# I am trying to decide whether to circumcise



## LaneyMeyer (Jan 31, 2012)

So, I am new to Mothering but I'm pregnant and am having a boy. I'm trying to decide whether or not to circumcise. We're not religious, but I want him to look like his father, who is circumcised. I have done a lot of reading on the internet and am pretty convinced that there's no medical reason to circumcise. In fact, I found a blog post on this that I wanted to share. She says that there's really no evidence to support circumcising.

http://www.squintmom.com/?p=442

The thing is, though, I don't know if I believe that circumcision is really harmful. It just doesn't seem like with most of the men in the US walking around circumcised and they're not complaining (it seems like it's women who freak out about it more than men), is it really a problem?


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

if there is no medical reason to do a cosmetic surgery on your infant just a day old, why would you? if later when he is big he wants to get cic'd that would be his choice, but to do it to an infant who has no say and has nothing the matter with him... why? so he looks like someone else? will you clip his ears if they look different? or some other drastic un-nneeded procedure so he looks like everyone else?


----------



## hlg1212 (Nov 27, 2010)

Honestly, I do think that a lot of men are in denial about the complications that they do have or are not even aware that they are complications of their circumcision. My DH is circumcised, but my 3 sons are not, and over the past few years, my DH has become increasingly aware of his scar from the circumcision and some areas where he has less sensitivity. He has come to think of circumcision as being harmful even though he does not like to think about his penis that way. I think it is difficult for men to come to grips with that. Anyway, he is really thankful that he does not have any major complications (adhesions, skin bridges, painful erections, hairy shaft, ED, etc.) because they are quite common. He is also really happy that our sons will never have to wonder what they are missing like he does.


----------



## JBaxter (May 1, 2005)

Part of my son's are circ'd part are not. I'm chiming with the Intact boys are easier. When we made the decision to keep Jack intact I asked my DH when the last time he saw his father naked. He had no clue so the "look like dad thing" has no bearing here. Less than half the boys in the US are being circ'd and world wide 80-90% of men are intact. Circing is cosmetic and IMO as a mom of both TOTALLY unnecessary done to a newborn. I regret letting them cut my oldest 3 after researching the WHY's of circing. Jack is 3 and retracts has had ZERO issues. The way I look it is if he has the burning desire to remove his fore skin he can choose to do it and I'll support him. I have done a 180 in my parenting views. He was born with it for a reason and who am I to make a decission to remove a part of his little body. One of the OB's in the practice I now go to refuses to do circs he said they are cruel and unnecssary (THAT coming from a DR.)


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Here's two that I like and sum up how we came to our decision.

http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intact-or-circumcised-significant.html

http://www.drmomma.org/2009/10/how-male-circumcision-impacts-your-love.html

Once you really know...... there's no way you'd do this to your sons!


----------



## Greg B (Mar 18, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> So, I am new to Mothering but I'm pregnant and am having a boy. I'm trying to decide whether or not to circumcise...
> 
> ...


Good for you to research this decision carefully. Let me offer some thoughts on the points you have brought up.

Why do you want him to look like his father? How far are you willing to go to do that? His father will be taller, hairier, etc. Which of those will you try to do? Will you insist that his father shave his face and pubic area, for instance?

I was circumcised, I kept my two son's intact. It did not cause any problems whatsoever.

I was circumcised and my two younger brothers were not. No problems whatsoever.

If there is no medical reason to circumcise, and you, as a parent are supposed to be acting in the best interest of your son, what would the rational be to have him circumcised? What would be worth the pain and suffering?

Men who are circumcised as infants simply have no idea what they are missing. Nor do their wives. So yes, everything seems fine to them. I was in that same boat. circumcised and you could not have convinced me that having a foreskin would add much. Sex felt amazingly good, best feeling possible.

Now I am mostly restored. I have had sex as a circumcised man and as an intact man. My wife has had sex with me circumcsied and intact. There is no comparison. Sex with a foreskin is so much better for both of us that it is amazing. And she was a doubting thomas. Now she is a strong supporter that is appalled anyone would RIC.

PM me if you want to have specifics of what has changed and how it feels, they don't seem to like things getting too graphic here.

regards


----------



## mamasgirls (Sep 8, 2004)

My biggest thing is that he is not going to look like his dad anyway. Penises don't look the same anyway- but a child and an adult, whether circ'd or intact, look nothing alike. Size, hair, etc. So if looking like his dad means when your son is an adult- well, I think you could ask any adult when the last time they compared penises with their father- and I think you would not find many (if any) that do. My DH has no idea if his dad is circ'd or intact. My father did not learn his father was intact until recently. I think we put more emotion in to this decision that needs to be there. Your husband went through a cosmetic surgical procedure at a time that most baby boy's in the US had the procedure. So now your son needs a cosmetic sugical procedure just because your husband did? I don't understand why, if the topic came up, you could not explain to your son that when daddy was a baby he had part of his penis cut off, but now we have learned and know more and did not feel it was necessary to also cut off part of yours. I don't get the "family tradition" thing. I realize most babies in the 60's, 70's and 80's had it done, but is not the case any more. There are SO complications that can happen. Your son will be born perfect. There is no need to alter him during the first hours or weeks of his life. It is your son's penis, not yours or your husbands. Let him decide if he would like his foreskin or not


----------



## jocelyndale (Aug 28, 2006)

The Whole Network has compiled a number of published studies which detail issues with circumcision and circumcision studies:

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2012/01/medical-research-studies-on-circumcision.html

While TWN is biased in favor of intact genitals, the empirical research has been published in a variety of journals.

I encourage my cut husband to love his body as it is. But we also recognize the problems which exist as a result of his neonatal circumcision. There are many complications to circumcision and they don't all show up immediately. It's hard to talk about these things in a public forum because it's not *my* privacy at issue. I've talked to lots of mom friends frankly about sex and I think there are probably a lot more long-term side effects of circumcision than the powers that be are willing to acknowledge.

Leaving our son intact and whole was a no brainer for us. There's no harm in an intact foreskin. And the thought of doing our best to be gentle attached parents really doesn't allow for the initial trauma of foreskin removal.


----------



## nd_deadhead (Sep 22, 2005)

Welcome, Laney! Like the others, I'm glad you're thinking about this now.

Because circumcision is so prevalent in the US, people have a tendency to think "Why not circumcise?", whgen the more logical question is "Why should we?"

You've already answered that question for yourself - there is no valid medical reason to do it. If you dig a little deeper, you will learn that circumcision - like any operation - has risks. Some sources, like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) downplay the risks - and still come to the conclusion that the benefits do not outweigh the risks.

Is circumcision harmful? Well, we all know men who don't seem to have any problems. But does that mean there is no harm done? My MIL lost the end of her pinky finger when she was in her 50's (my DH remembers the accident). She doesn't experience "phantom pain", and since she no longer plays the piano, she gets along just fine without it - and it's one less fingernail she has to trim. Does that mean that her pinky finger was worthless, or that she didn't suffer harm? Those of us that have all our fingers sure wouldn't willingly give one up! Just because a lot of men "get along just fine" wothout their foreskin, doesn't mean that they haven't been harmed - just like my MIL and her finger.

So how often do you talk to men about their penises? We've had posts from a number of people here who are themselves, or their DH is unhappy about being circumcised, and some men suffer serious complications. I once knew a woman on-line whose hubby could barely maintain an erection, because he had so much foreskin removed that an erection caused him pain and bleeding. They were lucky to be able to conceive one child, and were unable to conceive another, because of his circumcision complications. Many doctors today tend to err on the side of removing less foreskin rather than more, because of the prevelance of such problems. Obviously this doesn't happen to everyone - but how many have to suffer for it to count? What if it's your son, or your husband? It's one thing to deal with complications from an operation that you need to save or significantly improve your life - it's quite another to have lifelong complecations from an unnecessary operation.

