS suggests that further study of adequate levels of analgesia is required. "The most effective and least risky type of analgesia remains to be clarified. No currently available method of pain control during and following circumcision is fully satisfactory"
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/lebourdais/

----

http://www.infocirc.org/gazette.htm

http://www.drgreene.com/21_759.html

http://www.nocirc.org/

[mconvente]

325. I think the whole issue here is egregious liberalism of personal health

Yes, I am 100% pro-choice - government in our lives in this issue is completely egregious. But this whole matter of "the male infant doesnt have any say" is complete bullshit IMO. Your male infant doesn't have a say in whether he likes his baby food and wants to kill you for making him eat this crap, but you feed him it anyway, because he needs his nourishment. Your baby may not think he or she needs a certain vaccination because it hurts and etc, but you give the shot to him/her anyway for their health needs.

I think a lot of this "infant say" sentiment is rooted in the ideal of having a baby be of a certain religion before he/she gets to decide so. A lot of you think this way because you aren't overtly religious. To many religious (Christian, specifically in this case) people, it is their belief that their child is created in God's image and thus must be a Christian him/herself. A lot of you are against that notion because the child didn't get to choose.

Like a person pointed up above - the anti-circumcision group is making mountains out of molehills. Most men don't care one way another if they have been or haven't been circumcised, and most men probably prefer to be circumcised. If it's because of social norms, well so be it. You don't have to rebel against everything for God's sake...

If, and only if, I (and my wife in the future, as I'm only a college student) have a male son and choose to have him circumcised just purely for "social norms", respect our decision and mind your own damn business.

[AtomicKitten]

334. I transcribe surgery reports of adults who weren't circumcised

with all kinds of funky maladies. Sometimes hygiene is much easier with circumcision and circumcision much easier as an infant.

I do have a huge complaint about those that campaign against circumcision complaining that doctors don't use anesthesia. That's unmitigated bullshit and, yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

I get really cranky when people push false data in a discussion.

[sui generis]

340. mythologies

the circ'd anti-circ crowd is sure that every personal problem in their life is attributed to their own circumcision, and the others are just busybodies who would believe that a portion of the baby's liver is removed through the urethra during circumcision using a spork to justify their irrational positions that all weeners should look exactly like theirs. This has incidentally been going on for about 3,000 years, starting with the Greeks telling everyone else, including jews, that circumcisions were a capital offense against the "purity and perfection" of the male form.

It's just not that big a deal. Another mythology they can't let go is that it mentally scars the child for life, turns him into the sexual equivalent of a turnip, removes more skin than the surface area of Manhattan, and is the cause of male pattern baldness, smelly feet and terminal itchy ass (stage four gluteal pruritis).

:rofl:

If 175 million men aren't bothered by it at all, then why should the 12 here on DU care about it so much that they want to change everyone else's choices? They have a weener of their own to attend to and their own families to raise and their own (ridiculous to me) cultures to perpetuate.

Stay out of other people's business folks - as usual, you're not welcome there. Big surprise.

[McCamy Taylor]

335. Both parents should remain silent. No circumcism until the man decides.

[LynnTheDem]

336. Yep. And men stay the hell out of the abortion debate.

MYOB.

Mind your own bodies.