Male circumcision.

They're called "milk bottle necks" unless circumcised where I come from. I totally believe in the practise but it doesn't appear to be the IN thing nowadays.

Where do you stand on this issue?

I am from Germany, where they usualy do not circumcise. Men who are intact have a lot more trouble with rips occuring during certain activities, among other small unpleasentries. If I would have had a son, there is no doubt that I would have had him circumcised. Somewhere they have done a study, that showed a close relationship of women getting a more infections when their partners are not circumcised. Even the cancer rates where higher in this group compared to women with circumcised partners, I believe.

Justme36330

You're absolutely correct in what you've written. I was watching a documentary on the subject and there is too much evidence nowadays to suggest that circumcision is the way to go. Having said that, there are still many people who are reluctant to go down this path with their own baby boys.

You know what.. I'm 28 years old and I still can't tell the difference. My current (and most treasured) significant other hails from france, where circumcision is less common.. he says he isn't.. I can't see the diff between him and the American ones I have seen ( I say it this way because circumcision tends to be a common practice, or at least among men in my age group, in the states) So by all means if it can lead to health problems I don't think a little snip as a baby is a big deal.

I have read it can lead to tears during erm vigarous activities, and well that the skin itself can become inflamed if one doesn't take care to wash properly or if one sweats excessively. Some have also claimed that trapped bacteria can make it smell bad....

When our son was born a year ago, my husband and I decided to have him circumcised. I had done a lot of reading about the subject when I was pregnant. I read that men who are circ'd have less incidence of AIDS according to a UN health study of men in Africa. Also, the women of circumcised men have less incidence of yeast infections, if that isn't enough, they also have less incidence of cervical cancer and the men have less incidence of penile cancer. Good enough arguement for me.

My husband's parents are from Germany, where I understand they do not normally circumcise boys. It is mostly a religious thing there. When my husband was born here in the US the Dr. circumcised him without asking his parents. They were furious!! We have 4 nephews on my husband's side and none of them were circumcised.

Glit: An uncirc'd penis looks like it is wearing a turtleneck, you cannot see the glans (head) of the penis. Sorry to be so graphic.

[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 10, 2009 10:10 PM PST]

Geoffrey,
You say its your sons decision when he gets older? Just because you think it would be more fun to masturbate uncircumcised!! Sorry but that is one of the dumbest reasons I have every heard of, or the most inmature reasons.
Do you realize how PAINFUL a Circumcisen is for a older boy?

Do you think your missing a limb as you said? You do not walk, talk, or use your penis like you do a hand, leg etc... Do not know how you can compare a limb to a circumcised Penis.

We had a neighbor from Greese with two small boys. When they became teenagers, they started to get infections etc.
One of the boys was Circumcised about 12 years old. He went through SOOOO much pain, but was so glad after he had it done.
No more infections, or smell!

I can also say, I would NEVER have sex with a man that was not circumcised, as my Daughter would say. I have grown children and a husband..Of course Husband and Son are circumcised, and would not want it any other way.

Good luck

I had an ex who tore in the act, it was horrifying to realize that the blood wasn't mine - but he seemed to take it in stride. I circumcised my kid, and I have only one male friend who claims to lament the loss of his foreskin. I don't doubt him, but as far as the sample size of the guys I've mentioned it to, the odds of my son suffering are going to be substantially low.

Unlike female circumcision, There are at least vague reasons for male circumcision that don't involve wrecking the enjoyment of intercourse altogether. It's also key that it's not done at a time of their life where they will never forget the agony of it. I tried to do a bit of 'internet' research for the pros and cons of male circumcision, and I wasn't really swayed by the children's right to decide - considering by the time he's old enough to wonder why he doesn't look like his daddy, he'll be (in my opinion) to old for the procedure.

@Geoff Dude, seriously? You wish you were uncircumcised NOW but you think it's wrong to do it to a kid early? Well, despite the annoyance of your foreskin while cranking it, circumcised men are scientifically proven to have a LOT LESS sensitivity down there. Enjoy what you have, or snip it, and prove to all the naysayers that men can decide to remove their foreskin as an adult - you know, for kicks and giggles.