"To look like Daddy" is a pretty silly reason to perform surgery on an infant. Would you sign your infant daughter up for a boob job, or labiplasty, so she "looks like Mom"? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But that's exactly what is suggested by circumcising an infant to "look like Dad". If a man wants his genitals to look like his young son's, all he has to do is shave his pubic hair and pack ice in his shorts. My twin sons are 17, and when they were little, they were far more interested in differences in size and hair than they were in whether DH had a foreskin or not.

Here's another way to look at it: My DH has brown eyes, salt-and-pepper hair, and a mustache. Our sons have blue eyes, blond hair, and their attempts at facial hair are pretty pitiful (so far). They hardly look alike at all, in ways that are obvious to anyone looking. Yet the boys have fantastic relationships with their Dad - whether they look alike or not. Why in the world would "matching" penises be important to them?

Best wishes to you on a comfortable pregnancy and a healthy baby! Please don't hesitate to ask any questions you can think of.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

nd_deadhead, I really like your answer. I, too have never understood the "look like Dad" bit - Are they planning to sit around watching sports with their penises hanging out?


----------



## Erin77 (Aug 4, 2010)

I always think that argument is funny, too, as if we're going to have our family pictures taken nude so people could be like, "OMG, their penises look different!" Ha! Like I wouldn't look different from a baby daughter who hasn't grown breasts!


----------



## midwifetobe85 (Jan 23, 2012)

Hi Laney,

I think it's great that you're really researching the issue and trying to make an informed decision. I'll be graduating with my bachelor of science in nursing in a few months and will be starting a masters in midwifery program in the fall. As a student nurse, I've been present a number of circumcisions, even participating (i.e. giving baby pacifier with sugar water, setting up for the physician, etc). I think if more parents could witness circumcision before making the decision, very few would choose to do it. All four of the baby's limbs are strapped down to a plastic board, which in my experience seems to be upsetting experience in and of itself, as the babies often start crying at this point. Horrifyingly, only about half of all physicians use any kind anesthesia. Even when they do use a local anesthetic I'm quite certain that getting the injection into their penis is very painful as the babies almost always scream when it is happening. During the actual circumcision, which involves placing a clamp around the penis, inserting a tool under the foreskin to force it away from the penis and then crushing/pulling the foreskin away - the babies scream so loudly and forcefully they turn purple - and this goes for the babies who received the anesthetic too. This makes sense because the foreskin contains tens of thousands of nerve endings - they feel everything. The procedure is not very fast either - often taking up to a half an hour. The babies usually look like they're in shock once they stop crying. The nurses also don't bring the baby back to the parents until he's wrapped up again and isn't crying. This, I feel, is a terrible practice because it masks how horribly traumatic it is for the infant.

As a witness of circumcision I feel that I have a responsibility to parents to inform them of the barbaric nature of the practice. If you are still considering it, I encourage you to search the internet for graphic videos of circumcision so that you can see what it really involves. Also, if you want more information explaining why it is neither a medically indicated, nor a benign procedure take a look at http://www.intactamerica.org/.

Thanks and best of luck with the rest of your pregnancy and your birth!


----------



## TrumpetMom (Sep 23, 2011)

I met a mom recently who has two circ'd boys and one intact. The second was horrible: he hemorraged. And they wouldn't let her nurse or see him for nearly four hours. There are risks to the procedure and children do sometimes bleed a lot. They even die sometimes. Scares the schiznit out of me to think of some of my friends whose boys are circ'd and how they could have lost their kid because of an unnecessary procedure.

Still, it's your decision. Best of luck in your research. Go by your heart, not what others tell you to do.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

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


----------



## MichelleZB (Nov 1, 2011)

Why does his penis have to match his dad's? Planning on taking cute father/son pantsless photos?


----------



## To-Fu (May 23, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MichelleZB*
> 
> Why does his penis have to match his dad's? Planning on taking cute father/son pantsless photos?


I definitely see your point here, but I think there are probably more effective and less snarky ways to say it (as others have done upthread).

Anyway! *Laney*, I'm so glad you're here and questioning. It's great that you're being thoughtful and trying to figure out what's best for your baby boy.

I like to look at it as an issue of consent. I wouldn't perform any other unnecessary cosmetic surgery on my child without her/his consent. I wouldn't allow an equivalent surgery to remove or shorten my daughter's labia. I wouldn't do these things for a simple reason: my kid's body, my kid's choice.

We can't really assume that our kids will care that their external sex organs resemble their parents'. In fact, I think it's unlikely that they would. It's certainly not something I have ever heard in my life from other women--and no adult man that I have known or overheard has ever expressed regret or delight at his genitals looking like his father's. I think when we make that argument, we're projecting and guessing about things that may not be important at all to our kids, and at an enormous cost.

If, as you say, there is no good reason to do it--literally, there is no medical reason for it at all--then why do it? Why not just let your son decide what he wants to do with his body, since it's his? This way you go down the path of "least harm" and you show you respect his body integrity. 

This site might help you decide: http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/

And this quote from here specifically addresses the common worry of your son looking genitally different from his father:

Quote:


> *Myth:* "A boy should look like his father. If a boy and his father are different, it would be awkward."
> 
> *Fact:* Keep in mind that the father needn't have been circumcised in the first place. Still, a circumcised father may be concerned that his son will feel uncomfortable being "different" from his dad if he is not circumcised. Don't worry. Many circumcised fathers are raising intact sons without any feelings of awkwardness in father or son. If a boy ever notices and asks why his father is different, the reason is easily explained. A father should teach his son to appreciate and feel good about his own body. Good parenting is an excellent alternative to amputation. Besides, if the father had lost a finger in an accident earlier in his life, would he want to have his son's finger removed to match?
> 
> Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma wrote a letter to the spokesman of the American Academy of Pediatrics on this very subject.


Anyway, even if both father and son have part of their foreskin removed, that doesn't really guarantee their penises will look alike, or that your son will care, right? Why is it so important that their penises look alike--important enough to have unnecessary cosmetic surgery to make it happen--and not any other body part? Why is a penis resemblance so important? It would be unconscionable to cut off part of a baby girl's labia at birth so she resembles her mother, right? So why would the foreskin be any different? And why stop with genital resemblance? I think if you look at it that way, the but-I-want-him-to-look-like-his-father idea will seem as strange as it is.

And here are 10 good reasons not to circumcise: http://www.intactamerica.org/resources/decision

Best of luck! I hope you'll come back and let us know how things progress.


----------



## BananaBreadGirl (Apr 14, 2008)

My mom and my grandma both are breast-less (due to real medical problems...cancer). I could certainly survive and be healthy without my breasts. But I'm glad that no-one removed mine at birth to try to make me look like someone else, or to try to avoid medical problems (and I might add that breast cancer is a lot more likely and dangerous than any problems I've ever heard of with the foreskin). Sometimes it's helpful to think of how we make decisions about other body parts...


----------



## rnra (Dec 15, 2011)

Message Deleted


----------



## DoubleDouble (Oct 26, 2011)

What if the son's eyes are different in color from his dad? Would you do iris implants on a baby? Risky procedure, but available! (Plus, different eye color is quite noticeable - no one has to take their pants off to reveal it, it's a part of first impression, so iris implants should be even more important.)


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rnra*  Some of them decline, but at least 90% of the time one or both of the infant's parents are present for the entire process. The parents are right there in full view of everything. Their comments are usually, "That was way better/easier than I was anticipating."
> 
> Once again, I am not pro-circ at all. However, as you can tell between the differences in my experiences and those by midwifetobe85, the environment that the circ is performed in and the practitioner who does the circ can make a huge difference.


