new fathers.... to cut or no?

[SirConcis]

"circumcision is better" is a subjective statement. For some it holds true, while others reject it. You need to respect that those form whom circ is better, will think that circumcising their son improves his body. While others consider it a mutilation or whatever.

This debate is a never ending one exactly because there are people of differeing opinion and there is no way to make a once-and-for-all decision on whether circ is good or not. So each parent makes their own decision.

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

Besides of the tones of reasons of why not to do it, that i've already given.
You won't even do this to you're pets/any other mammal now would you? So why would you then do this to your children?

 

[D_Edwin Eatser]

I suppose if you belong to one of the backward-looking tribal religions they you'll do it to appease whichever wrathful, uncompromising deity you worship, in case he brings damnation on you and the child in question. Don't bother to think whether it's right, wrong, good or bad, just put your brain into neutral and OBEY!

Good to see some people are arguing the medical pros and cons, but this is all wasted on religious fanatics. Religion - what a pathetic reason to mutilate an infant!

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

What medical pros are there to circumcise?

None! else natural selection would have already selected in favor of it.

The only single one(which is not really a pro, but simply complete idiot proof) i could think of is that because so many parents are such utter complete idiots, when the child is still an infant or at a very early age, they force the foreskin back as they think that this is the only way to clean it because the adult foreskin is shaped in this way, when the child's foreskin still needs to develop to reach this stage, and as it is not fully developed yet, they try too hard and it may tear one out of every million times. This is where the problem lies. In the wild and as with all mammals, this is not the way in which the foreskin is cleaned and thus it doesn't happen that it may tear anywhere else in nature.

And even so, if you were to be one of those small few of completely idiotic parents who did force it and made did tear, and this tear actually lead to an infection, well there are plenty antibiotics to treat this too, circumcising the child is no less painful either. It should be no more different than say cleaning a babies eyelids.

 

[B_shark888]

What medical pros are there to circumcise?

Greedy medical establishment of the America and stupidity of people

 

[JTalbain]

"circumcision is better" is a subjective statement. For some it holds true, while others reject it. You need to respect that those form whom circ is better, will think that circumcising their son improves his body. While others consider it a mutilation or whatever.

You realize this exact train of reasoning could be (and actually is) used by Jigsaw in the Saw movies, to explain why what he does is not evil?

This debate is a never ending one exactly because there are people of differeing opinion and there is no way to make a once-and-for-all decision on whether circ is good or not. So each parent makes their own decision.

The only reason the debate continues is because of the medical community's inaction on it. If they took a strong stance against it, or if it was declared illegal, then that would be the end of that. Within a couple of generations, circumcision would be so unheard of that we'd think it was just as barbaric as any other number of lost, forgotten, flesh sacrifices.

 

[Hoss]

The only reason the debate continues is because of the medical community's inaction on it. If they took a strong stance against it, or if it was declared illegal, then that would be the end of that. Within a couple of generations, circumcision would be so unheard of that we'd think it was just as barbaric as any other number of lost, forgotten, flesh sacrifices.

This is why I have difficulty with you & many antiicircumcising crusaders. Yes, the medical community should be better involved in telling the facts, namely that circumciising isn't going to keep HIV and other stds from happening and that circumcising isn't going to end masturbating, and that a penis can be just as clean, maybe even cleaner if left intact. We have cleaning methods and the misguidance and misinformation cause circumcsed men in many cases to wash less and men in areas where circumsising isn't done aren't having their foreskins turning strange colors and becoming diseased.

to the 2nd&3rd remarks, I take issue.The medical community isn't going to stop circumcsing which is done for religious reasons and declaring all circumcisin illegal is a religion matter as well and the government of any free country would be hard pressed in that. By uusing the term "barbaric" you've diluted your message and slammed several cuultural rites and practices including certain religion based rites.

If the medical community does their part and says that RIC isn't needed, then the numbers will decline. The debate will rage on though as Jewish babies will be circuumcsed and Muslims lads too which will make some curious & some even envious, real penis envy.

Solutions? Excepting relgion based circumcising, a circumcision needs to be performed in a hospital and the legal aspect being that no insurance policy can cover it. Make it a selective procedure and the parent must pay in advance.

