Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

So you may not all remember awhile back when I posted that I was expecting a son to be born. Well he is almost here and one question that I never really considered before was the whole circumcision thing.I am on the fence and leaning toward no but I have heard some horror stories in both cases that has pushed me into investigating further into this issue.My parents did have me circumcised pretty much without a second thought because my dad is Moslem and at the time pretty much it was automatic. I have been told by the 'old wives' that regardless of the reasons baby should be what daddy is but I don't really buy that as a good reason to go chopping things.Here is what I understand. Much of what I understand may be myth and I am trying to figure out what is and what isn't.Pro Circumcision:
1. Lower rate of urinary tract infection.
2. Lower risk of complications due to urinary tract infections.
3. Lower risk of penile cancer (really does this exist????)
4. Easier to care for/clean.
5. Social factors. (i.e. not being different) I don't really think this is enough of a reason but my wife disagrees to an extent.Against Circumcision:
1. Essentially completely unnecessary genital mutilation. (this is why I am leaning no)
2. Can leave scar tissue that causes problems or at least desensitizes the area.
3. Can cause sexual problems especially if a mistake is made.
4. The risk of a problem occurring during the procedure.
5. The risk of infection after the procedure.
6. The social issues really will not be as present for children who are born today because more and more boys are not being circumsized.Which of these are true concerns? What are all your opinions? I would also really like to hear from the male variety here at EvC and your experiences good or bad about being circumcised or not.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 01-16-2006 08:20 AM

A bit of background first, I grew up in Ireland where absolutely nobody was circumcised*, unless they had a painfully tight foreskin, until recently when Ireland started to have a moderate amount of cultural diversity. It wasn't until my late teens that I discovered that it was common in the States.My opinion on the issue pretty much stems from this background. Even though there are without a doubt health benefits, I will always see it as unnecessary. Simply because there will always be some arbitrary procedure which lower you chances of illness in some sector of human health. The health benefits are there and I don't consider anything morally wrong with the procedure, I'm just indifferent to it.At the end of the day, there will be countless why and why not arguments and it does have health benefits, its just that there are countries where it isn't done at all and this dilemma is an "out of context" problem. If you said "I don't know if I should get my child circumcised", you get looks equivalent to if you asked "Should I get ballons tied to the crib after he's born?"When/If my kids come along it won't even be something that enters my head.*because nobody thought of it.This message has been edited by Son Goku, 01-16-2006 11:23 AM

I've never tried "not" but don't really have any complaints. Both my sons were circumcised as infants, but I really didn't think about any consequences at the time - it was pretty much hospital SOP.And I did always think my brother's uncircumsized weenie was way less attractive than mine.

In short my opinion on circumcision is: It should only be done with the consent of the owner of the penis. If somebody is 16/18/21 (or whenever you think informed consent is possible), then its OK. However, strapping a baby down and cutting their genitals in my book is child abuse.Of course, I understand that there is a cultural aspect of it, and I'm not calling people who have done this child abusers per se, but its freaky deaky stuff. Does a lower rate of a rare event mean anything significant? Every male I've ever met (with a few exceptions) are uncircumcised, and none of them have these problems, nor have I heard any 'friend of a friend' stories. Breast cancer is much more common, but I wouldn't condone surgical removal of breast tissue at birth, nor would I condone apendectomies for babies, tonselectomies, and any other minor surgical procedure which might lower (or eliminate) the risk of one thing. I don't think this is true. If it is true, it's a trivial amount. I've always been against the social factor...its the adult version of 'Well Johnny was playing with fireworks...' which has the adult response of 'If Johnny mutilated his son, would you jump over a cliff?' (something like that anyway ) There are other factors, sexual in nature. Most of these however are unreliable. I would be interested to hear some good studies on the subject. I saw a rather anti-circumcision program recently (it was for the most part balanced, but it was clearly biasing to the anti-), it had guys who had been 'restored' and they claimed that the sex was more sensual and ultimately more intense. Their wives said that sex was less harsh feeling, because without the foreskin the penile ridge can be discomforting, and can lead to lubrication issues.Of course, the problem with all this is that it is anecdotal in nature...though they did demonstrate it using simulation apparatus...I'm not convinced that their apparatus was an accurate depiction. I've never heard this complaint before, so I feel it might be exagerated.Abe: A further sexual note, masturbation. Having seen a fair amount of porn, I've seen uncircumcised guys masturbate. My penis is far too sensitive to apply that kind of direct pressure. This entirely piece of further anecdotal evidence (and experience with other areas of the body) leads to consider the possibility that being permanently exposed reduces sensitivity of said area.Another reason why the age of consent should be reached before the procedure is undertaken - after all, most guys who are uncut as adults would not consider removing a part of themselves for anything other than religious reasons. If this is the case, then removing that skin without consent is cruel.

---

My advice: See if you can't witness the procedure on another child before hand. If you would be happy putting your son through that procedure...