Welcome to the board. I hope you'll stick around.

With that said, I couldn't give a rat's patootey, what the parents think after the circ. It's not them that had to endure the procedure, no matter how kind it appeared; the babies are the ones who will live their whole lives w/o a part of their anatomy that they very well would have probably wanted to keep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope that some day you will stop participating in circs that are performed on any underage individual who does not have cancer, gangrene or frostbite. If you are a nurse, you may want to look into the group: Nurses for the Rights of the Child. http://nurses.cirp.org/ And, here is a video of a nurse explaining why she is a part of the movement towards genital integrity: 




Best wishes,

Sus


----------



## hlg1212 (Nov 27, 2010)

My husband is a doctor who believed that he had to perform circumcisions as part of his residency training in order to pass. He did a few and thought that it was the most brutal, horrible experience he had ever been a part of in his life. While it is true that most of the doctors did give a lidocaine injection, very few of them waited the recommended time for the anesthetic to take effect. The babies were generally in terrible agony, and he witnessed one get botched to the point that the baby would need extensive reconstructive surgery. He found it to be completely unethical to perform a painful, unnecessary surgery on a healthy, unconsenting newborn baby, and told his supervisors that he would not continue to be a part of it for which I am very proud of him.


----------



## kindchen (Dec 8, 2008)

I kind of think that there are all these men in the U.S. walking around not complaining, either (a) because they don't know what they're missing, or (b) if they are having issues related to circumcision, they might not be comfortable talking about it.

My husband is intact, because he is European. He was shocked and horrified to learn that most men of his generation in the U.S. are circumcised. From the perspective of a woman, I can say from my experience that sex with an intact man is much more comfortable for me. The skin that is cut off of a baby's penis would be the size of a 3x5 card on an adult man. That is a lot of missing skin!

It never occurred to me until we were watching a movie where a teen boy was embarrassed to be caught using his mother's lotion to masturbate, that DH had no idea what that was all about.

Anyway, I don't really see myself as "freaking out" about this, but I am really glad that DH is intact. We have all girls, but there is no way a son in our family would be circumcised. It wouldn't have anything to do with looking like his dad, though. It's because an intact penis is the healthy standard, because an intact man has more nerve endings and thus more sexual pleasure, and because circumcision carries risks. I have a problem with causing unnecessary risk to my child. There are risks with any procedure, and looking like dad doesn't seem like a good reason for taking those risks, however small.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> So, I am new to Mothering but I'm pregnant and am having a boy. I'm trying to decide whether or not to circumcise. We're not religious, but I want him to look like his father, who is circumcised. I have done a lot of reading on the internet and am pretty convinced that there's no medical reason to circumcise. In fact, I found a blog post on this that I wanted to share. She says that there's really no evidence to support circumcising.
> 
> ...


----------



## tropicana (Sep 11, 2011)

it's your SON'S penis.

you will be changing his diaper for a few years and helping him bathe for maybe a couple years more.

after about age 5, it's all HIS business.

and he will keep his penis, whole or part of it (you get to decide) for the rest of his life.

what if someday he wishes he had a foreskin?

about 2 out of every 3 boys born in our country today are getting to KEEP their foreskin.

google "sex the way nature intended" for a gentle but graphic look at the way a foreskin functions.

congratulations on your upcoming child. i hope that by posting in "the case against circumcision" forum you will take to heart the advice you receive here. this place is a great repository of knowledge and strength for mothers and fathers who are interested in breaking the cycle of circumcision in their families. (just think, if you give in to circumcising your son because his father's parents circumcised him, then will your son be having to circumcise his own son someday? and for what?? it's not cleaner, it's not better for his health, it's excruciatingly painful and deprives a male of a lifetime of full sexual function... and also deprives his future partners of a full sexual experience, the way nature intended.)

best to you!!


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tropicana*
> 
> it's your SON'S penis.
> 
> ...


This is so true. My son is 16, I don't think I've even glimpsed his penis since he was 6.


----------



## ma2two (May 4, 2010)

When my son was 4 and was looking through the book, "It's So Amazing" he noticed a drawing of a circumcised penis next to a drawing of an intact penis. He asked if his penis would look like the circumcised one when he grew up (his daddy is circumcised). It took me about 30 seconds to explain to him why his was different from daddy's, and he was fine with it. I would not suggest allowing a risky, painful cosmetic surgery to avoid 30 seconds of talking.


----------



## LaneyMeyer (Jan 31, 2012)

I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to. A boy WILL see his father naked early in life (though, obviously, not later on), and he'll develop his early feelings about sexuality and his sex organs from comparing himself to his father. Having a penis that looks like his father's penis is very different than a little girl not having breasts; she can be told she will grow them later, and that they are a distinguishing feature of a mature woman. In the same vein, a boy obviously doesn't have the same size penis as a grown man, but knows he'll get there. A fundamentally different-looking penis, however, can impact his feelings about his genitals. Similarly, having a penis that looks different from those of most of the other boys in the locker room (when he's in school) might make him feel uncomfortable. MOST middle class, white boys are circumcised in the US (whether this is right or not), so uncirc'd boys in that demographic are in the minority. In the end, what bothers me is that circumcision is a much bigger deal for an adult than for an infant, and what if I don't circumcise him and he later wants to have it done?

Squintmom, the same science blogger who said there are no benefits, has another post about the risks that I think is new, and I just read it earlier today. http://www.squintmom.com/?p=509

I think she makes some good points.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

Is anyone else suspicious about the OP and her rah-rah-ing for SquintMom's blog?


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to. A boy WILL see his father naked early in life (though, obviously, not later on), and he'll develop his early feelings about sexuality and his sex organs from comparing himself to his father. Having a penis that looks like his father's penis is very different than a little girl not having breasts; she can be told she will grow them later, and that they are a distinguishing feature of a mature woman. In the same vein, a boy obviously doesn't have the same size penis as a grown man, but knows he'll get there. A fundamentally different-looking penis, however, can impact his feelings about his genitals. Similarly, having a penis that looks different from those of most of the other boys in the locker room (when he's in school) might make him feel uncomfortable.


I actualy do not agree with this line of thought. I could not care what my Dad's penis looked like - I would much rather have kept my foreskin. I spent all 12 years of grade school in boarding schools, and was shocked, at the age of 6 to discover what had happened to me on the very first night, when we were all herded into the communal shower room for our evening bath. About 2/3 were circumcised and it was never a big deal - everyone just accepted that some penises were different, and I cannot recall one single instance of teasing based on circumcision status. However, as the years have gone by and I have learned more and more about the form, function and value of a foreskin, I have become more and more angry and disappointed that I was deprived of mine.

Incidentaly, circumcision does not only have physical ramifications. The procedure can often have a psychological impact too. See: www.cirp.org/library/psych/brain_damage/index.html .


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to. A boy WILL see his father naked early in life (though, obviously, not later on), and he'll develop his early feelings about sexuality and his sex organs from comparing himself to his father. Having a penis that looks like his father's penis is very different than a little girl not having breasts; she can be told she will grow them later, and that they are a distinguishing feature of a mature woman. In the same vein, a boy obviously doesn't have the same size penis as a grown man, but knows he'll get there. A fundamentally different-looking penis, however, can impact his feelings about his genitals. Similarly, having a penis that looks different from those of most of the other boys in the locker room (when he's in school) might make him feel uncomfortable. MOST middle class, white boys are circumcised in the US (whether this is right or not), so uncirc'd boys in that demographic are in the minority. In the end, what bothers me is that circumcision is a much bigger deal for an adult than for an infant, and what if I don't circumcise him and he later wants to have it done?
> 
> ...