[Deleted by the author on Feb 11, 2009 7:10 AM PST]

[Deleted by the author on Feb 11, 2009 9:16 AM PST]

[Deleted by the author on Feb 13, 2009 9:45 AM PST]

Just putting in my 2 cents...I did NOT get my child circumcised as I am from England where it is also unheard of other than in cases of medical necessity. You would definitely be able to notice the difference aesthetically but in all my time in the UK and here I have only dated a couple of men who WERE circumcised and I have never heard of any of the others having ANY problems with hygiene or smells! This was a myth dating back to times when people did not take regular baths. Now with most people (hopefully) taking showers at least once a day there is no issue with this and no special cleaning required! I cannot speak for men on the sensitivity issue but I made my decision based on fact that God seems to have done a pretty good job making our body parts function pretty well and I have faith that he put that part there for a reason! I spent 9 months not consuming caffine, alcohol etc. and i couldn't see having a perfect baby boy born and immediately hacking off part of him.
Most of the medial community agrees that there is no medical benefits to it, this is why many doctors will no longer do it and many insurance companies do not cover it. One of my main concerns was that he would be teased in school but then I discovered that in the US is is down to about 60% of babies that are circumcised so he will not be the only be in his class. Also to the women who said she would never sleep with an uncircumcised man. I think that is a little shallow... My hubby IS circumcised and although it still looks a little weird to me I love him either way.
OK thats my 2 cents...I don't think there is a wrong answer on his issue but definitely wrong to judge!

I like what Elaine on Seinfeld said about the uncircumcised member: "It had no face, no personality". I think that not being circumcised means just being more thorough when cleaning oneself.

I believe that a long while ago, when people only took a bath every few weeks, it did make sense to have it done. Today, with a little extra care, I'm sure most intact men have no issues.

I remember from the first gulf war, that some uncircumcised soldiers had a problem with sand getting under the foreskin and causing irritation and infection. It then seems to make sense that circumcision is part of the practice of religions that originate in the middle east.

Edit: Apologies for the previous self righteous sounding post, I've re-edited this post to fully explain my feelings about the practice of infant/child circumcision in America.

There is absolutely NO VALID REASON short of immediate medical need to amputate an infant's foreskin. It is an erogenous zone that facilitates in sexual intercourse and plain old feels awesome to have. Every male is born with a foreskin, it's not a birth defect, it's supposed to be there and it's not supposed to be retracted at birth. Retraction of the foreskin before it's ready (which can take as long as until puberty for it to be ready) most likely will cause many of the problems American boys suffer from before doctors "diagnose" circumcision being needed. The foreskin is attached to the head of the penis at birth, during a circumcision the foreskin must be torn from the head. Even with proper anesthesia there are complications, imagine tearing your healthy fingernail off. This would cause some skin still attached to the nail to be torn from it, This is what happens when a foreskin that is not ready to retract is pulled back. Bits of the glans are torn off from the head of the penis obviously causing injury. Now compound that to the urine and feces environment of a diaper, how do you expect it NOT to get infected? The foreskin actually protects the genitals from UTIs at birth, amputate that from the kid and not only does he have an open wound to deal with but no protection.

Despite all of the medical advances, Despite all of the "benefits" of amputating off a healthy functional erogenous zone. NOTHING trumps the person's right to decide if they want to cut off healthy erogenous tissue from them self. an infant can't possibly consent to this, neither can a young child.

Circumcision is an attack on Male Sexuality, very few cut men will ever admit to it being so. But that's part of the evil of it. Most males aren't Men when our penises go under the knife. We're either Infants or Children. Stripped of our right to choose if we want a rather fun functional sex organ or not before we even know what we had. When an infant is circumcised what choice does this future man have but to accept that what he has is "the best things can get". Unable to know of what his genitals are truly capable of, he'll probably choose to continue the violence that is circumcision on his own children.

Then there are the men who choose it for themself, There was a post later on in this forum by a surgeon who has sad he's only circumcised adults who have had their significant other pressured them into it.

Then there are the people who genuinely want to do it for them self. A.) Some people actually wish to become eunuchs. Check out any Extreme Body Modification websites. Does that make is justifiable to force some peoples desires on others?
B.)Just because society deems it acceptable doesn't mean it should be forced on children.
C.) The foreskin doesn't grow back, it takes a few minutes to get circumcised as an adult, it takes YEARS to restore the foreskin (and it still doesn't replace the nerves that were lost.) How can you be sure that your child wouldn't love his foreskin? There ARE people who do, I wouldn't chop off mine for a million dollars. How can you really honestly rob someone of the experience/decision of owning something that some people really enjoy having?

