great

i dunno if anybody's mentioned this or not, but, only the mother is responsible for the choice, the father isn't the one that is given the release forms, the release forms that state 'if we accidentally hack your sons penis off, you agree to take full responsibility' but besides that, there's the 'we also get to take your sons foreskin and sell it to make lots of money from people that make cosmetics from it, by the way, this procedure isn't covered by your medical plan, here's a bill, oops, sliced a bit too far, couldn't stop the bleeding, your son't dead, but hey, you agreed to take full responsibility, we're still taking the foreskin, here's the corpse, have a nice day'.

Its so painful procedure. Why to indulge your son in such painful situation deliberately. So one should not go for this.

In my opinion, of course one should circumcise their sons. Because of the cleanliness and also circumcision is very hygiene. This not only reduces the risk of penile cancer but also the risk of some other small infections too. And this is supported by the medical science also. So why shouldn’t we make our child’s future more safe??

Firstly, I'm strongly convinced that circumcision is a torture that has a really bad impact on man's and woman's sexual life, because the foreskin is a vital element in sexual intercourse, that keeps both organs moist. And secondly, can you just imagine the psychological trauma that circumcision can bring to a man?

But some medical reports suggests that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer. But don't know the evidence.

Yes it has this effect. I have read this earlier also.

Very Nice Article. i haven't aware before. Thanks for informing me

I clearly do not think so..bad idea

I'm intact, as are all the men in my family. There is no history of any health problems or complications as a result. My wife, who had no experience or opinion about uncircumcised penises before she was with me is now against it. I don't see anything negative about being fully equipped with all of your natural manhood.
To circumcise a a baby is makes as much sense as cutting out any other organ or tissue to prevent a health problem related to it. You wouldn't remove a baby girl's chest tissue to prevent breast cancer. This country has been brainwashed for generations. Routine circumcisions is outdated and ignorant.

All through our pregnancy, people asked if we were going to circumcise. Really a strange topic, I felt, but it was constantly asked what we had decided, or that we needed to decide. I had it in my head we were ahving a girl, so never gave it a whole lot of thought. Then here comes the boy!
The hospital said it could be done over the next day or so, so I asked many people. The only "for" answers I got were from Grandma's, and friends who gave me the "like father like son" argument. After three different physicians assured me it was not necessary, and was more philosophical than medical, I decided not to have our son cut. Now, in 18 years, he may disagree with my decision, but if any male who is trying to decide will search the WWW and see pics and video ( and they are out there) and still decides to circumcise, more power to them.
And yes, I am circumcised, but often wonder why and how different it would be.

As an older guy who was cut at birth, I am now restoring and already have almost complete coverage in the flaccid state.
There is now a noticeble lack of irritation of the previously exposed glans and meatus and this is certainly more comfortable for me and the glans is delightfully sensitive now.
Unfortunately, as a society it has taken us far too long to learn that we really should leave our babies as nature intended.
I have'nt heard that there has been any dramatic increase in all those 'nasty' conditions in the now mostly intact males in the UK where circumcision went out of style in the early 1950s.

I vote for Nature - in its inherent wisdom it has delivered the perfect male genitalia. Not only does an intact male have more sensation, feeling and satisfaction, so does his woman.
In a report published in the British Medical Journal, a majority of women reported that they had less dry vaginal problems and more satisfying orgasms with intact men.
Let's have sex as Nature intended...intact.

Post #14 wanted a young woman's opinion on this. Here I am- most women you'd want to date your son wouldn't care either way. Most women think penises are kind of ugly to look at either way, so there isn't much to worry about there. As far as "performance," as my female friend says about her uncut boyfriend, she loves it the way it is and it doesn't affect his staying power or anything else like that. Personally, I think while that maybe cut looks a little cleaner, uncut is more humane and natural.

