For the anti-circs/and whoever else is interested

Candace - posted on 03/11/2011

Tara, I am curious why as a mother would you even think about your child having a more enjoyable sex life when he gets older?

I am sorry, I did it to both of my boys and they are fine. I look at the news and all I freaking hear about is another child was molested. You know, seriously think about it you are your child's caretaker until they can properly take care of themselves and you have to teach them how to take care of themselves. Meaning you have to move that skin and clean it thoroughly. And again, I am sorry I didn't want to have to see my boys go through what my brother did because he could not properly take care of it by myself and he was 8. I actually did it for medical reasons... and very good skin is an organ the biggest one you have. Congrats. And I really don't have much trust in the medical field. And all studies are jokes. I mean my word medicines are given to little lab rats who don't even have the body weight or tolerance we do but they find it unethical to test it on humans but they find it completely fine to test it on innocent animals. Now come on who's morals are screwed up here? I think they need to get their morals in line before they continue telling us what we can and cannot do. As Americans are freedoms are dwindling. That right there is sad!

Amy - posted on 03/11/2011

But back to the rights...due to some religions out there, I do not think it should be illegal. Even if they do,at what age is it okay? maybe they'll okay it at a year, 3, 18? there's more involved in legislation than just make it okay or not, yeah? with all those special clauses for boys who medically need it done. There would be so many loopholes and docs would just say it NEEDED done and the law will probably mean slim to nil.

Amy - posted on 03/11/2011

See, that's what I mean, brandi! When you see problems, it makes you go the other way. I had cousins' kids and my nephew that had all kinds of problems and were cut, so it just pushed me more towards leaving mine alone. Because if infection was supposed to be basically nil with a cut one, but cut ones still had problems..was it worth it? I think it's just roll of the dice on infections. I really do.

Brandi - posted on 03/11/2011

I don't care if my children "look" like their dad or not. To me, the benefit out weighed the bad. I was educated on what to expect, what it was, and how to take care of it. I had no problems, my children had no problems. BUT, there are boys in my family who did not have it done and constantly had problems, and ended up getting it later on. Watching that, my decision, AS the Parent, was to do it. My children may have been in a little pain as a baby, but they will never remember it, but my cousins son is scared for life. I think I made the right decision.

Amy - posted on 03/11/2011

I think it's mostly because our society had previously mostly been circumcised a lot of people just don't know the difference and the care issue is scary. I wish they had true facts for both sides in those prenatal classes. I think fear of unknown could drive many parents to just do it because all they hear is 'could get infections' and want the best for their kids. But, there is so much more to it. I really wish there was a good education program on it out there. An UNbiased one.

Krista - posted on 03/11/2011

Candace, circumcised or not, you still have to wash your baby's penis.

So I have no idea why you think that washing an uncircumcised penis could get you accused of child molestation, but washing a circumcised one could not. Washing a circumcised penis isn't this big elaborate process. You just give it a wipe with a soapy washcloth and don't try to pull back the foreskin. There, done.

Krista - posted on 03/11/2011

SO, does your child have the right to not be disciplined?

That's kind of a bad comparison there. Disciplining them isn't something that is permanently and irrevocably done to their body.

We all make health decisions for our kids, Brandi. Of course. That's part of being a parent.

But most health decisions are done either because a) there is an existing health issue with the child, or b) in the case of preventative medicine, like vaccinations, there is clear and irrefutable proof about its benefits, and the risks of NOT having it done are much, much greater than the risks of having it done.

That's not the case with routine infant circumcisions. They're not done because there's an existing medical issue with the penis. And the supposed preventative health benefits are a) based on faulty studies and b) supposedly preventing something that, for the most part, can be cleared up pretty quickly with a round of antibiotics. In this case, the risks (penis deformation, infection, death) are just not worth the advertised benefits.

Plus, in many cases, you have parents making this decision not for medical reasons, but for aesthetic reasons, at which point the procedure is clearly considered cosmetic surgery. And most people would not agree that parents have the right to have cosmetic surgery performed on an infant.

Amy - posted on 03/11/2011

I don't understand that comparison. Disciplining is showing them how to act and live - not really anything physical needed in true discipline. My insurance did not cover it, but if I had decided after researching it that it would benefit my son, I'd have come up with the money. I'm not jewish and new testament verses said circumcision doesn't matter. So religion was out for us too as a reason. It really is up to interpretation of the Bible, I guess. Because I know what mine says in the good ole king james version.