 

[JTalbain]

This is why I have difficulty with you & many antiicircumcising crusaders. Yes, the medical community should be better involved in telling the facts, namely that circumciising isn't going to keep HIV and other stds from happening and that circumcising isn't going to end masturbating, and that a penis can be just as clean, maybe even cleaner if left intact. We have cleaning methods and the misguidance and misinformation cause circumcsed men in many cases to wash less and men in areas where circumsising isn't done aren't having their foreskins turning strange colors and becoming diseased.

That isn't the medical community's only job. They are supposed to provide facts, but they are also supposed to provide sound medical advice and recommendations. They have stricken down the concept that circumcising makes a boy healthier, but they have more evidence than is required for that. There is evidence of harm caused by circumcision (some of it varying greatly based on the individual), and the ethics behind allowing parents to circumcise their children are at odds with virtually every other ethics statement we have. It could be that they are just treading carefully, checking and double checking studies to be cautious and avoid giving unsound advice, but it is still very much their job to advise against a procedure that evidence has shown to be harmful than good.

to the 2nd&3rd remarks, I take issue.The medical community isn't going to stop circumcsing which is done for religious reasons and declaring all circumcisin illegal is a religion matter as well and the government of any free country would be hard pressed in that. By uusing the term "barbaric" you've diluted your message and slammed several cuultural rites and practices including certain religion based rites.

I'm not just slapping my own opinion on this and saying "Everyone will eventually think like I do." I'm actually just pointing out how public opinion would evolve on circumcision if it were declared harmful and made illegal. Female genital cutting used to be acceptable in the US, though nowhere near as common, but when it was declared harmful and made illegal in the late 70's, people began to think of it as horrifying and barbaric. As for the Jewish community in the US, there is a perfectly acceptable alternative ceremony in the Jewish faith known as Bris Shalom, which is merely a non-cutting alternative to the normal Bris. It has the support of the Jewish faith, and it is practiced by those who fear that circumcision may be an outmoded tradition or harmful to their child.

If the medical community does their part and says that RIC isn't needed, then the numbers will decline. The debate will rage on though as Jewish babies will be circuumcsed and Muslims lads too which will make some curious & some even envious, real penis envy.

The numbers will decline if they say RIC isn't needed, but I look at history and see that the numbers have declined in the past as well. When the numbers have declined in the past, all of a sudden new studies popped up which claimed new health benefits for circumcision, and rates began to climb again. This is what is happening with the HIV studies as we speak. Thus far, the AAP, AMA, and CDC have been far more resistant to the new studies, mostly due to the outcry from genital integrity advocates. This is an important crossroads, because at any point a single statement from the above groups could undo all the progress that groups like ICGI and DOC have made. It wouldn't be the same if the medical community as a whole was willing to turn the corner and actually declare it harmful.

I will point out that an actual medical recommendation against circumcision would not actually restrict religion. It's the job of medical organizations like the AMA and AAP to give sound medical advice based on science, not to censor themselves so that those who practice a religion which would be affected don't feel bad about themselves. Many people, if they knew their religious practices were harming other people, would stop that practice. They would reconsider what they were doing and try to assimilate this new information into the practice of their faith. Choosing to not give that information to them out of a fear of hurting their feelings is doing them a disservice.

Solutions? Excepting relgion based circumcising, a circumcision needs to be performed in a hospital and the legal aspect being that no insurance policy can cover it. Make it a selective procedure and the parent must pay in advance.

A perfectly good idea, and one that would likely be implemented the moment that policy recommended against infant cutting.

 

[maxcok]

You keep repeating that circumcision is "better". In what way is it "better"? How come you never answer my questions when I respond to your posts? Not only in this thread, but in previous threads too.

Well??

"circumcision is better" is a subjective statement. For some it holds true, while others reject it. You need to respect that those form whom circ is better, will think that circumcising their son improves his body. While others consider it a mutilation or whatever.

This debate is a never ending one exactly because there are people of differeing opinion and there is no way to make a once-and-for-all decision on whether circ is good or not. So each parent makes their own decision.

You keep saying it's "better". You still haven't answered my question:

In what way is it "better"?

Second question, can you name any other healthy body part that is routinely amputated and discarded in the trash in order to "improve" on nature?

Footnote: And no, I don't "need to respect" parents, who being given the opportunity to educate themselves, still choose to have an irreversible, completely unnecessary surgery performed on their infant child, with no regard to how it might negatively affect him as an adult.

