|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
yeah for real. aesthetics should not be a reason to get something done to an unconsenting individual. for real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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 mean no offence by this, but it might sound offensive. I saw this opinion voiced recently (in the program I mentioned earlier). I really don't understand the rationale of having your son's penis share a common trait with your own. I don't have a son, so I'm not in a position to talk I guess. That said, I don't know if my father's penis is circumcised, I imagine it isn't, but as a son I really don't have any desire for my own penis to be fashioned after my fathers. Actually, that kind of freaks me out. Heh, maybe I'm just easily freaked out?
I am suprisingly finding this is actually an important issue. Its really only a big issue in societies where circumcision is considered the norm. Here in the green green lands of Britain, its a non-issue. I guess its only as information between cultures is becoming more fluent (due to both the internet and international television), that people begin to question there own cultural practices. I can't help but think that looks arrogant, but it works both ways, Britain has changed attitudes in many things over the last generation and is becoming both more Americanized and Eurocentric. Its odd - societies are almost becoming able to pick and choose their own culture.
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
That's really interesting, thanks. I think this ties in with my earlier edit:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
I come from the UK, where it's rare for people to be circumcised but it's common for people to have their little toes chopped off.
In our newspapers and tv shows over the last few years we've had the same sort of arguments - here's the digested version: Arguments in favour of cutting off the little toe Reduces the incidence of toe cancer by 20% Prevents children feeling "feeling left out" because they have too many toes Little toes just end up being misshapen because of tight shoes Promotes growth and development of the big toe, which is more important for balance We've always done it, and God thinks it's a good idea Five toes is ugly and weird Little toes can cause infection if they aren't cleaned properly, and cleaning five toes is more difficult/time consuming than cleaning four toes. Most cases of athlete's foot start in the little toe It's your baby. You own it. You can do what ever surgical procedures you feel like to your baby, because your baby is your property. Arguments against chopping off the little toeCan't think of any, personally. So whatever you decide about the circumcision, you shoult take the little nipper's little toe off as well, just in case he visits the UK and wants to fit in. Mick This message has been edited by mick, 01-16-2006 02:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I don't know if you were angry or not, but it came off that way. If so you need to cool down.
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 I did not say she or I preferred infant genital mutilation. Indeed I believe I stated that we would NOT have our children cut. What I said was that she and I find cut cocks to have a preferable aesthetic quality. That is true (for us), and has no implication for when it should be done. Believe it or not people do choose to get cut when they are older. And sometimes it is done as a surgical procedure for real clinical reasons regarding pain and infection. I agree that for whatever reason it is done, it is genital mutilation. When not done for the relatively rare clinical purpose, it is cosmetic just like piercings, brandings, tattoing, or any other body altering procedure. For those who argue that sexual contact with minors is inherently harmful, a large question is raised on how circumcision could not be. But neither have to be considered inherently harmful... beyond the base physical alteration, which if one is not made aware of later is unlikely to have been noticed or known. But it, like any surgical procedure, does produce a risk of problems. And it does impose a permanent decision on a child. This can cause issues later between a child and parent, or just internally to the kid (especially if something went wrong). I am against doing it personally to my own child, and would recommend (as I did here) that others not do so. Leave it like piercing or tattoing or other body modifications people get into later in life. Then again I am not going to slam cultures that practice it as inherently engaging in child abuse... though it is most certainly genital mutilation.
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? There are some minimal medical benefits, but are relatively insignificant, unless one is promiscuous. The cleanliness argument is not exactly correct, yeah people can wash, but smegma buildup is quicker for uncut vs cut. I assume the question was rhetorical to me since I did not advance the "cleanliness" reason for infant circumcision. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
First off
1. Lower rate of urinary tract infection. 2. Lower risk of complications due to urinary tract infections. Are essentially the same reason, and as pointed out are rare events, especially if {clean\healthy} procedures are used. I am not convinced that the rate is lower, as many minor infections go unreported every year (regardless of location), and being uncircumcised cannot be any worse than having female genitals .... in terms of breeding grounds for infections.
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. Are also essentially the same reasons as well, and they are the risks undertaken by having any operation, whether it is cosmetic or life saving. These are the reasons behind "1. Essentially completely unnecessary genital mutilation" after all.
4. Easier to care for/clean. This is bogus. It is just as easy to clean with the skin pulled back and there is no special procedure needed other than this. The issue of infection really comes down to regular cleaning. You will need to teach your son to do this when he {showers\baths}, to make it as commonplace as shampooing your hair. ... and at some point the question will come up why you don't have a forskin -- be ready with your answer.
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. 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. Again these are essentially the same argument, and the (logical) fallacy of (ephemeral) popularity. I was subject to some kidding in high school (it's not an issue until puberty eh?), but my son was not. Times change. Sexually, I am not aware of any partners not being satisfied with the end results such that they felt diminished in the experience due to the presence of a flap of skin. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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? Just to let you know, sometimes that is not as easy as you make out. Some foreskins are very stuck in position and can cause pain to retract it far or fully. That makes it difficult to completely clean the area. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
razd writes: It is just as easy to clean with the skin pulled back and there is no special procedure needed other than this. Dead right. We're only talking about ten minutes a day with a wire brush. It's not like a second job or anything. Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
This is bogus. It is just as easy to clean with the skin pulled back and there is no special procedure needed other than this. This is like the third time this has been said, and it is false. For many it will be just as easy to clean, but not all penises are built the same. Some guys really have a problem with being able to uncover the head and the area behind it. That makes proper cleaning almost impossible. It is also true that material builds up within the area under the foreskin, which means it requires more cleaning than one that is uncut. I am not saying that this means people should circumcize, I'm just pointing out that one can't simply say there is no difference in cleanliness between the two. There is. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
somehow that doesn't sound healthy. and it sounds more unhealthy than just a little smegma.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Some foreskins are very stuck in position and can cause pain to retract it far or fully. My understanding is that this is result of not pulling the foreskin back periodically so that it does not need to grow at the same rate. It would also be a likely oversight for a family that choses uncircumcised where there is no experience with this. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
pro:
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????) these are essentially bullshit, and related to this one:
4. Easier to care for/clean. 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.
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. 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:
2. Can leave scar tissue that causes problems or at least desensitizes the area. it desentizes the area no matter what. that's one of the reasons it was originally promoted: to deter masturbation.
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. 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.
1. Essentially completely unnecessary genital mutilation. (this is why I am leaning no) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
yes and my uberboobs get more sweaty than tinytitties. that particular issue sounds like a problem than needs to be addressed. for most penises, the foreskin pulls back easily. this is how it's supposed to work. cause it pulls back on an erection (according to a friend of mine). if it doesn't do so, then i'd suggest medical attention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Some guys really have a problem with being able to uncover the head IF and WHEN that becomes a problem THEN would be the time to discuss the operation. Otherwise it is the four toes scenario eh? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
This is like the third time this has been said, and it is false. For many it will be just as easy to clean, but not all penises are built the same. Some guys really have a problem with being able to uncover the head and the area behind it. That makes proper cleaning almost impossible. that SHOULD separate at puberty. if it doesn't, maybe the person should see a doctor.
It is also true that material builds up within the area under the foreskin, which means it requires more cleaning than one that is uncut. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Which ever route you take, the result will likely have far less of an impact on your son's life than the choice of his name or the length of his pants while in grade school.
If you decide to go the circumcision route, consider serving calamari rings in a tomato bisque at the Bris. This message has been edited by jar, 01-16-2006 01:44 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024