Circumcision.

So, here's the story. One of my cousins was arguing with his girlfriend when I went to their house yesterday. When I asked what the problem was, she said, "Ben wants his future son circumcised!" I proceeded to tell her that she would not receive support against the idea from me and that it was his choice. But looking back on it now, I realized that both of them should come to some kind of agreement before their son is born. I also believe now that they should research and decide together. Even if it means putting aside tradition.

In our family, most of the boys are circumcised based upon our parents decision that it is for reasons of cleanliness. I am curious as to weather or not this "tradition" should be carried on. I am also interested in the views of this forum. I know it's a touchy subject and I hope you all respond to this topic with maturity and respect. I am eager to hear your personal, cultural, and religious beliefs on this matter. Thank you all in advance for your input. It should give me insight regarding decisions I may make in the future.

 

I don't find anything weird about circumcision. I really hate it when people make fun of someone I know who was circumcised. I don't understand how people can be so judgemental about things like this. I don't see the personal harm (besides the pain :/) in this. If he wants to circumcise him , then so be it, nothing is stopping his decision.

 

A valid response. I thought it was his choice too. But it does take two people to make a baby and I think the decision should come as a pair.

 

Well just a small thing to add to what has already been said.

At schools and in future, it will attract some attention and possibly mockery. Not full scale, every day mockery, but his name will pop up whenever the subject does.

 

Wait. If he is circumcised or if he is not?

 

I'm not jewish, but I agree with Ben... it is tradition and should be carried on if you are a man of your faith... ofcourse that all depends on what religon she is...

this is one reason why I never want to marry a women of another faith... I mean, What happens to my child if it doesn't get batized?!

 

Well, we're not Jewish. We're Christian. We are also Hispanic, an ethnicity that doesn't usually condone circumcision. I appreciate your input and will take this into account.

 

I'm Jewish, so yes, I've been circumsised. :3
But that aside, I don't see why she would be against it in the first place. Could you possibly explain to us why Ben is for it and his girlfriend against it?

 

I got circumsized and it wasn't a big deal to me. (I was 2) I don't have any regrets about it.

 

Ben is for it because, as I have stated before, most of the boys in our family are circumcised as a tradition of cleanliness. His girlfriend, Erica, is against it cuz all the boys in her family are uncircumcised. She thinks that it might cause desensitization of her baby's penis. I guess that's what her family told her. That is why I'm seeking outside opinions on this matter.

I think I was ten days old. That what my mother says anyway. Once again, thank you guys for all of your input.

 

I don't see anything wrong with Circumcision. If he wants his son to be circumcised, It's his decision. I was circumcised and I have no regrets. Beside I was like, 2 days old so I don't remember anything.

 

That's what I figured. If he's not going to remember, why not? They don't even use a scalpal anymore unless you're Jewish. They use some weird little ring thing.

 

Maybe she knows that the foreskin includes over half (20,000) of the male's specialized pleasure-receptive nerve endings. It protects the glans and mucosa from the drying and abrasive effects of clothing and air, and it provides an exquisite frictionless rolling/gliding mode of intimate interaction that is not possible when the normal slack is absent.

It's risky surgery. The baby is so tiny nobody knows how much he will grow and how much slack skin he will want or need to accomodate erections. Any tiny procedural error is magnified as the boy grows. In infancy, the foreskin is still fused the glans (like a fingernail to a finger) and it must be torn away to do the circumcision and the tearing often causes permanant gouges or pits in the glans. Healing in diapers and without the ability to communicate if things don't feel just right can cause infections, ugly skin bridges, and adhesions. It is estimated that the amount spent on circumcsion-related corrective surgery in the US is close to the $400 million billed annually for the initial procedures.

Every mammal on earth evolved a foreskin before there was surgery, soap, or even running water. The interior space is kept hygienic by the flushing action of sterile urine leaving the body. Until the boy is old enough to retract his own skin and rinse with clear water, the skin protects him from pathogens. The AAPs advice for foreskin care is LEAVE IT ALONE (which they capitalize). Only the owner should ever try to retract a foreskin.

No national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision. 95% of the world's non-Muslims don't circumcise. In the US, the cutting rate is down to about 50/50, although in the 4 Western states only about 25% are cut.

 

Very interesting! You are the first person to post against it and with scientific data and background info. It brings me to question the matter greatly. I am curious as to where you gathered your info.