Actually the cut rate has dropped to closer than half. And don't assume that all your friend's boys are cut. Some folks never consider it "up for discussion" but you might notice later on when you take the boys to swim lessons or something.

Back to dads, my son never said a word about his intact self vs the look of his cut dad. I'm was never so proud of my hubby as when he agreed to keep his son whole. My son is 16, he's never had any negative peer interaction to having an intact member. Also, I moved him mid-childhood from a high circ area to a low circ one... the boys here are just not done unless their family's Jewish traditions prevail upon them.

Adult circumcision, ... the adult male can at least be properly anesthetized for surgery. Sadly , infants are almost never numbed properly and they do feel intense pain that disrupts bonding and breastfeeding.


----------



## Sol_y_Paz (Feb 6, 2009)

Hi and welcome. This blog helped me decide.

http://9davids.blogspot.com/2010/11/50-reasons-to-leave-it-alone.html

As far as looking like daddy, how many constantly compare with dad? How many girls compare with mom? That is just such a strange argument to me. My DH doesn't know what his dad's looks like and isn't interested.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to. A boy WILL see his father naked early in life (though, obviously, not later on), and he'll develop his early feelings about sexuality and his sex organs from comparing himself to his father.


I really haven't found that to be true. DS saw DP naked many, many times when he was younger and *never* asked why their penises look different. I think most boys would just assume that their dad's look different because they are older and bigger (I mean, they're also covered with hair there, too). That said, DS did wonder why he and his same aged cousin had different looking penises and he was shocked and a bit sickened to hear that his cousin had had part of his skin cut off. I'm glad I was on my side of the conversation--- I have no idea what my sister told her son about it 

Statisitcally, of course, especially where we live he is in the majority of his peers by being intact.


----------



## GoBecGo (May 14, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to. A boy WILL see his father naked early in life (though, obviously, not later on), and he'll develop his early feelings about sexuality and his sex organs from comparing himself to his father. Having a penis that looks like his father's penis is very different than a little girl not having breasts; she can be told she will grow them later, and that they are a distinguishing feature of a mature woman. In the same vein, a boy obviously doesn't have the same size penis as a grown man, but knows he'll get there. A fundamentally different-looking penis, however, can impact his feelings about his genitals. Similarly, having a penis that looks different from those of most of the other boys in the locker room (when he's in school) might make him feel uncomfortable. MOST middle class, white boys are circumcised in the US (whether this is right or not), so uncirc'd boys in that demographic are in the minority. In the end, what bothers me is that circumcision is a much bigger deal for an adult than for an infant, and what if I don't circumcise him and he later wants to have it done?
> 
> ...


How many penises have you seen? I've seen LOTS and none of them looked "the same". They are as different as noses! Cosmetic surgery on either noses or penises to look like someone else just isn't really what i want for my kids. There's only validity in the argument if you think there is. And if he is older and he is acquainted with his penis and wants half of it lopped off there are a great number of urologists in the world who will be happy to do so for him. If on the other hand he wants to look like his circ'd friends without having any of their loss of sensation or functional problems well, he'll just have to figure out that dichotomy for himself, just like i have to get over the idea that i'd like little teeny perky boobs, even though it'd mean lost sensation and function if i got them surgically reduced.

FWIW i'm in the UK where almost no one gets their kid arbitrarily circ'd and where urologists will try EVERYTHING for several years before they suggest circumcision as an answer to medical issues. Don't do it. It's not your penis. Let the owner of the penis make the decisions about it.


----------



## Greg B (Mar 18, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to. A boy WILL see his father naked early in life (though, obviously, not later on), and he'll develop his early feelings about sexuality and his sex organs from comparing himself to his father. Having a penis that looks like his father's penis is very different than a little girl not having breasts; she can be told she will grow them later, and that they are a distinguishing feature of a mature woman. In the same vein, a boy obviously doesn't have the same size penis as a grown man, but knows he'll get there. A fundamentally different-looking penis, however, can impact his feelings about his genitals. Similarly, having a penis that looks different from those of most of the other boys in the locker room (when he's in school) might make him feel uncomfortable. MOST middle class, white boys are circumcised in the US (whether this is right or not), so uncirc'd boys in that demographic are in the minority. In the end, what bothers me is that circumcision is a much bigger deal for an adult than for an infant, and what if I don't circumcise him and he later wants to have it done?


I was circumcised, both of my sons are intact. I am very casual about being naked around the house. They have seen my circumcised penis growing up. This has had no impact on them as they grew up, as far as I can tell. Complete non issue. Zippo. Nada. They are fine, comletely normal, as far as I can tell. Unless you can cite something with credibility that evaluates this and concludes it is a problem, I will say it is no problem.

Violating a person's rights to gentital integrity, is a BIG problem. Doing it for a non issue like "the father looking like his son", is ridiculous. It is fearmongering, plain and simple, used to irrationally justify infant circumcision.

Circumcision is not a bigger deal for an adult. That too is fearmongering and biased reasoning. Simply think about it rationally. First define what is meant by a big deal. I would say it is a combination of the 1) physical pain, 2) changes in behavior and 3) how supportive the patient is in the whole thing. So take an infant:

1) Huge amount of physical pain, and no safe way to eliminate the pain, best that can be accomplished is a slight reduction in the pain.

2) causes dramtic changes in behavior. They go into shock, have trouble breast feeding, and do not act like one would expect a normal baby to act. We have no idea what the later ramifications of this trauma are for adults.

3) Infants are dead set agianst this, based on everything I can see and read. There is no way to convince them to go along with it.

OK, compare that with an adult:

1) pain management is easy.

2) They have to deal with tenderness for a short time, then are acting normal again.

3) they are doing it because they want to. Huge difference.

So why do they say it is worse for infants? All they are talking about is how easy it is for the surgeon, really. In an infant, the inner and outer foreskin is fused together. The operation is easy, cut the skin and let it heal.

In an adult, the inner and outer skin are mobile and independant. So the surgeon must also stitch the two skins together for proper healing.

That is the only basis I have ever found for saying it is better to do when an infant. True, they will also say that an infant doesn't remember the pain and trauma, but I think that is debatable. And they conveniently ignore the fact that an infant's penis is not fully developed, so a good argument can be made that circumcision as an adult, with a fully developed penis, gives far more predictable results.

And, finally, as has been said, it is not accurate to say most middle class white boys are circumcised. Of course, until you define waht you mean by "most", it is hard to do much more than say, I disagree.

Regards


----------



## helloall (Aug 27, 2011)

^ My dad is circumcised and I am not. I remember seeing his penis when I was young. Even at a young age I understood. I don't understand why having matching penises is one of the main reasons to cut your children nowadays..

Weird stuff.


----------



## helloall (Aug 27, 2011)

Middle class white boy reporting in as well. From Canada though, in the early 90s rates were about 50/50.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

The only difference my ds has noticed between him and his cired dad is how much bigger dh was than him and the hair.


----------



## nd_deadhead (Sep 22, 2005)

Laney, you seem to be really hung up on the "looks" thing.

My DH and his brother are both circumcised. They were in their 40's when they learned from their Mom that their Dad had been intact. They had no idea - and they grew up on a remote cattle ranch, where there was a lot of peeing outside. Obviously neither of them paid close attention to what their father's penis looked like.

My twin boys are 17 years old. They certainly saw their Dad naked, and as I said earlier, what made an impression on them was hair and size.