Part of it being "American Culture" is also quite sickening, It's as if we feel like we have to brand our children to be different than the rest of the world and somehow feel as if having parts of our genitals amputated make us "cleaner" or "better looking" Let me tell you, simple hygiene is not as tough as doctors make it out to be, and it's probably honestly the most fun part of showering for us. Let me tell you, all it takes is one infection to make a kid sure he washes his genitals. Girls getting UTI infections don't get any part of their genitalia lobbed off.
What makes a male's reproductive system socially acceptable to hack off more so than a female's? "Because it looks better?"

If a baby girl's mother had breast cancer, does that make it ok to remove her breast tissue? Breast cancer is more genetic than is foreskin complications (most of which are caused by premature retraction either by mis-taught parents or uneducated medical personnel). So by the logic of "the father had foreskin problems" it should deem breast tissue removal appropriate for the daughter? Let me remind you that Cancer is farrr harder to treat than is a simple UTI infection. Let me also remind you that UTI infections if left untreated heal, while Cancer tends to have a much higher kill ratio. Ohhh, i get it. Nobody would do that to their daughter because a woman without breasts doesn't look as good as a penis without a foreskin does right? That brings me to another point.

Let me ask you a question, What makes cosmetic amputation of healthy tissue acceptable in any other case? If someone came up to you who's children had holes in their head for ears because they had their kids ears cut off and they told you they thought it looked better would you want to associate with that person? That's exactly how i view people who circumcise their children based on "personal choices" or "because no son of mine is going to have a hoody on his pp" Who would put their NEWBORN INFANT through COSMETIC AMPUTATION SURGERY of HEALTHY EROGENOUS TISSUE simply because THE PARENT (not always the person who that future man will marry) think it looks better. But needless to say, when you think about it that way. what kind of person are you?

"But we want him to look like his father" Seriously? Where were the "Father son comparing sitting down and comparing penises" family moments? I've never had any of those in my family. Most Americans find it awkward for a family to practice nudism in their own home, yet they justify cutting a baby's genitals to match his father's? What other purpose would physically altering a babies genitals serve to "look like the fathers" unless they were both nude all of the time for people to compare them to? No to mention the size difference, there will be many other differences in a penis other than a foreskin. This is the absolute weakest argument possible for circumcision and I'm disgusted that people give it any credence.

Us men, we're willing to do some crazy things to fit in aren't we? But why do some of us feel as if we must brand our sons genitals? Take a step back and look at it for what it really is. Don't you agree that's a little messed up? Sure a terrible thing happened to you as a kid, you were stripped of your rights to an intact body, but why not be the better man. Own up to your parent's mistakes and refuse to minimize/perpetuate the real violence that is circumcision. Be the better man. That is after all what most if not all fathers wish their sons to be. Better people.

Being "Poked fun at" is a non-issue. I never remember being made fun of and if i was then I'd have just retorted "Yeah, at least i have ALL of my wiener, what it like having half of a wiener half-wiener?"
or
"Why are you staring at my penis?"
Circumcision rates are around to be at 50 to 60% in the USA now, (meaning that if you had a boy now 50 to 40% of the boys in his class would have a foreskin, so he wouldn't really be so different)

If you're concerned what the ladies will think of him. Do you really want your kid to be with someone who only cares about what his penis looks like? If having an intact penis is a make or breaker for a woman... well... It's comparable to a man saying he wouldn't ever date a woman without DDs or bigger. Makes the man look quite piggish does it not?
Also, not all women think it even looks better! While there are women who care for how a man's package looks. In general it's how a man makes her feel and not how his genitals look.
When you think about it, which is more socially acceptable. Someone who doesn't find you appealing because you chose to not have your genitals cut up? Or someone who doesn't find you appealing because you had part of your genitals hacked off.

Circumcision was popularized in America to prevent masturbation in young boys, look it up. I'm not bsing you. It's always been an attack on Male Sexuality, it's always been acknowledged to making masturbation AND sex more difficult for the male. It was even promoted as a way to keep African Americans from "raping white women" I kid you not.

Anytime you pay a medical professional money to do something chances are they're more willing to do it the next time. and since it's such a "safe procedure" More infants die from circumcision annually than is medically recognized, most list the deaths as from blood loss, shock,infection,anesthetic, stuff like that, the more you read into it the more horrifying you'll find it to be. (Google "Circumcision deaths") How many infant deaths are acceptable in the name of an unnecessary procedure?