I was circumcised in the early 80s by my parents. Unlike a lot of circ\'d guys I know (have to use lube, painful sex, scarring, uneven scars, scrotal tissue riding up the shaft, tears, etc.) mine was successful and I STILL will never forgive my parents. It\'s put me through a lot of emotional turmoil and I actually have told them, though most guys don\'t even though many go through the same pain. If you think it would be confusing for a child not to look like his father, consider what that child will think when he sees his friends don\'t have any scars on their penises and their helmets aren\'t exposed all the time and then finds out that his parents, of all people, did it to him. Believe me, it isn\'t a pleasant experience. It may have been easy for those born in the 1950s and 1960s, when almost everyone was, but those of us born in a time when some parents were waking up to the nonsense of the procedure, circumcision isn\'t the norm. In fact, it\'s only slightly more than half now. We know what an intact penis is, we know it\'s not gross or wrong (in fact, it\'s the way we were made) and we know, in this global world, that it\'s rare everywhere else that religion doesn\'t indicate it. Again, know that your child won\'t grow up the only circumcised one, he\'ll grow up among both and realize that he\'s the one whose missing something. And you\'ll never get his full trust. Never.

Let\\\'s take a good look at some of the things mentioned here.

[B]AAP Neutral on Circumcision[/B]
The AAP does recommend against circumcision as a \\\"routine procedure.\\\" This is an important distinction. An intervention procedure would be the opposite and would be used to treat a problem. A routine procedure would be a procedure that is done as a matter of course in the birth process such as heel sticks.

They do give a nod to religious and cultural circumcision but there is a reason for this. The AAP\\\'s Taskforce on circumcision has been anywhere between 60% and 88% Jewish for 25 years or more. They are simply protecting their own turf. Additionally, all members of The Taskforce has written articles promoting circumcision before their appointment to The Taskforce. Only once has a physician who has written negatively about circumcision been nominated and he was refused membership.

[B]Your Kid, Your Decision[/B]

To believe this, you have to accept that men have no inherent rights of their own. Certainly we believe our bodies to be involate and it is our right to not have anybody take our body parts without our permission. Well, except for a man\\\'s foreskin, right? Why that singular exception? Why can\\\'t we take female genital parts? Certainly the genital parts are the most personal and private of body parts. Certainly the foreskin will not affect the parents so why should it be their decision to discard it?

[B]Dad/brother is Circumcised[/B]
The implication is that the child is going to suffer psychological/Emotional rammifications if he doesn\\\'t have matching genitals. What effect will it have? Will the child be traumatized? Depressed? Obsessive? Compulsive? Gay? Can you name one thing?

How will this manifest itself? Will the child have crying spells? Aggressive? Depressed? Sexually obsessed? A sexual predator? A pedophile? Can you name a single aberant behavior caused by the son not matching the Father/brother?

[B]The Procedure is Painless[/B]
Not according to the AMA. In a study done in 1999, they found that circumcision is always painful even with the best method of pain management. In a 1997 study, they found that 77% of infants were circumcised with nothing administered for pain at all and that less than 4% got the most effective pain management method. Few babies get any pain after care at all and those who do only get Tylenol. I find it odd that adult men will resist a vasectomy with full anesthesia and after care medication but yet will offer up their newborn for a much more invasive and painful procedure without a second thought.

[B]Circumcision Protects against HIV/AIDS[/B]
Yes, there were recent studies that showed this but there have some significant problems with those studies. first, the studies were scheduled to run 23 months and were discontinued after only 11 months. The men in the intervention group (circumcised) were circumcised at the begining of the study meaning they were \\\"out of action\\\" for the first 4 to 6 weeks of the study. In other words, they got a \\\"head start.\\\" While the reports of the study were reported in the popular media as having a 61% protective factor, in actuality there was only a 1.8% difference in the two groups. That\\\'s barely significant!