They were 8 years old when they learned about circumcision, and they were appalled. "Why would anyone want to do that?" We explained that most men don't choose it for themselves, but their parents have it done when they are babies. They were horrified. We told them that their Dad had been circumcised as a baby. One said "Poor Dad - he's missing the best part!" As we discussed further, one of my sons said "I just thought Dad kept his foreskin pulled back". You see, when a boy can retract his foreskin, the glans are exposed, just like on a cricumcised penis, so the difference isn't really that great. The same way that a girl might expect that she will have breasts like Mom when she grows up, our sons thought that their glans would remain exposed when they grew up. Their foreskins were certainly not a source of concern to them (on the contrary, they were a source of delight!)

Locker room issues? My sons are seniors in high school. We live in the midwest, were the circ rate is very high. I expect that the vast majority of my sons' friends and classmates are circumcsed - but they have no idea. They don't shower in gym class; when they do undress completely for swimming, all the boys are careful to not look at each other. To be caught looking at another boy's equipment is asking for ridicule (sad, but true). Besides, my sons are glad that they have all the parts they were born with - they feel sorry for circumcised males, and would have no problem whatsoever standing up for themselves, on the off chance that someone did comment (yes, we have talked about it). My sons HAVE been teased for being lousy at basketball, for having acne, for being identical twins. We didn't run out and try to surgically correct any of these things - why on earth does it make sense to operate on a healthy newborn to appease some mythical bully of the future?


----------



## sosurreal09 (Nov 20, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> So, I am new to Mothering but I'm pregnant and am having a boy. I'm trying to decide whether or not to circumcise. We're not religious, but I want him to look like his father, who is circumcised. I have done a lot of reading on the internet and am pretty convinced that there's no medical reason to circumcise. In fact, I found a blog post on this that I wanted to share. She says that there's really no evidence to support circumcising.
> 
> ...


Haven't read any other posts but I know they messed up my DHs circ and it's way too tight and he has issues with it. My BFFs ex had half of his head sliced off and sewn back. 117 babies in the US alone die every year from it. Also this is my friends story of what happened to her son http://www.drmomma.org/2011/03/circumcision-gone-wrong-lantz-story.html


----------



## sosurreal09 (Nov 20, 2009)

With death being a very real possibility I don't see why looking like daddy would matter. So he could look like daddy in a casket? Seriously that may seem harsh but 117 babies DIE and that's an under-estimate (b/c not all are reported as relating to circ even if caused by it) every year in the US for NO REASON.

http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/

http://www.examiner.com/family-health-in-washington-dc/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

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

http://iinformedparenting.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-baby-boys-die-in-us-from.html

http://www.drmomma.org/2011/10/newborn-baby-survives-heart-failure.html

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/10/baby-dies-from-circumcision-surgery.html


----------



## Dan Bollinger (Aug 13, 2006)

Laney,

Here's a good response to the "look like dad" reason: "This reason gets a lot of attention despite the obvious problem that dads and sons don't spend a lot of time comparing penises (or at least we hope not!). And, even if your son does make a comparison, the only differences he's likely to see are size and pubic hair. Boys grow into men by mimicking their father's personality and attitudes, not by being look alikes, otherwise adoption wouldn't work.1 If he does ask why he has a foreskin, a simple explanation is easy: "When I was born, doctors thought it was cleaner if boys were circumcised, but now we know better. We knew you would be smart enough to wash all of your body parts.""

The current US circumcision rate is nearly 50/50, so the "locker room" argument is no longer valid.

For other reasons you might have, check out Circumcision Decision-Maker.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to. *A boy WILL see his father naked early in life (though, obviously, not later on), and he'll develop his early feelings about sexuality and his sex organs from comparing himself to his father.* Having a penis that looks like his father's penis is very different than a little girl not having breasts; she can be told she will grow them later, and that they are a distinguishing feature of a mature woman. *In the same vein, a boy obviously doesn't have the same size penis as a grown man, but knows he'll get there. A fundamentally different-looking penis, however, can impact his feelings about his genitals.* Similarly, having a penis that looks different from those of most of the other boys in the locker room (when he's in school) might make him feel uncomfortable. MOST middle class, white boys are circumcised in the US (whether this is right or not), so uncirc'd boys in that demographic are in the minority. In the end, what bothers me is that circumcision is a much bigger deal for an adult than for an infant, and what if I don't circumcise him and he later wants to have it done?


Please provide resources on what you've stated.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *sosurreal09*
> 
> With death being a very real possibility I don't see why looking like daddy would matter. So he could look like daddy in a casket? Seriously that may seem harsh but 117 babies DIE and that's an under-estimate (b/c not all are reported as relating to circ even if caused by it) every year in the US for NO REASON.


Not for nothing, but I don't think this tactic is terribly helpful. Dying in childbirth (even, gasp, homebirth!) is a very real possibility and yet....


----------



## GoBecGo (May 14, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Not for nothing, but I don't think this tactic is terribly helpful. Dying in childbirth (even, gasp, homebirth!) is a very real possibility and yet....


Yes but once the baby is in there it has to come out! So the risk of death (which where i am, UK, is the same at home or in hospital anyway) is inherent, unavoidable. The same cannot be said for the risks associated with the non-medically-necessary cosmetic procedure of removing the foreskin of a newborn infant!


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoBecGo*
> 
> Yes but once the baby is in there it has to come out! So the risk of death (which where i am, UK, is the same at home or in hospital anyway) is inherent, unavoidable. The same cannot be said for the risks associated with the non-medically-necessary cosmetic procedure of removing the foreskin of a newborn infant!


Yes, once Baby is there, Baby has to come out. I won't flesh out all of the very real possibilities that Baby could die during or after birth, but I'll say this, there is a very real possibility you can die driving a car, walking to the store, etc., and scaring someone into avoiding a procedure or activity simply because of the possibility of death is a poor argument, IMO. Many homebirthers cannot stand hearing the scare tactics, why do it to someone considering circumcision?

For the record, I don't think this is a sincere thread, but I guess that's neither here nor there.


----------



## GoBecGo (May 14, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Yes, once Baby is there, Baby has to come out. I won't flesh out all of the very real possibilities that Baby could die during or after birth, but I'll say this, there is a very real possibility you can die driving a car, walking to the store, etc., and scaring someone into avoiding a procedure or activity simply because of the possibility of death is a poor argument, IMO. Many homebirthers cannot stand hearing the scare tactics, why do it to someone considering circumcision?
> 
> For the record, I don't think this is a sincere thread, but I guess that's neither here nor there.


In some ways you're preaching to the choir (i AM a homebirther and i agree that "YOUR BABY MIGHT DIE!" is a rubbish argument and shuts people down from listening). But actually the most recent study where i am (UK) found that death is NOT, as far as they could tell, more likely at home (yes 0.4% increase in complication rate for babies of first time mothers, but "complications covered everything from "needing a little suction" to death and deaths were so rare that they couldn't use the data to figure out if death specifically was more likely at home or not), and though one can die in the car, presumably one was using the car for beneficial/convenient reasons when one took that risk of death. As in - you want to go to work every day to support your family and by car is the best way to go - the small risk of death is balanced against supporting your family. But in cosmetic circumcision there are no benefits, so there is nothing to balance the risk against. You could say "it's worth the risk of death if he looks like his father" but the same COULD be said of neonatal rhinoplasty or similar and i doubt anyone would attempt that rationale.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoBecGo*
> 
> In some ways you're preaching to the choir (i AM a homebirther and i agree that "YOUR BABY MIGHT DIE!" is a rubbish argument and shuts people down from listening). But actually the most recent study where i am (UK) found that death is NOT, as far as they could tell, more likely at home (yes 0.4% increase in complication rate for babies of first time mothers, but "complications covered everything from "needing a little suction" to death and deaths were so rare that they couldn't use the data to figure out if death specifically was more likely at home or not), and though one can die in the car, presumably one was using the car for beneficial/convenient reasons when one took that risk of death. As in - you want to go to work every day to support your family and by car is the best way to go - the small risk of death is balanced against supporting your family. But in cosmetic circumcision there are no benefits, so there is nothing to balance the risk against. You could say "it's worth the risk of death if he looks like his father" but the same COULD be said of neonatal rhinoplasty or similar and i doubt anyone would attempt that rationale.