STDs are easily avoidable, Circumcision doesn't prevent STDs if you're continually having unsafe sex with strangers. Condoms and Education do infinitely better jobs at stopping AIDS than does surgery. The peak rates of Circumcision in this country were in the early 1980s. If circumcision REALLY reduced the chances of STDs and AIDS like the CDC says it does, wouldn't we be noticing a significant difference right now? You know the News would be all over this if it was true. The fact of the matter is that in the US the primary means of AIDS transmission is male to male sexual contact. And circumcision gives no protection from AIDS in gay sex.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32555100/ns/health-aids/
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm
Side note: In Africa the primary means of AIDS transmission is Male to Female sexual contact, hence why all studies done there are inappropriate to use in America.

Religion is no excuse for child abuse either, make no exceptions. If polygamy is outlawed so too should infant circumcision. If the law can prevent an African born citizen of the United States the right to practice their religion/customs with regards to female genital mutilation. What sense does it make that the male is not extended those same rights? What makes a vulva more important than a penis? Why not protect all infants from unnecessary genital mutilation?

In Conclusion, Really, don't think about how socially acceptable it is to cut off the foreskin. Don't think about all the flawed science that was done in parts of Africa where sexuality takes on a whole different meaning. (Why can't they do any of these studies in America is what I'm wondering)
Think about what you're really doing, your kid has just been born. a few hours or days later he's taken from his mothers embrace, strapped to a cold table, the very first experience with his penis is one of extreme pain. (To those of you who believe that infants don't feel pain shame on you.) Something that brings so much pleasure is immediately having it's skin torn from the glans, crushed, and hacked off. What kind of person willingly allows such harm to their own child? Is that the person you really want to be?

And if you already chose this for your son, remember, as long as you learn from your mistakes they are never completely hopeless. Apologies are never meaningless either.

P. Smyth... Where do you hear this stuff dude? ahahaha... do you honestly think that anyone with half a brain would believe this?

soldiers (at least as far i knew) aren't running around naked in sandstorms. And even if they were they'd have to be jerking off in the middle of it.

I'm seriously considering making some sort of award for the dumbest crap pro-circ people say. and you... P. Smyth. are my first nominee.

Edit : The foreskin is there to Protect the penis, much like an eyelid protects the eyes, sure sand gets in your eyes but that's no reason to blame the eyelid.

You know another thing that protects the penis from sand? :O Pubes! Ohh, Us Americans and our obsession with removing pubes and foreskins, so freakin retarded

I dunno about the sand thing, as a female who has been to the beach I can tell you sand can get mysteriously anywhere it wants if it has any kind of flow to it. I suppose a sandstorm could work it into the belt line and it just sort of carries down. I however don't feel like calling up my brother to ask him if he got sand in his drawers while he was fighting in iraq.I wouldn't call it a crime to circumcise a baby, it has been done for centuries, and centuries of men have gone on to have quite pleasurable and prolific sex lives. It is done with the best interest of the child at heart and in years past it may not have been so misguided, however as with many things, in different times we need to reasses the social norms. That's no reason to insult someone for bringing about a very valid point, as to why certain religions may have began the practice. Especially since many nomadic desert peoples use sand to "bathe" due to the absence of water.

Only have one personal experience with an uncircumsized man though, and I have never noticed any odd smell (yes I do put my head down there from time to time) nor have I noticed any redness etc that would indicate irritation or infection. However if someone is not a clean person it is easy to see how it could lead to these conditions. Some teenage boys aren't very clean guys no matter what their parents tell them, and well an infection in that area could do a lot more damage than a circumcision will. Should we pre-empt that situation, who's to say. Especially since most believe that it causes no real damage.

I have 2 sons - neither of them have been mutilated. I am from the East Coast of the United States. My husband is a doctor who was mutilated as a baby. There is no medical research that is strong enough to warrant circumcision. Quote me what you would like - I've done the research. Our pediatrician back East thought we made the wrong decision. We live on the West Coast now (no, we didn't move across the country because of 1 pediatrician) and our new pediatrician applauds our choice. By not having my children circumcised, we have given them the ability to make that choice when they are older. And I expect that they won't need to be tied down to a board like babies are if they choose to have the surgery.

Glit. You're wearing a bathing suit... these guys aren't showing as much skin as you are. it's absurd to any logical thought. Unless the sand has somehow gained sentience and has made it a mission to enter the foreskin it's just so completely improbable that it would happen on any regular basis enough.