Additionally, the studies have not been published in any reputable medical journal nor have they passed independent peer review. We do know that The Lancet, the journal of The British Medical Association refused to publish it and it is suspected that the study was shopped to other reputable medical journals with equal results. In the end, the authors paid to get it published on an on-line only journal that was established only a year earlier. This on-line journal states it was established to publish studies of dubious scientific value.

Also, in a letter to the editor to the May 12th edition of The British Journal of Urology, the author revealed that the increased condom useage of the circumcised men went up from 22% to 36%, the exact percentage to achieve the results they attributed to circumcision. They also stated that the circumcised men with two or more sexual partners was reduced from 42% to 33%. With these two developments, it would appear that the circumcised men were at a higher risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

[B]Women Prefer the Circumcised Penis[/B]
This is simply an outdated notion. The women saying this are in the 18 and over age group when the circumcision rate for The US was 80% - 92%. They simply are not familiar with the natural penis. Conversely, the women being born now will see a completely different male genital landscape. The circumcision rate for The US in 2007 will be less than 50% and in some areas, substantially less than 50%. for instance, the West Coast Region will have a less than 30% circumcision rate. Texas will be 25% or less and Florida will be 35% or less. Natural penises will rule and women will be very familiar with them and will have no irrational fear of them.

Lets look at some fears that haven\\\'t been mentioned:

[B]Infections[/B]
This is probably the most feared reason for circumcision but it is an irrational fear. The bacterial and fungal (yeast) infections males get are the exact same bacterial and fungal infections that females get. They are treated with the exact same medications and the prognosis of successful treatment is the same for males as for females. Circumcision is only used as a treatment for genital infections because it is socially acceptable. It is not used as treatment for females because it is not socially acceptable.

[B]Circumcision Has No Effect on the Penis[/B]
Research simply does not support this urban myth. Research shows that circumcision has a significant impact on the sexual practices of men. It also shows that circumcision induces early impotency. That is born out in the sales figures of impotency treatment drugs in circumcising countries and non-circumcising countries.

[B]Circumcised Men Will Be Thankful to Their Parents[/B]
As these issues become more of a public perception, that is highly unlikely. Men with their natural genitals are overwhelmingly satisfied with their state. A 1991 survey by Journeyman Magazine found that only 3% of genitally intact men had ever even considered circumcision for themselves and only 6/10ths of 1% had acted on it. That tells us that 994 out of 1,000 are either happy or satisfied with being allowed to keep their foreskins.

[B]Hygiene[/B]
The myth is that circumcised men have difficulty maintaining genital hygiene. This is simply not true. For infants and children, the foreskin is not naturally retractile and the inside of the foreskin can not be cleaned unless the foreskin is forcibly retracted which can be permanently damaging. The penis of an intact child is cleaned exactly the same way as a circumcised child. For an adult, the foreskin is simply grasped between the forefinger and thumb and retracted and then the intact penis is cleaned the same way as the circumcised penis.

[B]Its a Breeding Ground![/B]
Well, yes it is. But that is a good thing. The preputial space of intact males is an anerobic environment the same as the female genitals. There are \\\"good\\\" bacteria and \\\"bad\\\" bacteria. The good bacteria keep the bad bacteria in check in the male the same as they do in females. That is part of the immune system for both.

[B]Foreskins Stink[/B]
Well, yes they can. But there is a reason for that. With the myths surrounding the foreskin, some intact men practice \\\"extreme hygiene\\\" and destroy the anerobic environment. Antibiotics can do the same thing. There are two simple cures for this. First is to quit the extreme hygiene and re-establish the beneficial colonization. This can be accomplished two ways. For children and adults, they can apply plain unsweetened yogurt to the penis several times a day for a few days or the adult men can have sex with a woman and transfer her anerobes to himself.

[B]Intact Penises are Cheesy[/B]
The intact penis exudes a natural emolient called smegma. This substance is easily rinsed away with plain water just as it is for women who also produce smegma. With normal daily hygiene, it is no more noticeable on men than it is on women.