 

All I can say is that they should come to a decision together. Their son belongs to BOTH of them, and it wouldn't be right if they didn't come to a conclusion together. That's really all I can say concerning this matter.

 

There is nothing wrong with circumcision or not being circumcised. Men that are circumcised do not complain about the loss of sensitivity etc that some men say happens who 'aren't' circumcised. There's no real proof to back up that claim. There are other claims even from the World Health Organization that circumcision reduces the risks of HIV, though of course it does not eliminate it. Some people state it violates the choice of the boy child but this is a decision left up to parents to decide if it is so or not. Some people feel it is an unneeded trauma and could cause psychological problems but again, there's no real proof to back this claim either. There is medical information that circumcision reduces urinary tract infections but well, anyone can go to the doc's and get treated for a UTI easily enough.

Basically, in the end, it's a decision that parents should choose prior to considering having a child in the first place so that these arguments don't happen but unfortunately it's not the case here. If the male is circumcised, he may want his son to be. I can see why the mother wouldn't want it but the sensitivity issue doesn't seem to hold true as many males who have been circumcised say otherwise and mostly it is non-circumcised males that say sensitivity is lost. There are minor benefits and disadvantages to being circumcised or not. Personally, I'm pretty neutral on the issue since there's so much that isn't much to support it or say it's bad. Both parents are just going to have to weigh the options and actually study the issue and see if it's what they mutually want or don't.

 

I see the validity in your statement and I have decided that if they do decide to have the procedure done, it would be best done when he's a newborn. As a newborn there is no anesthetic risk, no separation from parents, no psychological trauma, no stitches, no memory of the event and the wounds heal in a few days without causing any discomfort. Circumcision with this thing called a 'Plastibell' is probably the best method and the baby can be bathed normally.

I have heard of parents saying no at first and then changing their minds. The mere thought gives me a cold shiver.

For more info on the plastibell device see the link below.

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

 

I've been studying circumcision ever since I became a parent in 1992. At the time, I had no opinion. I've since become convinced that it is NOT a parent's choice; it's HIS body and HIS decision.

At http://Circumstitions.com I found a wealth of info. It's so easy to see a headline like "Circumcision doesn't reduce sensation" and smugly say "good, that's what I thought." When you look into it, there are recent studies where they carefully measured the phallus of many many men in 17 defined spots. The 5 most sensitive spots were all on the foreskin.

Then you see that the other study about "Circumcision doesn't Reduce Sensation" was done by AIDS researchers in Africa. They questioned men who had recently been circumcised as part of a trial to see if circumcision fights HIV transmission. They asked the men the strangest questions, like "Is penetration difficult since you were circumcised?" The numbers they got were like 98.77% of cut men are satisfied with sex, and 98.79% of the men who remained intact are satisfied. Therefore there's no difference! Well, this was done shortly after the circumcisions, so the glans was still tingly and raw and hadn't had much chance to get numb. These were guys who sought circumcision. And in other studies, no more than 90% of any group of people report general sexual satisfaction.

In other words, they got their finding by not measuring anything related to actual sexual satisfaction, using a biased sample, and asking about it well before circumcision could have all of its effects. And by the way, they even reported HIGHER satisfaction among the intact, but that is not the headline for some reason. Follow the money and you find out these researchers are tied to groups trying to import circumcision tools and training from the West into Africa.

I think it was at http://Circumstitions.com where I saw that Daniel Halperin - one of the researchers - is the grandson of a ritual circumciser, and he's quoted in a magazine about how he sees his mission in life to be the carrying on of his grandfather's work. Not exactly unbiased, yet these non-double-blinded non-placebo-controlled studies are heralded throughout the world as gospel. If you ask me, the only study that matters was done in the US over the course of the last 3 decades. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. There is zero probabilty that circumcision is a relevant way of fighting AIDS.

It's scary. I'm not a conspiracy monger, but it seems like stories that show problems with circumcision don't get nearly the play in the press. People can watch out for these biased anti-circumcision web sites. But it's not biased when the full text of the actual medical studies are right there, linked from the peer-reviewed medical journals where they first appeared.

 

Nothen wrong with it. I just hate the act of circumsision itself. It shouldn't be a tradition......

 

May I ask you to state your reasons to show disdain for this procedure?