I think the main thing they are trying to say is that no one cares if you circ or not, but they want you to have a solid reason as to why and not just blindly do it because a doctor says so, or for "looks" or anything like that. but for true, researched good of the child.

And we got zero info on it when son was born. We already knew what we were doing, but the nurse just came in and goes "he getting circed or not?" we said, nope. they were just like, k. whatever. you really should. but still no info beyond a little pamphlet and some nasty looks.

Jenni - posted on 03/11/2011

Brandi, it stopped being covered in Canada in 1984... I don't think it's continuing to decline *drastically* just because it's not covered.

The reason it isn't covered is because it's unnecessary and cosmetic.

You can't compare choosing to not discipline and choosing to circ. Everyone agrees discipline is necessary. Circumcision is being proved to be completely unnecessary.

There is no medical reason for circumcising. That would be like me saying I make the medical decisions for my son until he's 18 and I have decided to amputate his baby toe. Of course there are some medical reasons to amputate a toe... but if my son had no reason to have his toe amputated why would I do it? Just disproving your logic not attacking you for your decision, I just want to make that clear.

Candace - posted on 03/11/2011

For the love of "man".... it should always be a parents choice. I have a brother who had to have it done at the age of 8 because he could not take care of it, it became so infected. The older you are when it is down the bigger the surgery. It becomes major surgery when you are an adult. As a baby it isn't nearly as bad. Yes, they do feel pain but they don't have to put you to sleep and risk you bleeding to death. You don't have to teach them to take care of it and you don't have to take care of it until they can. I am sorry I believe this world has become so obsessed with child molestation that I wouldn't want to have to take care of it until they could. And who gets pinned for that BS usually a freaking relative... and nowadays I don't see where you are innocent until proven guilty I see you have to prove you are innocent because they deem you guilty from the get go. I have also heard of a little boy getting it caught in a zipper and that caused problems that they had to do surgery to remove it. It does not change anything it is just foreskin. Skin to protect the head. Men have been fine for years without it. Children die because parents have it done and refuse to take care of it properly it gets infected they sit back do nothing about it and like any untreated infection it kills you. They need to stop stripping us of our freedoms and take their time and energy and put it to good use. My word! It's BS! You want to protect kids... try protecting those who get killed before they ever take their first breath. They want to protect them from everything else so badly that they obsess over everything little thing to the point they blow it out of proportion. Yes its nice to be informed and to be aware but don't blow it up and out of proportion.

Candace - posted on 03/11/2011

For the love of "man".... it should always be a parents choice. I have a brother who had to have it done at the age of 8 because he could not take care of it, it became so infected. The older you are when it is down the bigger the surgery. It becomes major surgery when you are an adult. As a baby it isn't nearly as bad. Yes, they do feel pain but they don't have to put you to sleep and risk you bleeding to death. You don't have to teach them to take care of it and you don't have to take care of it until they can. I am sorry I believe this world has become so obsessed with child molestation that I wouldn't want to have to take care of it until they could. And who gets pinned for that BS usually a freaking relative... and nowadays I don't see where you are innocent until proven guilty I see you have to prove you are innocent because they deem you guilty from the get go. I have also heard of a little boy getting it caught in a zipper and that caused problems that they had to do surgery to remove it. It does not change anything it is just foreskin. Skin to protect the head. Men have been fine for years without it. Children die because parents have it done and refuse to take care of it properly it gets infected they sit back do nothing about it and like any untreated infection it kills you. They need to stop stripping us of our freedoms and take their time and energy and put it to good use. My word! It's BS! You want to protect kids... try protecting those who get killed before they ever take their first breath. They want to protect them from everything else so badly that they obsess over everything little thing to the point they blow it out of proportion. Yes its nice to be informed and to be aware but don't blow it up and out of proportion.

Brandi - posted on 03/11/2011

as I said before, here in Georgia, you are educated and you MUST sign a consent saying that you were told the risks and so on.