You're free to utilize and rationalize the "dead baby argument" all you want.







I will never think it is a useful or wise tactic in relation to almost any argument of this type - circumcision, elective c-sections, vaccines, homebirth, infant ear piercing, etc.


----------



## GoBecGo (May 14, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> You're free to utilize and rationalize the "dead baby argument" all you want.
> 
> ...


So do you really not feel there's a difference between things with risks and benefits and things with only risks? Or do you just think risks of death are never relevant?


----------



## DoubleDouble (Oct 26, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoBecGo*
> 
> So do you really not feel there's a difference between things with risks and benefits and things with only risks? Or do you just think risks of death are never relevant?


Lots of people feel that risks of death are never relevant TO THEM. Oh no, it's never going to happen to them, everything's gonna be fine. Awful things aren't gonna happen to us, to some other people maybe, but not to us and ours.

That's why those types of arguments don't work most of the time.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Yes, once Baby is there, Baby has to come out. I won't flesh out all of the very real possibilities that Baby could die during or after birth, but I'll say this, there is a very real possibility you can die driving a car, walking to the store, etc., and scaring someone into avoiding a procedure or activity simply because of the possibility of death is a poor argument, IMO. Many homebirthers cannot stand hearing the scare tactics, why do it to someone considering circumcision?
> 
> For the record, I don't think this is a sincere thread, but I guess that's neither here nor there.


One can die driving a car, walking to the store etc... One can die with or without a foreskin. But choosing circumcision is like walking in the middle of the street thinking: well, I might as well get hit by a car on the sidewalk or when crossing the street, so why bother taking precautions?

It is a fact that circumcision carries the risk of death.


----------



## chachamama (Feb 11, 2012)

The whole "we want him to look like his Dad" reason, which is what I most commonly hear, makes absolutely no sense to me. If you have a girl, are you going to get her breast augmentation surgery when she develops so that her breasts look just like her Mamas? Cut or uncut, there is no way a boys penis will look exactly like his dads. Leave them alone, they're perfect.


----------



## imgr8ful (Feb 25, 2005)

how about just leave his perfectly normal body alone and let him decide if he wants to match dad or classmates. it's his body, he should decide what he wants his penis to look like.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to. A boy WILL see his father naked early in life (though, obviously, not later on), and he'll develop his early feelings about sexuality and his sex organs from comparing himself to his father. Having a penis that looks like his father's penis is very different than a little girl not having breasts; she can be told she will grow them later, and that they are a distinguishing feature of a mature woman.


I have not read all responses but you seem to miss that an intact penis -will- look like a circumcised penis when retracted or erect. A basic explanation of anatomy can clear up some of this angst you seem to feel a boy might have about differences. He then can appreciate that in addition to having a penis 'like daddy' his penis has a covering that is sensitive and has its own purpose- gliding action , sensitivity etc.

Jess


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

As for risks, it is just as likely that a circumcised child will need a 2nd corrective surgery to fix circumcision problems as it is that a child left intact in North America might need to be circumcised in their lifetime.

Check circ complications such as adhesions, meatal stenosis and sexual problems that don't manifest to puberty or later- none of these are considered in the stats for circumcision complications because they do not happen directly after the procedure.

I hope you can keep asking questions about this issue

Jessica


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jessjgh1*
> 
> As for risks, it is just as likely that a circumcised child will need a 2nd corrective surgery to fix circumcision problems as it is that a child left intact in North America might need to be circumcised in their lifetime.
> 
> Jessica


I think what you say here may actually be worse than that. From what I've heard about mainstream boards, etc., many boys end up having second & more surgeries to "correct" things after prepuce amputation. I read on here that in a non-circing country, very few men die w/out their foreskins (Finland, maybe? Something like 1 in 10,000 will die w/o his foreskin? It's from memory, which ain't what it used to be!). So, I believe that the rate of re-dos & corrective surgeries are far greater than the number of truly needed circ's on boys who are spared the knife at birth (because, remember the only medically indicated reasons for circ are gangrene, cancer & frostbite). :-(

Sus


----------



## JollyGG (Oct 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to. A boy WILL see his father naked early in life (though, obviously, not later on), and he'll develop his early feelings about sexuality and his sex organs from comparing himself to his father. Having a penis that looks like his father's penis is very different than a little girl not having breasts; she can be told she will grow them later, and that they are a distinguishing feature of a mature woman. In the same vein, a boy obviously doesn't have the same size penis as a grown man, but knows he'll get there. A fundamentally different-looking penis, however, can impact his feelings about his genitals. Similarly, having a penis that looks different from those of most of the other boys in the locker room (when he's in school) might make him feel uncomfortable. MOST middle class, white boys are circumcised in the US (whether this is right or not), so uncirc'd boys in that demographic are in the minority. In the end, what bothers me is that circumcision is a much bigger deal for an adult than for an infant, and what if I don't circumcise him and he later wants to have it done?


Here's the thing - not all circumcised penises look the same. When we were considering this issue my Mom told me that at one point she had to explain to my brothers why theirs didn't look like each others. They were done by different doctors who had slight style differences. I'm assuming they didn't look like my Dad's either though the thing they questioned was looking like each other. I suspect that brothers are more likely to compare penises than father and son.

Some doctors leave more skin some leave less. There are also several different ways to perform a circumcision that leave a slightly different look and different doctors prefer different methods. It's hard to judge on an infant how much skin that person will need as an adult erect male. So, doctors do leave skin for the boy to grow into. This means that, once again, it won't look like Dad's.

A good friend got her son circumcised and it's much looser than they did at the time that her husband got his done. For a matter of fact she was asking me the other day how I kept my son clean when he was a baby as she was having tons of issues with stuff getting under the leftover foreskin. I had to explain that while both our son's had some foreskin my son's also had a sphincter on the end that made this a non issue for us as my son is intact. She's also had to deal with adhesions and other issues we didn't

So basically you may end up having a conversation about differences in look regardless of what you do. I'd rather tell my son "We cut part of your penis off so you'd match Daddy, but they didn't get it quite right", or "They thought it was necessary to cut of part of a boys penis when your Dad was a baby, but we learned that it really isn't, so they didn't do that to you". I know which of those two statements my (now 8 year old) son would want to hear.

If he does want circumcised later in life he can get it done at a time when they know the true eventual size of his penis allowing them to do a better job (making it cosmetically look better), when he's not wearing diapers to get feces on it, and when he can have more effective pain medication.

With circumcision rates changing quickly approaching much less than 50% in many parts of the country it is actually far more likely that if anyone is going to be teased in the locker room it will be the boy missing his foreskin than it is to be the boy with one.


----------



## puddle (Aug 30, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> In the end, what bothers me is that circumcision is a much bigger deal for an adult than for an infant, and what if I don't circumcise him and he later wants to have it done?