[B]Circumcision prevents Penile Cancer[/B]
Well, no, it doesn\\\'t. There might be some difference but that is very controversial. The rate of penile cancer is higher in the predominately circumcised US than in Scandanavian countries where circumcision is unheard of. To give you an idea of the prevalence of penile cancer, in a US city of 50,000 people with all intact men, statistically a case of penile cancer will occur once every 156 years. This is a rate of 1:110,000. The death rate from complications of infant circumcision is 1:7,000 so more than 14 infants will die for each man saved from penile cancer.

Penile cancer (squamous cell cancer in situ) is simply a skin cancer like the cancers people get on their faces and arms from sun exposure and is treated the same way. The cancerous growth is excised in the doctor\\\'s office under local anesthesia. Unless it is ignored and not treated for years is it fatal.

There is a new development in penile cancer though. This cancer is caused by the human papilloma virus the same as cervical cancer. Merck Pharmaceuticals has introduced a vaccine for HPV and it promises to make penile cancer even more rare.

.

My son is intact - that should be the default, should it not? I\'m American, but my husband is British and is possession of a very fine foreskin! One he does NOT want to give up.

He is horrified at the thought that, should he have been born American, his parents most likely would have thought they had the right to cut HIS foreskin off when he was too young to defend himself.

This is a very personal choice. Why do some people think it should be the parents\' choice, when the foreskin being cut off belongs to the baby? I really don\'t understand.

Personally, I feel very thankful that I was lucky enough to marry an intact guy (hubby has lots of other great qualities as well! :grin ).

When I hear my American friends (with their circed hubbies) mention having to use artificial lube in order for sex to be comfortable, and then STILL have problems with soreness/not being able to \\\'o\\\'/etc (not problems I have any acquaintance with, since dh is the only guy I\\\'ve been with, and he\\\'s intact), I can\\\'t help but be amazed that any parent would cut off part of their child\\\'s genitals and thus alter their sex life without that child\\\'s consent.

JT, You are amazing. You can self-measure nanoseconds of pain but you can\'t sense when your infant son has gone into shock. Shock is often misdiagnosed by us mere mortals as ordinary sleep, especially when it is experienced by the very small body of a recently delivered neonate. At least you didn\'t have to witness the sad spectacle of death from shock, blood loss, or infection (but the latter may take a few days).

Steph is correct: it has been proven that Langerham\'s cells (found in the foreskin) protect against HIV.

Here\'s the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db;=pubmed&dopt;=Abstract&list;_uids=17334373

And a good article from Dept. of Health & Human Services:
http://www.womenshealth.gov/news/english/602421.htm

Hope that is helpful.

As for the original question, we did not force circumcision on our son, for a number of reasons, fundamental human rights being the primary one.

Just passing on the TRUTH. That\'s all:)

You need to educate yourself before telling me I am foolish or irresponsible.

From what I remember, freedom of speach still is in effect. As for the rest of your dribble... it\'s just that. Have a good one!

Oh Steph - you\'ve crossed the line from providing semi-reasonable arguments for your point of view to chastising people for the act AFTER its been done. Thats like telling somebody who just got in a car accident they should have driven slower; lots of good it does. We get it - you are against circumcision. We know you do not like the look of male genitalia (which to your husband, I offer my condolances. Some sex life he must have) and we understand you probably prefer organic fruits and vegetables to those crazy mass-produced ones. Now you take a swing at breast implants too and insult people who date women who have chosen on their own to get implants? For shame, who are you to look down such a long nose? Go jump on some more bandwagons and off your soapbox. Babies die all the time for any number of reasons, and to say that AIDS can be killed on contact by a \"substance\" in foreskin is simply foolish and irresponsible. If that were the case, don\'t you think by now there would be a drug on the market utilizing this incredible \"substance\" to combat the epidemic? Oh wait, let me guess - they can\'t because of some giant governmental conspiracy. Things \"they\" don\'t tell but YOU know as fact! Since its on the internet, it must be true. And do stay away from relationships you can\'t possible understand - I won\'t go near the mother-daughter relationship because I\'m not a mother, so don\'t try to understand the father-son relationship. You simply expose more of your ignorance and pomposity.