Brandi - posted on 03/11/2011

I think the reason that it is down in the US is only because most insurance does not cover it anymore... which is fine with me. Honestly, if mine didn't cover it at the time, I probably wouldn't have done it. BUT, I still think a parent has parental rights... and yes, I know you all will argue that the child has the RIGHT to decide when they are older and so on. SO, does your child have the right to not be disciplined? I'm just saying, I get to make the health decisions for my child until he is age 18, then he is of age to make his own decisions. I am the parent, and if I feel this is best for my children, I don't need someone else trying to tell me that I made a bad choice, and I just must have been uneducated.

I have no problem with uncircumcised people, or the people who choose for their children not to be circumcised, but you are trying to take away parental rights here. AND religious rights here. Not fair, and unconstitutional.

Krista - posted on 03/11/2011

Brandi, a lot of parents ARE uneducated. Not just about circumcision, but about many aspects of parenting. A lot of people just don't do their research before making these decisions. How many people on here have called the foreskin "a bit of skin"? To call it that shows very clearly that the person is NOT aware that the foreskin is actually a fairly complex and detailed organ.

Sure, there are some moms who did all the research and decided to circ anyway. I have no idea WHY they'd do that, but they did. So be it.

But there are an awful lot of moms out there, many of whom SAID as much on this thread, who did it just because it's a common practice in their geographical area, or because they wanted their son's penis to look like his father's, or some such thing.

Can you really sit there and say that these women were fully educated about circumcision, if THOSE were their reasons?

Jenni - posted on 03/11/2011

To be completely honest, I could care less if another family decides to circ. I'm pretty sure the other ladies are on the same page as me. They are just disproving the myths. It's nothing personal.

My husband was born in Zambia 33 years ago where the hospital did not preform circumcisions. He was actually the one who was more passionate on not circumsizing our son than me. I was on the fence about it mostly because I didn't have any facts on it. I did my research and agreed with my husband not to have him circ'd. I spoke to my mom about it as well and found out that she did not have my brother circ'd either (and this is 21 years ago in Canada). She felt it was unnecessary.

Now that I've done even more research on the subject I am even more passionate on our decision not to circ. For the simple fact that I believe it's completely unnecessary and a painful procedure with no real benefits.

The fact that only 30-33% of the male pop of the world is circ'd also cements my decision. The fact that circumsizing is greatly on the decline also helps me to realize public awareness on the myths is on incline.



In Canada:

1996: 39 000 circ preformed

1997: 35 000

1998: 31 000

1999: 26 000

2000: 23 000

you get the idea...

2005: 17 000

Rosie - posted on 03/11/2011

brandi, as much as i think this topic has been overdone i have to agree with the other ladies here. don't open it if you don't want to see what they're saying. simple.

Johnny - posted on 03/11/2011

As mentioned, no one is obligated to read this thread. I can not see how you think the women here are being forceful. They are putting the information that they know out there for anyone to read. If you don't want to know about it, don't read it. As for being rude, I have to agree with Krista. This is a very serious topic, for those that are opposed to circumcision, it is often seen as a human rights issue. Would you wander into a discussion about women's rights and tell them to stop?

Brandi - posted on 03/11/2011

I am just tired of seeing the same FACTS on here. I am tired of people repeating themselves, and assuming that people who have their children circumcised are uneducated, or we don't care about our children, or we did it for cosmetic reasons. You don't know me or any other mom on here who choose to have this done, but the way you all go about discussing it is rude. I was in formed, I did it, so what, I am a wonderful mother, and BOTH of my boys are healthy, and have NEVER had any problems whatsoever other than a cold.

OH, AND I formula fed. OH MY GOD, guess I shouldn't be allowed to have children. I must be a horrible person!

Krista - posted on 03/11/2011

And where I grew up, if people were having a lengthy discussion about a serious topic, it was considered very rude to just pop in and interject with, "OMG! Enough already!"

You're more than welcome to participate in the discussion -- it's a free world. However, if you're so fatigued by this topic that you had to say something, then why is it rude of us to mention that you really ARE under no obligation to read what we're writing, and that there are several other ongoing discussion threads, and that one of them might be more to your liking?

Brandi - posted on 03/11/2011

you ladies are very rude and forceful with your information. I don't think that it is necessary. I guess you guys grew up thinking that was ok, but where I am from it is called a smart ass and frowned upon. Just saying.

