after reading the posts on this thread i decided to let my fiance make the final decision. I really don't think it's fair for me to decide the fate of my sons penis as I don't have one.
Well, Cynister, I definately do not think that mother's make the "Circumcision Decision" based on their son's future sexually pleasure. Personally, I don't really care about the cosmetic side of the procedure. I couldn't really understand a mother wanting to keep her son intact because it will still look the same erect, just like I don't think a mother would have her son circumcised for the looks. I mean really, how many people are going to see his penis? And how many of those people that do, will honestly care either way? I care about his health. I have done research upon research..and honestly, there are pros and cons to both. A lot of which, cannot be proven on either side.
Ok, so you say who would care what their son looks like...MEN! My husband's cousin fought with his wife over circumcision the whole pregnancy bc he said his boy "would get no action" if he wasn't circumcized! Can you believe it?! In the end, they got it done since he was so adament.....all bc of a cosmetic reason. I have heard lots of guys who are circumcized say that the uncircumcized penis looks bad.........so, just make sure your partners are wanting your babies circumcized for the right reasons I guess not for the "look" of it.
LOL I wasn't talking about a mother thinking of how her son will be sexually gratified or how it looks erect, I was simply pointing that out. Only my second & last paragraph is directed at mothers.
I know plenty of women who thought foreskin was ugly and that there son would be ridiculed for it. My own sister is one of them. She also believed that it was cleaner, which reports show it is not. She learned that the hard way when her son got an infection.
I wanted to add something to the conversation that I don't think has been brought up yet. I hear a lot of people continually bring up the risks of infection for boys left intact, but I'm very surprised that no one considers the huge risk of infection for circ'd babies. Just think about it...you're exposing an OPEN WOUND to fecal matter repeatedly during the 1-2 weeks it takes for that baby to heal. Infection rates are substantially higher for circ'd boys overall just for this reason. Plus this is during the neonatal period of the baby's life when he is so volnerable and susceptable to sickness.
Research studies suggest that there are some good medical why your son should be circumcised. These include:
Circumcision lowers your son’s chances of getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life.
Although a rare condition, cancer of the penis is essentially eliminated in circumcised males.
Research shows that males who are circumcised have a slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
Circumcision eliminates foreskin infection that occur at the peak ages of 3 to 5 years.
Circumcision prevents phimosis, a narrow opening that makes it impossible to retract the foreskin at a later age.
Genital hygiene, which is particularly important in unsanitary conditions, may be easier after circumcision.
As parents, you have to make many decisions for your children. You said that you should let your son decide, it is his penis. But look at everything that you choose for your children. Their food, their bathing routines, their clothes, their everything. Babies are incapable. A circumcision is much riskier later in life, choosing whether or not to have it done should be before or shortly after he is born.
Also - did you know that labia removal also reduces chances of UTIs in girls? A boy - circumcised or not, has less than a 1% chance of getting a UTI in the first year of life. A girl, on the other hand, has a 5% chance. We treat girls with antibiotics, not labia removal. Why don't we treat boys the same way then?
Cancer of the penis is so rare that it's more common for men to get breast cancer. So I suppose that breast bud removal in infant boys is ethical? Would you have that done to your child - after all, he will never use his breasts, right? So why not remove them? Chances are as an adult he will develop breast cancer before penile cancer.Although a rare condition, cancer of the penis is essentially eliminated in circumcised males.
Depends on which studies you look at. Some studies have proven the direct opposite - noting that the Langerhans cells in the foreskin actually eat and destroy infection and bacteria.Research shows that males who are circumcised have a slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
Foreskin infection is not a problem. Girls get yeast infections quite a bit too. We treat them. The solution isn't to remove body parts, but to TREAT body parts when infected.Circumcision eliminates foreskin infection that occur at the peak ages of 3 to 5 years.
Also, most "infections" are really just misdiagnoses - American doctors aren't too knowledgeable about the foreskin so they often misdiagnose natural separation (when the foreskin gets a bit swollen, inflamed, red or pink, etc) as infection, when it's not.
Yes, and cutting off toes prevents toe cancer. Seriously though, phimosis can be treated by a number of things - circ is the most invasive and irreversible. Common treatment for phimosis in other countries is first, gentle stretching, second, steroid creams, and third, a small slit in the foreskin to help open it further. Even then, some men happily live with phimosis their entire lives, because it doesn't bother them. So it's really not that big a deal.Circumcision prevents phimosis, a narrow opening that makes it impossible to retract the foreskin at a later age.