Religion, Ok

Unclean...There is NOTHING UNCLEAN about an intacted penis. Do you wash under your balls? I would venture to guess you said yes. There is nothing more difficult to keeping an intacted penis clean then that.

Like Dad like son.... Are you going to stand next to him, drop trow and compare? Well if you are then OK. If not... what difference does it make.

While your son may have been given a local, those are just as dangerous in a newborn as the surgery itself. Babies DIE from anastesia and surgery or post operative infection. The procedure is totally cosmetic. Would you give your newborn daughter breast implants so she can be like her Mom?

Today, the procedure is effortless and done in a few minutes. My son was given a local anesthetic an hour pre-surgery. Yes, during the surgery, there were two nanosecond painful moments (dad too), but following the surgery, my son was asleep as if nothing happened. I\'d like to say that I had circumcision done for three reasons: Religion, cleanliness and \"like father like son\".

Please no uuummmiing on my site!

Who do you think you are? Madonna?

:grin

While that is what some are saying, they have failed to tell you the following:

There are cells in the foreskin that produce a substance that KILLS AIDS on contact. These cells are not found anywhere else in the body. There are many studies and they say many things. Here is a link discussing these studies:

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

You have saved you son an incredible amount of unnecessary pain (from which many babies go into shock because of and YES, babies have DIES due to circ). Someone asked me why we didn\'t circ our son.... my answer to him \"If when he is 18 he wants to chop off part of his penis, he can do it then!\"

We decided not to. Our son is 6. But now I have read recent studies that AIDS is easier to transmit to and from an uncircumcised male. Is this a real threat? And can a boy be circumcised later?

Considering my ex-wife frequently calls me a d***head, I resent that comment Steph.

Is the look enough of a reason to circ.... You listen to the screams of a baby boy who is being circed and tell me. Worth it...I would think not. As for the look of a penis....UUmmmmm nothing personal guys, but they are not really pretty ANY way you look at them. As for it being preferred....maybe here in the US where RIC (ritual infant circ) is common, but this is the ONLY country (pretty much) who believe in it.

Perhaps a different angle than the health issues, but I think it would be interesting to hear from a single woman\'s point of view on this, someone in their mid-20s or so who is active on the dating scene. My kid\'s feelings are always going to be on my mind, and I wonder if women prefer circumcised to uncircumcised in their partners or if there is a prevailing preference. The last thing I\'d want to do is put my son in an unfavorable position 19 years down the road. Sex and the City did a show on it (and while I do hate that show, I am always surprised how many women take that show very seriously) and in that episode, all the women agree that uncircumcised looked better, more appealing. Is this reason to circumcise? Not sure, just throwing it out there. At some point in his life your son will become sexually active, and if the majority of women prefer circumcised, being uncut may have him facing a rather uncomfortable or humilating experience at a very impressionable time in his life. Again, just a point of view, and other opinions certainly welcome.

Before our son was born we had decided to circumsise then researched for reasons not too. We read the arguments that everyone has put forward, all valid in their own right, but we did not find a good enough reason to not do it. I do not consider circumcision mutilation. I admit we were worried a little about the boy\'s rection and whatever pain he might have, but the surgery took less than 10 minutes and he was sleeping within 5 minutes of getting back to the room. We kept it moist for a few days, and then it eas all fine. My son had a bigger problen with his umbilical cord than his circumsision. I respect other peaple decision to not do it so I just ask that others respect our decision to do it.

Whoa, guys. It was a joke suggesting that since there is no evidence that there are any benefits to circumcision, it\'s questionable to put little boys through the pain and suffering involved. The comment further mocked Mel Gibson\'s violent tendencies and anti-Semitism.