Johnny - posted on 03/11/2011

Everyone knows that they aren't obligated to read every thread, right?

Tara - posted on 03/11/2011

Brandi,
If it is indeed enough for you, feel free to move onto another debate.
There are some people who do not know about the fact the foreskin isn't just a piece of skin, therefore posting all the facts about a foreskin is information meant to educate people.
A foreskin is important. Anyone who denies that has not done their research.

Krista - posted on 03/11/2011

Brandi, if you're tired of the discussion, nobody is forcing you to read it or to post to it.

Brandi - posted on 03/11/2011

OMG! Enough already.

Tara - posted on 03/11/2011

Again Audrey, if you had done your research and homework as you claim to have done, you would know that the foreskin is not just a "bit of skin" it is an organ.

"A piece of skin the size of a quarter contains more than three million cells, 12 feet of nerves, 100 sweat glands, 50 nerve endings, and almost three feet of blood vessels."

The Human Connection,
by Ashley Montagu and Floyd Matson
(McGraw-Hill, 1979)

There you have it. Not a little flap of skin, much like an ear lobe is, unlike an ear lobe, the foreskin is full of nerve endings, blood vessels etc.
Why take something off that not only protects the penis but also makes it more enjoyable for the man?
Why take off a part of the body that is not diseased, infected or malformed?
Why risk death and deformity for looks alone?
Why risk your son having less of an enjoyable sex life later on?
Why risk putting your child at risk for a life time of problems because you think his cock should look like your own husbands? Why do you or your husband care what your child's penis looks like?
Is vanity worth death? Is vanity and penis identity worth loss of sensation?
The only reason you give for having your son cut is vanity.
Vanity is not a good reason to violate someone's bodily integrity and take something from them that is not yours to take!
There is no reason for those actions. It is a violation of their human rights!!!
Disclaimer: this not include any medically indicated circumcisions.
When will society start protecting the human rights of innocent little babies?
Why do we offer so much protection for little girls but not for little boys?
I have a lot of labia tissue, it's always been that way, as long as I can remember. I could go and have it "corrected: if I wanted to, it's plastic surgery.
But if my daughter had labia like mine, and I wanted to have them reduced so that she doesn't have an issues later in life, do you think for a second anyone would allow it?? Nope it would be sexual and physical abuse.

Krista - posted on 03/11/2011

No can do, babe. We noticed the other day that Sam has my nose, not my husband's. So in June, we're getting that rectified, so that it looks like his father's. Because otherwise, it would just be toooooo difficult to explain "Not everybody's body parts look the same." I mean, jeez, that's an awful lot of syllables to have to utter. Much easier to just get the surgery.

Minnie - posted on 03/11/2011

And in the case of RIC, thousands of nerve endings, mucosal tissue and muscle tissue are removed. It's not just snipped away, it's torn from the glans. It's not a loose bit of skin tag.

Krista, are you coming for our annual penis-comparing festival? It's in June.

Krista - posted on 03/11/2011

the way i see it, a boy should look like his dad down there.



Why? Are your son and his dad going to be spending a lot of time comparing penises? That was worth risking his life?



And yeah, Audrey, I AM going to tell you to do your homework. Because you saw it before and after, but you didn't see what was done DURING this procedure. The fact that you call it "just skin" makes it obvious that you did not do anywhere near enough research on this.



Obviously, you had your kid done, and nothing can be done about that, so I'm not trying to make you feel bad for it.



I AM, however, going to argue with your assertion that a) it's no big deal and b) that it's the parent's right to do this to their kid. Because it is a big deal. Cutting off a healthy part of a baby's body without there being a medical need for it? That's a big deal. And it should NOT be the parent's right to do this. I do not have the right to lop off my son's earlobes, or the webbing of skin between this thumb and forefinger. If I did that, it would be considered child abuse.The foreskin is no different.

Kathy - posted on 03/11/2011

Audrey, it's not a parental right, it's a human rights issue.

Audrey - posted on 03/11/2011

im not saying one is better than the other sexually, just that circd guys dont necessarily have bad sex. and im also not saying that i want my son to look just like his dad in every way but we feel it is important that their penises be the same. i dont have a good reason for why we feel that way, we just do, and there is nothing wrong with that and we are not bad parents or uneducated parents or careless parents becuase of that. we mad e a choice that we had the right to make and thats that. thats how it is. and whatever choice you make for your son is your choice and thats fine. no one should have the right to ban circumcison. it is not the choice of the public or the government. it is the choice of the parents.