There is nothing at all complicated in cleaning a child's intact penis. You literally DO NOTHING. You do not retract. You do not wipe "in there". You do not "clean it out" with q-tips. You just leave it alone. Seriously. When he is a teen, all he has to do is retract in the shower, rinse, and replace. That's not too difficult. Please, let's give our men more credit.Genital hygiene, which is particularly important in unsanitary conditions, may be easier after circumcision.
This is silly. None of these things even remotely compare. Circumcision removes a NORMAL, healthy, functioning part of another person's genitals. I don't know about you, but to remove a healthy part of someone else's body for really no good reason seems unethical to me. I mean, every issue an intact man MAY have with his penis occurs in adulthood. Why not let the man then see the pros and cons for himself, and make an educated decision for his own body? He will have his penis for his entire life. He should be the one to decide how it looks and functions.As parents, you have to make many decisions for your children. You said that you should let your son decide, it is his penis. But look at everything that you choose for your children. Their food, their bathing routines, their clothes, their everything. Babies are incapable.
Remember, he can always take the foreskin off if he so chooses. But he can never put it back on and grow back those thousands of erotically-oriented nerve endings. NEVER.
Actually, this is not true. As an adult, his penis will have attained the size it is meant to be. THe doctor is guessing on an infant - how much skin should he remove? Too much and as an adult the boy might have too tight erections which can be very painful. Too little and the boy will suffer painful adhesions as the skin tries to heal itself back to the glans. A baby is rarely given proper anesthesia whereas an adult can get high doses of whatever he needs to fight the pain. He can also communicate and let his doctor know he IS in pain, and they can help him. Furthermore, an adult isn't sitting in a diaper filled with urine (that stings the wound) and feces (which are full of bacteria). So no, it's not riskier at all.A circumcision is much riskier later in life, choosing whether or not to have it done should be before or shortly after he is born.
Last edited by nathaliehanna; 06-24-2008 at 01:16 PM. Reason: added quote
I would also like to add this:
Do you moms really want to interfere with your sons' sex lives in this way? Do you realize that the foreskin truly does serve a purpose?
First of all, it is SO sensitive. WHen I change my boys' diapers, just lightly touching the tip of the foreskin makes them giggle and squirm. Circ'd boys will never know that feeling. They will never know what they are missing, which I guess could also be a good thing.
But the foreskin is FULL of nerve endings. (And yes, women, you know the feeling - you have foreskin too (it's the hood of your clitoris). Men who were circ'd as adults later say, after their glans has rubbed on their clothing long enough to have "desensitized" them, that sex went from a 10 to a 3 or a 4. The feelings just aren't there anymore.
Anyway, on to the function of the foreskin... in infancy, it is tightly closed to prevent bacteria from entering the penis. WHen the foreskin is not there, the glans is exposed to bacteria and the urethra can become scarred and ulcerated (a condition known as meatal stenosis - common in circ'd boys - which means more surgery).
In sex, the foreskin serves several purposes. For one, it keeps moistness inside the woman. Need a lot of lube? With an intact man, most women don't. The foreskin keeps her natural lube inside, where it belongs - also assisting sperm if you want to get pregnant.
Soreness after sex? Feel like there was a lot of thrusting going on? Intact men don't need to thrust - because they are more sensitive (as they were intended to be), gentle gliding is all they need to climax. Leaving women not feel so battered and bruised afterwards, esp on the honeymoon when sex happens A LOT!
Having a hard time climaxing with hubby? Women married to intact men climax with them more and have deeper climaxes than women married to circ'd men. Why? Because an intact man stays closer to the pubic mound - a circ'd man doesn't (because he needs to do a lot of moving and thrusting to feel anything). Intact men don't, so their wives are able to climax more easily during sex, rather than after it or apart from it.
The presence of foreskin also gives women a "fuller" feeling inside during sex, because obviously, there is more there.
When aroused, circ'd and intact men look exactly the same with the exception of the scar on a circ'd man's penis.
I know for myself, and several women I know, that sex is drying, it does kind of hurt after awhile, and there is lots of pounding. So the choice my MIL made for my hubby affected ME as well. I'm sad about that. I wish that he was intact, or at least that the decision could have been left up to him - or to us. But it's not, and if it already hurts and is drying for me and the other women I know now, at 30, I can only imagine it's not gonna get any better as we age. That sucks.
So keep in mind, moms, when you decide it's not just a decision that will affect your little boy - but your son as a MAN, and his wife, for the rest of their lives.