 

[mandoman]

I punch the AMA, the AAP, and the CDC at every opportunity, for their lack of ethics concerning circumcision. There are thousands, if not millions, of other parents doing it, too.
Every time they are about to come out with a new policy advising that circumcision is medically justified, I verbally punch them in the nuts...both for the vacillating medical advice based on bad science, and the lack of a conscience in removing a healthy part from an unconsenting person, in violation of 'first, do no harm".
At least twice now, due to public outcry, the CDC has backed off. At least once, the AMA has as well.
No kid should be subjected to a painful operation he doesn't need, so they can make some easy money.

 

[SirConcis]

You think circumcision is harful. The medical community doesn't think so. All they have said is that when weighting the medical advantages against the costs of widespread circumcision, the advantage is too small to recomment widespread RIC.

There are still medical advantages. It is easier to keep clean, it does reduce number of infections etc. But making that statement does not imply that when uncut, you are dirty and always have infections.

However, if you look on cam4, the number of young adults with phimosis seems to be on the increase, and I suspect it is due to parents having been told by the anti-ciorc brigade to not touch thyeir son's penis and that it isn't necessary to retract and that smegma is a natural lubricant that shouldn't be removed.

And remember that a RIC father is just as clueless on a foreskin and will be gullible and believe what the anti circ brigade says. Someone who grew up with foreksin will know that smegma is not a lubricant and that it is decomposing skin full of bacteria that really does need to be washed away otherwise it causes infections (and foul smell).

 

[maxcok]

^ So, after all that, your only rationale for circucision being "better" is there is a chance a guy might not be taught, or might not follow, proper hygiene, which could possibly lead to an increase in infections. It's just more convenient to circumcise, yes? Well that makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes2:

On the other hand, could it also make sense just to teach proper hygiene, and also allow the man to retain full sexual function when he reaches maturity, not to mention having a his penis look the way nature intended? And who is this "anti circ brigade"? Do I have to enlist in order to be opposed to the senseless surgical alteration of infant genitalia?

 

[SirConcis]

Thinking that being circumcised is better is a subjective thing. It also depends on what sort of foreksin you had before.

The medical advantages of circumcision are well documented. Yes, they were exagerated in the past to push for widespread baby circs, but the health advantages are still there.

And yes, proper hygiene reduces the number of problems for the uncircumcised. I didn't say that being uncut garantees you will have infections, cancer etc. Obviously, europe has coped wth foreskins and parents there know how to takle care of their baby's penis and instruct the kid how to take good care of their penis. And does not involve anti0circ propaganda calling smegma "lubricant" as it happens in the USA. Everyone outside the anti-circ brigage knows that smegma is NOt a lubricant. You basically have a composting bin under your foreksin that collects dying skin cells, misex it with urine and concucts some nasty stuff full of bacteria.

Phimosis is NOT perfectly normal as many anti circers say. It is tolerable in the first years of a boy. But it is not normal. "Leave it alone" causes problems because the second a child's foreskin starts to be partly retractable, parents have to wash under the area that has begun to generate smegma. And as the forerskin further separates, more and more of the glans can be exposed and needs to be cleaned.

The "leave it alone" anti-circ propaganda actually increase the number of infecrions in young boys until parents realise they really have to wash under the foreksin instead of listening to the anti circers.

While there have been many exagerations of the benefits of circumcision in the mid part of last century, there are now many irresponsible statements from anti-circers in the recent 2 decades. Once you remove the exagerations, you find a middle ground that tolerates both cut and uncut decisions. Therefore, it is up to the parents to decide.

 

[Snozzle]

Once you remove the exagerations, you find a middle ground that tolerates both cut and uncut decisions.

This leaves out ethics - which is a rather big thing to leave out.

Therefore, it is up to the parents to decide.

I fail to see what "therefore" connects to. You could equally have written, "Therefore, it is up to the Mayor to decide." Or "... up to Paul, the Psychic Octopus, to decide." What ineluctable chain of logic connects the parents to the fate of the baby's foreskin?

Whose penis is it? Do babies have all human rights, as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act 2002 (not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child) grants? Do those rights include the right to be secure in their persons from unreasonable seizures?

 

[mandoman]

You think circumcision is harful. The medical community doesn't think so. All they have said is that when weighting the medical advantages against the costs of widespread circumcision, the advantage is too small to recomment widespread RIC.

There are still medical advantages. It is easier to keep clean, it does reduce number of infections etc. But making that statement does not imply that when uncut, you are dirty and always have infections.

However, if you look on cam4, the number of young adults with phimosis seems to be on the increase, and I suspect it is due to parents having been told by the anti-ciorc brigade to not touch thyeir son's penis and that it isn't necessary to retract and that smegma is a natural lubricant that shouldn't be removed.