Proving that every nanosecond, some shithead posts something online that demonstrates what a douchebag he is... Achopalypto. So we can expect that you\'ll raise another biggoted waste of a human life just like your dad did, right?

who had to post a bigoted comment and hid behind a pseudonym. Guess what mystery poster? We don\'t want your kind around here. At least have the decency to write your own name so we can openly mock you on the site.

This is a tough one for me. While I support gratuitous and needless bloodshed, I\'d hate for my son to appear any more Jewish than is necessary...

We have a 1 year old son and didn\'t cut him. I was circumcised at birth and had problems all through puberty because my circumciser cut off too much skin. So when we had our son, there was no way we were going to do it. I know I was in the unlucky small percent that suffers from the risks of circumcision, but I\'d rather my son suffer the risks of being \"natural\".

My reading of the AAP report was \"the risks are low, but the benefits are also low\"

IF the boys end up asking you why thy look different just tell them \"Well, they use to think it was better to take off part of your (fill in the blank with your family term), but then Dr\'s changed their minds and now they don\'t think that.\" Again, IF the subject comes up. It is (very loose comparison here) kind of like having kids who have different color eyes. You can\'t change it, but what do you tell them if they ask? (Again, I realize one you have a choice with and one you don\'t, but kids are going to ask \"Why are we different\" questions no matter WHAT.)

Hey guys, longtime reader, first time poster.
We circumcised our son. I admit, it was done with little research other than it was what we were used to. But now we have a second son on the way. Is it going to create more problems if we don\'t circumcise our second one?

Snip, snip.

I know others have different views, and your kid, your decision, I\'m not one for telling people whats best for their kids, I just find it a silly argument that I am constantly defending my decision of why I didn\'t circumcise my some to everyone from my father to many of my friends with boys.

My husband and I didnt circumcise our son for a few reasons.

I did some research just like Dans wife and came to the same conclusion, that there is really no medical reason for circumcision, as reported by the American Pediatrics Association. The stuff about hygiene and such only happens to a very small number of boys. And as such should be taught how to clean themselves by their father.

My husband is not. Seemed silly to do it at that point.

We also have no religious reasons to do so.

And though this may seem a controversial statement to some, I believe it to be mutilation of the male genitalia for no good reason whatsoever. People say its a useless piece of skin, whats the big deal? Well the big deal to me is, if people were lining up their baby girls to have parts of their labia removed, there would be a giant uproar.

weirdest experience for us was after our second son was snipped, we signed all the forms, blah blah blah, then 6 weeks later a random $50 check shows up in the mail from Big Brother Labs or something.

we unknowingly sold our son\'s foreskin for fetal tissue research.

just glad to do our part...

My wife and I are expecting any day now, and don\\\'t know the gender, but if it is a boy we\\\'ve decided not to circumcise. A few reasons.

1. There is no medical benefit to doing so. Some myths persist, such as circumcision helps with hygiene, but that\\\'s not true.

2. For us, there is no religious reason to do so either.

3. While I am circumcised, I don\\\'t buy the argument that you should circumcise just because the kid should \\\"look like dad\\\" or \\\"look like the other kids in the locker room\\\". That\\\'s silly.

4. Something like 80%+ of the world does not circumcise.

5. My wife did some research into why circumcision became a \\\"standard\\\" practice in the US. Based on what she found, it became widespread not all that long ago, in the 40s or 50s when there was a big to-do in the national discourse about masturbation. The argument went that masturbation felt better when uncircumcised, so if you didn\\\'t want your kid in the bathroom for 5 years whacking it when they were teens, circumcise \\\'em.

This argument is so stupid I don\\\'t think I need to remark further.

6. If you haven\\\'t seen a picture of a freshly circumcised penis, go find one. You\\\'ll instinctively cross your legs looking at it. *shudder*

No.