Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

pro: these are essentially bullshit, and related to this one: which to happens to not be true. circumcision leaves the glans exposed, making it more vulnerable, not less. this logic would have us cut off our eyelids, in case they get dirt in them. the situation here is a little different, sure, but the occasional bath does the trick. what sort of social factors? comparing dicks in the locker room? i'm not really sure that happens anymore. and if it does, well, just pull the skin back and it looks exactly the same.i know a lot of girls seem to think it looks weird, but that's their problem, not your future son's. most of them get over it really quickly, but if they don't they're probably not deserving of it anyways. teach your son to steer clear of people that superficial and immature.con: it desentizes the area no matter what. that's one of the reasons it was originally promoted: to deter masturbation. these, if i recall, are a little greater probability than the urinary tract issues. besides, you can FIX a urinary tract infection, but a mangled penis is a little harder to correct. this is probably the real reason. why does it need to be done? there's no good, consistent logic for it. the risks outweigh the potential benefits. and if it's purely a cosmetic thing -- let the kid decide when he's older. chances are it'll be a "no." most adults who do it later in life regret it.it's also a horrific procedure to watch. if you can catch the episode of "penn and teller's bullshit!" on showtime about it, they show a few procedures. it's terrible. i can't even describe it. the babies go into shock.

---

אָרַח

that SHOULD separate at puberty. if it doesn't, maybe the person should see a doctor. and if i shave my head, i won't have to wash my hair. there's lots of things we could cut off to avoid having to clean -- it's just one extra step. it's not a big difference, or one that in my opinion warrants the snippers.

---

אָרַח

BOO!

---

אָרַח

IF that. i'm fairly certain that by and large it is done without any anesthetic at all.and yes, it is quite a traumatic experience. they do go into shock. it's not quite the same as seeing it on video, but here are some extremely graphic photos of a circumcision.

---

אָרַח

a chance of a difference. something can always go wrong, with whatever you're given, or whatever medical procedure you go through. there's just as good of a chance (if not better) that there will be medical complications from the circumcision, too. well, that wasn't what i was trying to say. the foreskin should separate naturally from the base of the glans at puberty. if it does not, or something is abnormal, see a doctor. note the word "abnormal." but these things sometimes happen. and usually still very easy to clean.

---

אָרַח

the common perception is that they don't remember it. do you remember before your 3rd birthday? i don't. but that doesn't really make it ok, either.slightly less common is the idea that they don't feel it. many mistake shock for sleep. i'm not sure how people can even think that.

---

אָרַח

yes, well, it's obviously wrong. i was just explaining that people seem to associate the gap in long-term memory with the infant brain "not counting."{devil's advocate argument: classical conditioning does not rely on memory}This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-16-2006 03:37 PM

---

אָרַח

mick, do you happen to have any specific sources on this? i'd be really curious to read them. well, in the case that holmes is suggesting, it's like pulling the teeth just in case they get a cavity.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-16-2006 04:23 PM

---

אָרַח

neither does male circumcision. it's an excuse that's been used to sell it, but the original reason was the same as fgm -- a rite of passage, and religious reasons. what's the difference, exactly? it's still a traumatic experience.

---

אָרַח

i said: "a chance of a difference." how is this saying "no possible difference?"your'e basically arguing on a what-if basis. what if something goes wrong? well, if something goes wrong, you cross that bridge when you get to it. the chance of something maybe happening in the future is not a good enough reason to perform an unneeded surgical procedure on an infant. especially not one that is gauranteed to damage them in other ways, like loss of sensation. it should be. it isn't always, but generally it is. and there isa difference between a 20-30 year old electing to have the procedure himself when he really does have the condition and the parents of an infant deciding to do it to their son "just in case." i generally shower every day.that "moist" bit is the environment it's supposed to live in.

---

אָרַח

yes, we know. but by FAR most circumcisions are not done for medical reasons.

---

אָרַח

and generally socio-religious issues, in both cases. the us is a bit abnormal. we seem to do it without the religious reasons, just the sociological ones.however, fgm tends to be a bit more extreme, so it's not a perfect analogy, but it is quite similar in practice and context if not degree.

---

אָרַח

no, you stop and read what i'm writing. you're advocating a potential benefit at considerable cost here. you were discussing a "what-if" scenario of un-cut penises. and a rare one, at that. there is a difference, yes. and that difference includes a loss of sensation, a traumatic experience for the child, and increased chances of infection. open wound, in a diaper. think about it.two of those are certainties. you are emphasizing a potential positive, as well as common ignorance of bodily function, over those two above that are for sure. because in this case many here are reading your small nitpick as argument in favor. "less appealing" is subjective. as for greater care, ell, trust me. little boys like to play with their penises in the shower. it's not all that extra.

---

אָרַח

no, really. what difference does age make? they're more likely to remember it into their adult life, but that's about it. it's still painful, and still causes the victim to go into shock, and both still have lasting effects (see the study earlier about feeding).i don't understand why people don't ever stop to think about this. the human nervous system is fully formed at birth. babies do feel pain. hurting a baby and hurting an adolescent are virtually the same in every way.

---

אָרַח

and continues to well after birth and throughout life. at some point during infancy, if i recall, the brain completely restructures itself (someone check that). but even that doesn't mean that pain receptors are not present or that a child doesn't feel.

---

אָרַח