Tara - posted on 03/11/2011

Audrey, our stance is that it is not a parental right to have a piece of your child removed without medical necessity. That is a human rights violation.
How would you feel if your parents chose to have your clitoral hood removed because your mom had it done as a child (it was quite common in the US in the 50's and 60's)? How would you feel if your ability to orgasm were severely compromised because of something your parents did.
And by the way, if you did your homework thoroughly, I ask why would you risk your child's life? And future health?
Again please provide us some facts about how more intact penises end up with infections?
Where are all these stinky, infected intact cocks?
The majority of the worlds boys are left as nature made them, surely if your statement was true, there would be masses of ugly, intact stinky penises all over the place.
But that's not the case.
The fact is RIC is potentially deadly, potentially harmful and a complete violation of someone's bodily integrity.
So just cause you want your son to look like his dad "down there" it's okay to remove his own foresking? It's not yours or your husbands foreskin you know, it's his.
I have HUGE boobs, when my girls start getting boobs, if they don't develop as big as mine should we take them in for augmentation?
Female circumcision removes far less tissue and yet is considered illegal most of the world over.
Why do baby girls have more rights than baby boys?

Amy - posted on 03/11/2011

Infections happen. Intact or cut. Ear infections happen. Sinus infections happen. It's really about the same on the infection front. So that one was not a deciding factor for us when choosing for our son.

The only guy I was ever with was circ-ed. HE decided after research -yeah, my husband did his homework like MAD - and we decided NOT to do it. To each his own, but we decided that it was our son's choice and not worth him being cut.

and to just look like dad...my son would need different eyes a different nose and more manly hands. Not getting him a nose job or anything to look like dad. As far as sex...my husband says he'll never know and wishes he were intact so he could make the decision himself. Because unless you've been a sexually active adult mlae with and without foreskin - you can't say which is better.

Audrey - posted on 03/11/2011

well there is a higher risk of infection being intact and dont tell me to do my homework. i saw my sons penis before and after the fact and it wasnt a huge amount of skin that was gone.and for the record, the main reason we had our son circd was because my husband is, and every other man in our family is. thats just how we do it around here and every guy ive ever been with was circd. i dont want my son to be self-concious about having foreskin, so we had it removed. its not as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be. i want to make it clear, if someone chooses to get their son circd then thats their parental right, just like if you dont plan to have him circd thats your right. why do we all have to fight over this. the way i see it, a boy should look like his dad down there. and for the ealier comments about guys who are circd having a dry or somehow infereior penis, my hubby is circd and he has the nicest dick i have ever seen. and as for sex not being as good for him...not true! he is wonderful and its so good for him his eyes roll back in his head so maybe the guys that are circd and dont have good sex just arent that good at it to begin with. sorry to be so blunt but it needed to be said.

Krista - posted on 03/11/2011

It's actually a lot more than skin, Audrey. Do your homework. Circumcision removes (on average) one third of the penile skin system (sensitive inner and outer preputial layers), including the peripenic dartos muscle, the frenar band, and part of the frenulum.

Please go read this: it describes precisely how circumcision is done. http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/pl...

Your son was likely asleep from the shock.

As well, you're operating on a faulty assumption: you're assuming that without circumcision, that he would basically be guaranteed to get a "series of painful infections". Why do you assume this would happen? Like Johnny said downthread, the vast majority of men in the world are NOT circumcised, and yet you don't hear about an epidemic of festering penises, or about all of these men having to get circ'd when they're older, do you?

Audrey - posted on 03/11/2011

amputation?! its not amputation, its skin. amputation would imply cutting off the whole thing. you really need to word things better and stop trying to make it sound worse than it is. i can tell you, when i got my son back after he had his circ, he wasnt even fussy or crying or in a bad mood. he was asleep. it didnt seem to bother him at all. im sure it hurt when it was done and i hate to think of him crying because of that but i would rather him cry for a little bit as a newborn than to have to have him circd when hes older because he had a series of painful infections because we didnt circ him. consider circing a preventative treatment. the same way vaccines are preventative.