And remember that a RIC father is just as clueless on a foreskin and will be gullible and believe what the anti circ brigade says. Someone who grew up with foreksin will know that smegma is not a lubricant and that it is decomposing skin full of bacteria that really does need to be washed away otherwise it causes infections (and foul smell).

The Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian medical societies think of it as harmful.
So do the British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand medical societies.
Again, you are stretching the truth until it breaks. They say there is no reason to do it, because any potential benefit is outweighed by the very real risks of surgery.

Keeping a mouth clean is easier if you remove the tongue. That is not a valid reason to do it.

You stated incorrectly in "How do you guys care for your foreskins" that oldredneck1's posted article was "plain stupid" and blaming the article, "It is like those articles that claim that phimosis is perfectly normal and natural in an adult and doesn't impede the sex life." You didn't bother to refute what I had to say over there. Now, you post the same trash over here.
Your credibility is zero.

Should girls be circumcised, because "smegma is not a lubricant and that it is decomposing skin full of bacteria that really does need to be washed away otherwise it causes infections (and foul smell)"? After all, they produce a good deal more of it than males do.

Again, please check your facts with the outside world, and not just your skewed belief system.

 

[JTalbain]

Thinking that being circumcised is better is a subjective thing. It also depends on what sort of foreksin you had before.

The medical advantages of circumcision are well documented. Yes, they were exagerated in the past to push for widespread baby circs, but the health advantages are still there.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision This study is actually quite clear. There are different rates for different ailments depending on circumcision status and risks from the procedure itself. When all are weighed together by probability and severity, being cut loses. It's not even close. And this is from a purely medical standpoint, it doesn't even take into acount the anatomical studies done more recently.

And does not involve anti0circ propaganda calling smegma "lubricant" as it happens in the USA. Everyone outside the anti-circ brigage knows that smegma is NOt a lubricant. You basically have a composting bin under your foreksin that collects dying skin cells, misex it with urine and concucts some nasty stuff full of bacteria.

You're half right. Smegma is not a lubricant, but one of the ingredients for it is the natural lubricant that the person produces. (Women produce smegma too, as a note) Ironically, one of the natural mechanisms by which smegma is cleaned off to prevent excessive accumulation is something that many think is gross: urinating with the foreskin foreward. Sure, this leaves some urine on the dick and some people might find that gross in a sexual context, but the penis is kinda intended to go into the vagina. Down there it's all lips and no tongue. She won't notice. :wink:

As for bacteria, there is a lot of it under the foreskin, but it is actually supposed to be there. Washing excessively or with antibacterial soap under the foreskin, much like cleaning the vagina this way, can be devastating to the natural flora that resides there and can cause problems as a result. A good analogy is like how we now know that antibiotics can kill much of the natural bacteria in your digestive tract which is supposed to be there.

Phimosis is NOT perfectly normal as many anti circers say. It is tolerable in the first years of a boy. But it is not normal. "Leave it alone" causes problems because the second a child's foreskin starts to be partly retractable, parents have to wash under the area that has begun to generate smegma. And as the forerskin further separates, more and more of the glans can be exposed and needs to be cleaned.

The "leave it alone" anti-circ propaganda actually increase the number of infecrions in young boys until parents realise they really have to wash under the foreksin instead of listening to the anti circers.

Funny the number of people that live just fine with phimosis and never have a problem with it.

While there have been many exagerations of the benefits of circumcision in the mid part of last century, there are now many irresponsible statements from anti-circers in the recent 2 decades. Once you remove the exagerations, you find a middle ground that tolerates both cut and uncut decisions. Therefore, it is up to the parents to decide.

Actually a much more logical conclusion is that all the supposed health benefits from circumcision are debateable, all the serious ones won't affect him until he is old enough to be sexually active, and every medical organization on the planet says the surgery is unnecessary and cosmetic, so it makes sense to leave the decision to him as an adult.

 

[wilseb]

You wash an uncut one like you would a finger.
Do not force the foreskin back, it tears where it is still attached to the head in a young child.
Later on, the head and foreskin separate, and he will learn to wash then.
It is only after the two separate, that he will produce smegma. It is part of the separation process.
Congratulations on your decision not to give your son a painful operation he doesn't need. You're doing well in parenting already, in my book.

It tears!? Really? just learned something new! (glad I asked) When does it separate? Weeks after birth? By age three...?