This has always confused me. I can't imagine why it would be no big deal for an infant to go through such a difficult and painful surgery. When I held my sweet little boy in my arms, the idea of sending him away from me to have body parts cut off was so abhorrent to me. All I wanted him to know was peace and love, not fear and pain. Even if I knew for a fact that he was going to need this done for some bizarre reason as an adult, there is no way that I could sacrifice my infant son for my adult son. I trust my adult son. He'll be strong enough to handle whatever comes his way. Because I'm his mama, and I will teach him with my strength. His first lesson was the strength it took for me to fight to keep him intact. I'm not afraid of him wanting it done for cosmetic reasons, because I will teach him to love and honor his body. I will teach him to cherish himself and others just the way they are. I will teach him to be himself and stand up for what he knows is right rather than compromise himself and his values to conform with others. I could never teach him these things if his first lesson was for his own mama to reject his body at birth to the point of cosmetic surgery. Whatever you choose to do with your son, it is his first life lesson. Make sure you are comfortable with the lifelong implications of this lesson.

And as for the matching penises, my son very rarely sees his father's penis, although I realize this is different in other families. He sees his young friends' penises more often, and, many of them are intact. And, FWIW, my son LOVES his penis.


----------



## GoBecGo (May 14, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *puddle*
> 
> *This has always confused me*. I can't imagine why it would be no big deal for an infant to go through such a difficult and painful surgery. When I held my sweet little boy in my arms, the idea of sending him away from me to have body parts cut off was so abhorrent to me. All I wanted him to know was peace and love, not fear and pain. Even if I knew for a fact that he was going to need this done for some bizarre reason as an adult, there is no way that I could sacrifice my infant son for my adult son. I trust my adult son. He'll be strong enough to handle whatever comes his way. Because I'm his mama, and I will teach him with my strength. His first lesson was the strength it took for me to fight to keep him intact. I'm not afraid of him wanting it done for cosmetic reasons, because I will teach him to love and honor his body. I will teach him to cherish himself and others just the way they are. I will teach him to be himself and stand up for what he knows is right rather than compromise himself and his values to conform with others. I could never teach him these things if his first lesson was for his own mama to reject his body at birth to the point of cosmetic surgery. Whatever you choose to do with your son, it is his first life lesson. Make sure you are comfortable with the lifelong implications of this lesson.
> 
> And as for the matching penises, my son very rarely sees his father's penis, although I realize this is different in other families. He sees his young friends' penises more often, and, many of them are intact. And, FWIW, my son LOVES his penis.


Me too. I can think of a LOT of physical things i've had to "go through" (teeth extracted, first sexual intercourse, VE's during pregnancy/labour, broken bones to name but a few) which were hard. I wouldn't volunteer my newborn for any of them!


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mama24-7*
> 
> I think what you say here may actually be worse than that. From what I've heard about mainstream boards, etc., many boys end up having second & more surgeries to "correct" things after prepuce amputation. I read on here that in a non-circing country, very few men die w/out their foreskins (Finland, maybe? Something like 1 in 10,000 will die w/o his foreskin? It's from memory, which ain't what it used to be!). So, I believe that the rate of re-dos & corrective surgeries are far greater than the number of truly needed circ's on boys who are spared the knife at birth (because, remember the only medically indicated reasons for circ are gangrene, cancer & frostbite). :-(
> 
> Sus


I totally agree- but I didn't want to haggle on figures that are SO widely used by supposedly unbiased medical sources (AAP and even Canadian use this figure). The figure is still significant. I did specify North America- and I think I had to cut my post short at the time- so it was more ambiguous than I mean (see what happens when things are cut)..

But sadly, the stat is probably fairly accurate to the areas which are not treating the intact penis as normal-- it just should NOT be that high. And despite that they are still only creating more problems than the ones this is supposed to be solving- but families THINK they are preventing things.

So frustrating.... especially when you have an intact child and just think.... what the heck.....


----------



## Lucy&Jude'sMama (Jun 4, 2010)

delete


----------



## Lucy&Jude'sMama (Jun 4, 2010)

oops double post!


----------



## bugmenot (May 29, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lucy&Jude'sMama*
> 
> My son is intact. His dad (my partner) is not. My partner never had a problem with his penis because he NEVER KNEW WHAT HE WAS MISSING! Think about it? Adult men who were circumcised as infants... why would they complain? They don't remember having an intact penis.


Unfortunately, I think this is one of the "reasons" to do it, as oft-quoted.

"It's better to do it when he's a baby, because he won't remember it."

Many people who are circumcised have no problem with being circumcised because they don't look into it, and as far as they know, it works "normally", so why should they investigate what they're supposedly missing?

Yuck.


----------



## mereleighkins (Mar 19, 2012)

We chose not to circumcise our son and I am glad every day that we did not. Even though he doesn't "look" like any other male in our family, we know we made the right decision. Just google image a picture of a circumstraint board and also read the "regretting circ'ing" posts. If it isn't necessary, don't do it. Also, it isn't your decision to make - it is his.


----------



## tonttu (Dec 24, 2010)

I think , one should only circumsize , when there is a real medical need !

And preferably , when the owner of the foreskin is old enough to speak for himself , but a routine circumsition is not only unnecessary , but painful and can also come with riks attached , so if there is no real need , why bother ?


----------



## crayfishgirl (May 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sosurreal09*
> 
> 117 babies in the US alone die every year from it.


Do you have a source for this? I'm sending my SIL info on circ due with a boy in July. I've been trying to give her info in a calm, objective manner even though my brain is screaming NOOOOOOOO!. My sister circumcised her two boys and I'm worried that she'll have a greater influence over her. Honestly, the thought of her doing that to her newborn makes me want to cry.


----------



## nd_deadhead (Sep 22, 2005)

It's hard to come up with a definitive number, since circumcision deaths are not always recorded as such. Cause of death will be listed as "hemmorage", or "infection" or something. Automobile death statistics don't come from hospitals, but from police reports.

My Dad died of lung cancer, but his death certificate says "natural causes".

I think the fact that babies DO die from circumcision complications is shocking and important all by itself, without attaching a number to it. Just one healthy baby dying as a result of an unnecessary operation is one too many, isn't it?

Here is a link:

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1343851/i-am-trying-to-decide-whether-to-circumcise/60#post_16931087


----------



## tonttu (Dec 24, 2010)

One argument for circumsition I heard is , that it is easier to keep yourself clean as a man , since " stuff " cannot collect under the ( missing ) foreskin and cause infections , but for me , that´s kind of a lame reason to justify it .


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tonttu*
> 
> One argument for circumsition I heard is , that it is easier to keep yourself clean as a man , since " stuff " cannot collect under the ( missing ) foreskin and cause infections , but for me , that´s kind of a lame reason to justify it .


But we don't cut off eyelids, earlobes or outer nose parts.. they all do the same function as the foreskin.. protect an inner organ! I don't think Ma Nature makes mistakes.


----------



## Cyllya (Jun 10, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tonttu*
> 
> One argument for circumsition I heard is , that it is easier to keep yourself clean as a man , since " stuff " cannot collect under the ( missing ) foreskin and cause infections , but for me , that´s kind of a lame reason to justify it .


Yeah, if that were a reason they actually believed in, they'd advocate circ'ing girls. It seems way easier to clean off intact penises than intact vulvas. Anytime I take a shower with my DP, I can hardly resist shaking my fist at God, 'cause it's so unfair to us gals. (Okay, okay, in God's defense, the disparity only really exists for showers, rather than other bathing methods.)

Plus dirt can still get caught in the scar tissue or in the framents of foreskin left behind by a "loose" circ.


----------



## tonttu (Dec 24, 2010)

Exactly !!!

I mean , if we´d follow THIS logic " it´s so much cleaner ! "







, I´m sure , we´d find all kinds of other body parts as well , that we could just chop off for the sake of " improved hygiene "


----------



## JenRave (May 12, 2011)

.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JenRave*
> 
> I am not sure circumcision is an absolute horror on males as it is on females, but I do think it's a cruel and unnecessary addition of unneeded pain to a baby's first few days of life.