Georgia - posted on 03/11/2011

Well, true. Never thought of that. Supposed to cure Syphillis too. Strange how a secular notion worked its way into a religious ritual.

Yet at the same time they were actively masturbating women to cure "hysteria" and "the vapours". Self serving motives?

Minnie - posted on 03/11/2011

The dudes who thought that circumcision would cure masturbation? Just guessing :).

Georgia - posted on 03/11/2011

I stand corrected. Thank you for the info. So who was the bright spark that said, "well, if we're taking a little bit anyway, we may as well take the whole damn thing!"

Minnie - posted on 03/11/2011

They actually did remove some tissue in Old Testament circumcision, because it was noted of one person throwing the foreskin piece down at the feet of another and also of foreskins being collected. But it was only a sliver of tissue that hung past the glans, hence the name 'fore' skin. It didn't involve removing the entire prepuce because that would have meant death for children that long ago.

Georgia - posted on 03/11/2011

Lisa, from what I've read, that pricking is what a Jewish circumcision started out as too. It seems odd that for the little girl it's "don't even stick her with a tack", but boys get the "yeah, just cut it all off". It's that great leap that baffles me. How did it go from pricking to cutting?

Minnie - posted on 03/11/2011

There are many forms of FGM and the most common removes far less tissue than male RIC. The law even makes ceremonial pricking to draw a single drop of blood from the clitoris illegal. Everyone thinks about infibulation when they think about FGM but that one is the most rare.

Sneaky - posted on 03/11/2011

Ban it - and ban it for religions reasons too! And this is what I have NEVER understood about religion, if getting circumcised is a 'sacrifice to God' or about God being able to identify her flock, shouldn't that circumcision be done when the person is at an appropriate to choose to accept God into their life? Like at 18 - the age when you are legally allowed to start getting tattoos and have elective cosmetic surgery?

Sarah - posted on 03/11/2011

Thanks for explaining patricia :)
I'm sorry about your son!
Were you worried it would happen to your other boys too?

Charlie - posted on 03/11/2011

WHAT ??? RIC removes far more tissue than FGM that is a fact - The only reason it seems less traumatic even as a person opposed to RIC is that it is still culturally ingrained the fact is males lose more than females but society tells us it isnt as horrific because of the age old notion men " shouldnt show vulnerable emotion " .

Patricia - posted on 03/11/2011

the point of circumcison was so that my son could actually do a wee he had strangulation of the penis and it had to be done just because a boy is cicumscised it does not mean that they should not use protection circumscision lower the risks not wipes them out completely when i got with my partner he was circumscised but i made him where condoms until i could totally trust him and we were both tested because i came out of a relationship where my partner was unfaithful so i got tested when i left and tested again before i would allow no condoms and my ex was also circumscised i was against uit to until i seen what my son went through that is the only thing that changed my mind

Sarah - posted on 03/10/2011

Okay then :) you have fair points, i guess i just see it differently because MGM is nowhere near as bad as FGM.
I also feel bad for all the women on here who have made the mistake of circumcising their boys, having it repetitively compared to something so horrific. :(
Oh well :) time to go back to arguing the legal issues of RIC? :)

Kathy - posted on 03/10/2011

Johnny, you said that much better than I did! Ta!

Johnny - posted on 03/10/2011

It seems like anyone arguing the necessity of circumcision for health and hygiene reasons forgets that the vast majority of men worldwide are NOT circumcised. You do not see a huge epidemic of infected penises sweeping the globe. Nor are women around the world running in fear of penis stank.



As for FGM and MGM, to me, it's the same principle. Generally the female surgery is more harmful and has greater side effects, but the root issues are the same.

Kathy - posted on 03/10/2011

FGM is generally done for cultural/religious reasons. It IS a fair comparison.

Sarah - posted on 03/10/2011

The only thing that's the same about them is that they are both genital mutilation and may be both for religious reasons, so if that makes them the same thing then okay :)
I just don't think it's a fair comparison to keep getting brought up. It's a good point that 1 is illegal and the other is not, which of course i don't agree with, but i just think that since FGM is sooo much worse than MGM and FGM is done for such different reasons (usually) that it's not a brilliant comparison :) that's all!