I guess I need to do some reading on how to properly bathe/clean him. Granted, my "ABC's of baby care" class isn't for another two weeks, so hopefully they will cover that topic. Otherwise, I'm doing some Google'ing.

 

[wilseb]

Explain to her that most of the world don't practise cutting. I still can't understand why would she want him cut if she is Italian... They don't do it just like other EU states.

She's first generation, born and raised in the States. I've explained that to her, in hopes to educate her, that in Italy, and other European countries, that circumcision is not common. And as I mentioned on our trip to Italy, I proved it to her when she visited her cousin and his three, young sons.

She's beginning to understand where I'm coming from a bit more, but still hates the way they look. I said that she's not going to be sleeping with him, so why do you care what it looks like? She kinda sat stunned, thinking about it. Why would "mommy" care what it looks like. I think I finally won the argument... :biggrin1:

I read another post by prettyswinggirl, who lives in the southern US. I'm born and raised in Lower Alabama, and I hear you! I grew up in a rural town where my elementary class had about a dozen kids in it - my high school graduating class had just under 30 students. In elementary school, where we all showered after gym, none of the kids were uncut. And if there was one, I'm sure he would have been ridiculed for being different. I think one kid was, but he was in a three-wheeler ATV (remember those?) accident the year before and we assumed that why his looked weird, so we never said anything. In HS, only one kid in my class was. I never saw it, I only knew because his girlfriend talked about. In HS, we didn't shower after gym because at that age, we were all feeling awkward about our bodies and being a very small class, no one dared to get naked by himself so, no one did. In looking back, it's amazing how we were so self-conscience about our bodies. As an adult, though I'm just as skinny as I was in HS (though the abs are long gone), I don't care and will walk around nude with no worries. I guess that's called, growing up.

I'm rambling, but getting back to living in the South... I agree with prettyswinggirl. If I were still living in the South, I probably would be giving more thought to having my son cut simply because of how he would be seen by others. And yes, kids can be so cruel. But living up here in New York, I'm less concerned because of the immigrants who have moved here and the likelihood of their children not being cut, I'm sure he'll fit in just fine.

 

[mandoman]

It tears!? Really? just learned something new! (glad I asked) When does it separate? Weeks after birth? By age three...?

I guess I need to do some reading on how to properly bathe/clean him. Granted, my "ABC's of baby care" class isn't for another two weeks, so hopefully they will cover that topic. Otherwise, I'm doing some Google'ing.

He's the only one who should retract his foreskin. Not his parents, not a nurse or doctor. I was four when they separated. It can happen anytime, from birth to puberty or later. If you force a foreskin back before it is ready, the synchea (the connection between the head and foreskin) tears, and the wound heals the head and foreskin together, into an adhesion (scar tissue)

From Dr. Stephen Liroff:
Uncircumcised penises usually "take care of themselves" and do not need the foreskin retracted until puberty. At puberty and beyond, on a daily basis the foreskin needs to be retracted and washed and then pulled back down.
Following circumcision, reattachment of the foreskin to the head of the penis can occur. This can be either the recurrence of what I call "physiologic" adhesions ( the type that exists beneath the uncircumcised pediatric foreskin) or "dense" (again, the term is mine) adhesions that result in permanent skin bridging. These latter ones are true scars and will not resolve at puberty as do the physiologic ones. They can both be prevented by gently making sure that the penile skin does not remain in contact with the head of the penis during the healing that follows circumcision. Gently pulling the skin down from covering the head of the penis and applying a vaseline based antibiotic ointment (such as bacitracin) with each diaper change until complete healing (10 days or so) has occurred should be adequate. Forcefully, repeated, disruption of these adhesions is not good and will result in dense adhesions, scarring and possibly infections.
S.A.Liroff, M.D.

Circumcision has got to hurt like hell. Tearing apart the most sensitive part of your body can't be fun, and anesthesia wears off. Then, salty urine hits an open wound. Circumcision is a violent act.

You're going to be a good dad. You are already looking out for him.
Good luck with your little man.

 

[aussienick]

I've discussed this with GF and we will be breaking a long family tradition of circumcision.

My son/sons will be keeping their foreskins.

Unfortunately my older brother has already circumcised his sons to "be like their dad", but most of my mates have left their lads intact.

Times are changing. Be interested to know what other Aussie fathers have done? Was it a tough decision to make.

Are your sons different from you?

Nick