---

NOTE: I appreciate I use emotive language at times. I hold no animosity towards those who are circumcised or those that have had their children circumcised. I feel it is the practice that is cruel. Most parents that endorse this practice do not do with malice aforethought, and thus I do not feel they are cruel.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 16-January-2006 05:11 PM

I was circumcized and did not understand what that was until later. What I discovered is that it effects the amount of sex I can have. I can't say it was botched, but I do know that the scar area (even these many decades later) can turn red and swell up uncomfortably due to friction, unlike the rest.That said, having seen plenty of both at this point (from a sexual standpoint) those that are circumcized are generally more attractive and cleaner smelling. They are also statistically less likely to trap and so contract or carry stds (of course this only makes a difference if your kid is going to be promiscuous). My gf is also pretty certain that she finds cut cocks to be more attractive aesthetically.With all this in mind, here's my position:I don't think I would have my sons circumcized. It is an unnecessary procedure that if it weren't for past religious mandates for it, would not even be a question in the first place. Only if I felt it was some sort of specific cultural bond would I consider it.And here's the upside... the kid can always get circumcized later. You can't really undo a circumcision, but you can always have one. And all that we are talking about is circumcision at birth. What is the rush to get it chopped as a baby? How many people does his penis have to be culturally attractive to at that age?If the kid feels that he would want one later, even in grade school, you could have it done then and know it was a supportive decision rather than a command one.My two cents. Just remember you aren't married to me, and so your wife's opinion is inherently worth more.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks for the advice. That pretty much jives with what I have been feeling.Just curious. What exactly constitutes "restored"?

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I thought a bit about the whole 'chicks dig it' factor a bit but then I decided that in no way would that really be helpful. First off, if a girl wants to throw in the towel because it is weird or different then it probably shouldn't have happened anyway. Second, who knows, maybe because we didn't he will be a tiger in the sack and girls can look past it. I have no idea how I might "perform" differently had I not been cut.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Really a message to JazzNs, but ... If it's for the purpose of involving a child in a loving culture and tradition, I'm all for it.If it's out of fear of the unknown, I'm against it. I almost agree. But by the time they're of age to give informed consent, a lot of the issues will be resolved (whether they "fit in" and have been accepted, etc). Parents need to make these calls for kids. In this case, a "no call" is equivalent to a choice "no", and carries all the same consequences. As a parent in this choice, there is no "abstain" position.I don't see that I would get any of my kids circumcised. Within my life and lifestyle, I just don't see any need for it whatsoever.

One can have the skin replaced surgically, from skin grafts (I believe the skin comes from the scrotum, but I could be dead wrong). The other way is by stretching what skin is already there, using weights/elastic straps.I can't look into it too much because I am at work right now, and looking at pictures of cocks is frowned on

I can't believe we live in a society where a woman can express a preference for male infant genital mutilation and nobody thinks twice, but if I were to come out here and assert how pleasing I find the results of female genital mutilation on women, you'd rightly decry me as a monster. I like it when my female partners shave areas, etc - but I'd never even entertain the idea of asserting how pleasing I'd find them if only their genitals had been mutilated as a child.I don't see how anybody's asthetic concerns should influence the decision whether or not to mutilate an infant. It's child abuse, no question; it's a staggering act of painful barbarity inflicted on the young by institutional medicine. There's no medical benefit and the "cleanliness" aspect is specious at best; are you telling me that it's all that hard to get a teenage boy to spend some time playing around down there with some soap in the shower?

As others have said, it's not going to matter in the least for about 15 years at the soonest. As the anti-circumcision movement continues, I doubt that there will be any societal pressure to fit in in that way, because the circumcised are going to be the ones that are the minority, anyway.

I dunno about that. Sure, that would decide whether or not they 'fit in' at high school...but High School is a blip in life and whether or not you fit in there is irrelevant to the rest of your life. When I was at High School, if somebody pointed at your cock and said 'Hey look, its circumcised', you would suffer the consequences of 'What the hell are you looking at my cock for, are you gay or something?'In short, if the reason why one would surgically alter a baby's genitals is so that they will fit in at high school, then there is something screwed up going on.

I suppose if it irreconcilably came down to the whole baby should look like daddy issue then if I really didn't want him circumsiced I could go in for the "restoration".I am suprisingly finding this is actually an important issue.The AAP seems to also be on the fence with regards to circumcision with an healthy dose of skepticism towards many of the claimed medical benefits of it.http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/...diatrics%3B103/3/686

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I agree that chicks dig it should not be a deciding factor. My gf does not reject guys that are uncut, and neither do I. The point is that there can be an aesthetic component, which is what most cosmetic surgery is. And I should repeat that it does provide some additional protection against stds, which makes some sense given that it removes an area that can trap and carry bacteria and virus material.But like I said, my thought is all this suggests that one should wait and let the kid decide.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

the risks associated with lack of circumcision are so minimal as to be ridiculous. most of them are removed by the use of condoms in sex and the rest... especially the cleanliness one. i mean. it's only harder cause you have to pull the foreskin back to clean under it. and how hard exactly is it to get a little boy to play with his penis? btw. the urinary tract infection thing. it's an extension of the cleanliness issue. if foreign junk gets inside it can grow nasty stuff in your bladder. i've had a few. they're awful but very easily treated with antibiotics. very easily. they're even very easily treated and prevented by cranberry juice. amazing.i'd recommend a watch of the penn and teller bullshit episode on the matter. it changed my mind. well that and some common sense. i say no to infant body modification of any sort. if the child grows up and wants to get his willy fiddled with then that's his business. but you shouldn't make the choice for him. there's court precedence for suit against doctors... maybe next they'll sue the parents.remember. we evolved or were created exactly as we are because it's the most efficient option available. there's no reason to mess with what is.he can always do it when he grows up. but you can never undo it.