As for the "They wont' clean it" you're not really thinking this through. this is a guys dick we're talking about... if you tell your kids to wash it that it's good then they probably will. i mean it's like "my parents are basically giving me permission to masturbate in the shower" how is that not awesome?

Glit, are you aware that women have also been murdered and tortured for centuries because they were unfaithful? Your logic is crazy to think that just because it has been practiced for a long time it makes it ok.

and guess what, i can stab someones eyes out and they can still have a great sex life... They're missing out on the beauty of the human body and the eroticism they could experience by witnessing one. That still is no excuse to stab someone in the eyes.

The fact is you're taking something away that doesn't need to be taken away often cruelly and without anesthesia. Just watch ONE circumcision video. just one. if the bloodcurdling screams of an infant isn't enough to let you know that this is wrong then you are a terrible human being. These cries aren't of anything other than pure pain and suffering.

My husband is uncut and has never had a problem with smell, infections, etc. that people are saying are "scientifically proven". I am a family nurse practitioner now, and we chose to not cut our son. The studies in Africa are not ethically sound - there is a higher prevalence of AIDS in the populations of uncircumcised men they studied, so it was inferred that uncut men were more likely to get AIDS or other STD's. We will teach our son to clean all his folds, just as you would a little girl. We will teach him to practice safe sex as well. That is a necessity whether the boy is cut or not. My husband is from England, and I am from America. He is the only uncut male I have been with, and the cleanest. That is saying a lot from a nurse who worked ICU, and saw many, many male parts that were circumcised and were disgusting. Besides that I saw 2 circumcisions done in school and it was barbaric to witness a baby screaming, tied down having a part of his body removed without any anesthesia (which sadly is routinely done without anesthesia in many hospitals).

I wouldn't circumcize my son any more than I would my daughter. Male genital mutilation is still genital mutilation. In the American medical community, its days are numbered. Finally.

I am for male circumcision and had my son done when he was an infant. My brother had problems with his foreskin when I was only about 3 years old - I still remember the screaming from the waiting room. My husband had problems when he was young as well and had alot of pain and problems - circumcision fixed them. My SIL worked in a private hospital where her area just did adult circumcisions because of the multitide of problems that can be had so she had all her boys done. My other SIL was quite adament never to have her son done. She persisted for around 5 years as he had constant infections etc. Finally the doctor told her it was her only option. She had him circumcised and he hasn't had any problems since and he's now 16. His operation was alot more painful and alot more involved - recovery took weeks. My son let out a cry, I gave him a feed and he had no more issues after that and the tiny dressing fell off a couple of days later - no problems. If I ever have another son he will be circumcised. My husband is in the Army and he has a large number of his mates that weren't circumcised that have had to get circumcised since joining the Army. Alot of issues come from the marching ie friction and lack of hygiene when out bush causing infections.

Circumcision is mutilation to me and is wrong. The US is the only country that practices it as part of a cultural phenomenon, nothing more. There are varying studies that have been done on the benefits and harm that it does to men. It can lead to erectile issues due to thickening (by 4x) the skin on the gland itself, tearing issues, loss of millions (literally) nerve endings in the penis, loss of estrogen receptors, not to mention the fact that you are removing half the sheath. For millions of years we have evolved and that is the natural form of the male body for a reason. With a little soap and hygiene you can avoid any problems. The rest of the world seems to be ok.

PS. The current policy statement of the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS is the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement. The AAP does NOT recommend routine (performed in the absence of medical indication) circumcision of the newborn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To the nurse practitioner student: I have no idea what type of school you attended. When my son was "cut", as you put it, he was given a local anesthetic, was allowed to suck on a bottle and the whole process was over in less than 5 minutes. When the nurse brought him back to me and my husband, he wasn't crying or fretting. So, I can only infer that it wasn't that bad. As a biochemist and comparative biologist, I can tell you that the studies on AIDS and circ'd males in Africa are sound. You can teach your son all you want about safe sex, but things happen and AIDS is still spreading. I just took an extra step to protect my son.

To N. Chavez: When my husband was circ'd in 1968 the process was less than perfect. He had to have it corrected as an adult. He said the shots for the local anesthetic was with worst pain he has ever been through. He has back pain and kidney stones. Trust me, no adult male will have it done.

Joshua T. Shaffer: I can only assume that you were "mutilated" as a baby. Do you think that having a foreskin would have made you a better, smarter, nicer person? Parents can only make decisions based on the information that they have. I assure you that parents in no way would choose to have this done if they thought it was psychologically damaging to the boy.