Actualy, in general terms, circumcision is worse. When we hear of female circumcision, or FGM, everyone tends to think of the most severe form that involves excision of the clitoris, clitoral hood, labia, and even sometimes involves infibulation. The fact is that only about 10% of FGM is anything like that. The vast majority of cases involve nothing more that a little nick. Just enough to draw blood. Incidentaly, that is more or less how circumcision started out being performed by the jews. It wasn't until some of them participated in the olympic games, where the greeks viewed an exposed glans as indecent, and they kept their foreskin forward, that the rabbis came up with a much more radical form involving complete excision of the foreskin.

The pain suffered by a baby boy undergoing a circumcision is only a small part of the equation, which in itself can have lifelong psychological implications. However, he also looses the five most sensitive parts of his penis; his sexual function is compromised for ever; the sexual satisfaction experienced by his partners is compromised; and he is much more likely to experience ED issues earlier than his intact counterparts.

You might find the following interesting:

www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/prepuce.html

www.boystoo.com/medical/conversion.htm

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumcision-is-child-abuse-picture.html


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakunangovi*
> 
> Actualy, in general terms, circumcision is worse. When we hear of female circumcision, or FGM, everyone tends to think of the most severe form that involves excision of the clitoris, clitoral hood, labia, and even sometimes involves infibulation. The fact is that only about 10% of FGM is anything like that. The vast majority of cases involve nothing more that a little nick. Just enough to draw blood. Incidentaly, that is more or less how circumcision started out being performed by the jews. It wasn't until some of them participated in the olympic games, where the greeks viewed an exposed glans as indecent, and they kept their foreskin forward, that the rabbis came up with a much more radical form involving complete excision of the foreskin.
> 
> ...


Wow. I hadn't seen that last photo essay.. that's very moving and I'll have to link to it in some of my posts.


----------



## allisonrose (Oct 22, 2004)

I tend to chime in when the locker room gets mentioned. I am married to an intact man. I have asked him about that and he told me that no teen boy wanted to be caught looking at another guy's penis so there was never any comments about intact vs cut. He played football with a good friend throughout high school and only knows he is also intact because the friend mentioned not circling his sons. And again the circumcision rate is declining. Perhaps at some point parents planning to circumcise will wonder about locker room teasing.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakunangovi*
> 
> You might find the following interesting:
> 
> ...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> Wow. I hadn't seen that last photo essay.. that's very moving and I'll have to link to it in some of my posts.


For those of us who are very sensitive to this stuff, the last link above has graphic (or to me graphic) images. I feel they are important, but I try to steer clear of them because then I can't sleep :-(.

Sus


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mama24-7*
> 
> For those of us who are very sensitive to this stuff, the last link above has graphic (or to me graphic) images. I feel they are important, but I try to steer clear of them because then I can't sleep :-(.
> 
> Sus


Ah, but it might be just the kind of thing to sway a parent. When I look at those pictures, I see human rights violations. The kids are in so much obvious pain and in most cases are being held down somehow.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *allisonrose*
> 
> I tend to chime in when the locker room gets mentioned. I am married to an intact man. I have asked him about that and he told me that no teen boy wanted to be caught looking at another guy's penis so there was never any comments about intact vs cut. He played football with a good friend throughout high school and only knows he is also intact because the friend mentioned not circling his sons. And again the circumcision rate is declining. Perhaps at some point parents planning to circumcise will wonder about locker room teasing.


I spent all 12 years of grade school in boys boarding schools that had totaly open, communal shower rooms. What you say is correct - in high school. Prior to that homophobia was not on anyone's radar. In elementary school we all looked, we all knew everyone's status, but it did not matter. It was just accepted that there were two different kinds of penis. I do not recall one single instance of teasing based on circumcision status. Incidentaly the ratio was about 2/3 circumcised, 1/3 intact.


----------



## Goodmom2008 (Dec 14, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> I'm trying to decide whether or not to circumcise. We're not religious, but I want him to look like his father, who is circumcised.


When my son, who is not 12 and still intact, was a year old, my circumcised ex found out that his father was intact. All the while he was growing up, he didn't have a clue. To look like their father is really a grasping at straws argument. One that really is extremely flawed. It's your son's penis, it's not medically necessary at all, it should be your son's choice. He is the one who is going to have to live with his penis, after all. Not you.


----------



## Goodmom2008 (Dec 14, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to.


Only if you are looking for a reason to take away your son's right to choose what his penis looks like.

BTW, my intact son did see his circumcised Dad naked when he was a toddler. He did not make one comment at all. And he doesn't really remember. Seriously, there is no validity at all to the "looking like father" argument. At all.

And my ex and his father are a perfect example of that.


----------



## homeschoolingmama (Jun 15, 2007)

I would rather leave my sons intact and let them decide later than circumcise and make the wrong decision for them. No going back.

My 21yo brother was in football growing up. He is intact. He said no guy would be caught dead looking at another guy's junk.

My sons are intact and my husband is not. The only difference my sons have noticed is the size difference.


----------



## Dan Bollinger (Aug 13, 2006)

Quote:



> 117 babies in the US alone die every year from it.


That's from my study, Lost boys: An estimate of US circumcision-related infant deaths.*

Anyone struggling with this decision should really check out Circumcision Decision-Maker. It takes you through a process so you don't get so confused.

*Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, 2010;4(1):78-90.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer*
> 
> I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to. A boy WILL see his father naked early in life (though, obviously, not later on), and he'll develop his early feelings about sexuality and his sex organs from comparing himself to his father. Having a penis that looks like his father's penis is very different than a little girl not having breasts; she can be told she will grow them later, and that they are a distinguishing feature of a mature woman. In the same vein, a boy obviously doesn't have the same size penis as a grown man, but knows he'll get there. A fundamentally different-looking penis, however, can impact his feelings about his genitals. Similarly, having a penis that looks different from those of most of the other boys in the locker room (when he's in school) might make him feel uncomfortable. MOST middle class, white boys are circumcised in the US (whether this is right or not), so uncirc'd boys in that demographic are in the minority. In the end, what bothers me is that circumcision is a much bigger deal for an adult than for an infant, and what if I don't circumcise him and he later wants to have it done?


*sigh*

My 48 year old intact brother grew up in a time when almost all boys here were circ'd. My father was circ'd. My brother didn't grow up with any issue about his penis (sadly, he once had a girlfriend who suffered from MASSIVE oversharing, so I know WAY more about this than I ever wanted to!).

My oldest son is 19. I kept him intact in a time when many (don't have exact stats) boys here were circ'd. My ex was circ'd. DS1's only comment on the subect of circ is "holy crap - they do that? WHY? I'd kill anyone who tried to take off my foreskin!".

DS2 is almost 7, and intact. DH is also circ'd. DS2 has never noticed that daddy's penis is "different". What he has noticed is that his penis can do a "neat trick", which he thinks is really cool.

And, this one is very easy to explain to a boy, if said boy should ever express any curiousity. Dad just has to say, "when I was a baby, my parents thought it was best to cut off my foreskin, but now we know better, so we didn't do that to you". Done. Trust me - a child isn't going to want a part amputated just because a parent had that part amputated (eg. I've known parents who are missing a digit or an eye, and their children have never had any interest in losing those parts to "match"). This is a ridiculous line of thought.


----------



## Dan Bollinger (Aug 13, 2006)

Quote:

Originally Posted by *LaneyMeyer* 

I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to.

Actually, only about 2/3 of boys ever see their father nude, and when they do, it's not the foreskin they notice as being different, but rather size and hair! This is a bogus argument. If there were any psychological substance to it at all, circumcision would have never caught on because boys would have remained intact in order to look like their intact dad!


----------

