# The case FOR circumcision



## JLUK (Jun 16, 2015)

This forum is about the case 'against' cutting, yet I am interested to understand the case FOR. 

When I look down at myself in the shower, I wonder, why would anyone have a foreskin cut off willingly ? 

I would very much appreciate suggestions as to why my not having a foreskin is better then when I did have a perfectly good one. 

Please, to those of you who cut your sons or who are yourselves cut, be frank and honest. My own experience is very negative, but I really would appreciate insight into why it could be positive, what am I missing ? (so to speak). Am not looking to preach my experience, just to understand how others see it or live it in a good way. I could do with seeing some upside.

And as I have just come from the shower, please dont chant 'hygene' at me. To someone who can clean himself as and when he wants, that just doesnt wash !


----------



## MountainMamaGC (Jun 23, 2008)

My hubby had BXO and it would not heal. It was very painful. He enjoyed having a foreskin before things went wrong with it in his 30s. It was not a decision he made lightly. He now enjoys sex without pain BUT there is decreased sensation. We have a son now and there is no way he would ever do that to a baby.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

MountainMamaGC said:


> My hubby had BXO and it would not heal. It was very painful. He enjoyed having a foreskin before things went wrong with it in his 30s. It was not a decision he made lightly. He now enjoys sex without pain BUT there is decreased sensation. We have a son now and there is no way he would ever do that to a baby.


BXO has generally been the one condition that did warrant a circumcision because it is apparently quite difficult to treat. I have read that success has been achieved through the use of Carbon Dioxide lasers. Was your hubby offered this option to try?

The good news is that BXO is quite rare.


----------



## JLUK (Jun 16, 2015)

To the 2 posters above : Any upside or positive news to report on being cut ?


----------



## MountainMamaGC (Jun 23, 2008)

hakunangovi said:


> BXO has generally been the one condition that did warrant a circumcision because it is apparently quite difficult to treat. I have read that success has been achieved through the use of Carbon Dioxide lasers. Was your hubby offered this option to try?
> 
> The good news is that BXO is quite rare.


We live in a fairly isolated community so we did not have to ability to access this treatment.


----------



## MountainMamaGC (Jun 23, 2008)

JLUK said:


> To the 2 posters above : Any upside or positive news to report on being cut ?


I asked my husband and he says no. He would rather have his foreskin back. The only upside is that it cured his condition. As for me his partner, I prefer the way it was as well. A foreskin moves during sex which is more comfortable for me, so we need a lot more lube than we used to. I realize as far as north american women go I am rare but most European women feel the same way I do.


----------



## MountainMamaGC (Jun 23, 2008)

JLUK said:


> To the 2 posters above : Any upside or positive news to report on being cut ?


I asked my husband and he says no. He would rather have his foreskin back. The only upside is that it cured his condition. As for me his partner, I prefer the way it was as well. A foreskin moves during sex which is more comfortable for me, so we need a lot more lube than we used to. I realize as far as north american women go I am rare but most European women feel the same way I do.


----------



## Ron_Low (May 11, 2007)

JLUK said:


> This forum is about the case 'against' cutting, yet I am interested to understand the case FOR.
> 
> When I look down at myself in the shower, I wonder, why would anyone have a foreskin cut off willingly ?


If they're suffering from something that someone has convinced them circumcision will fix, then they'd be willing and perhaps grateful to be cut. Often, there exist less destructive alternatives that are not shared with patients.

One thing circumcision can cure is taunting from ignorant or non-compassionate folks, but the less-destructive alternative in that case would likely be to just cut those folks out of your life.


----------



## JLUK (Jun 16, 2015)

ps, sympathise with the comment on lube. Never had to use it when complete, often need to now to avoid the feeling of rawness, really dont enjoy the stuff. The natural foreskin glide is just awesome for a man.


----------



## abostonfamily (Dec 18, 2015)

I personally am anti-circumcision that being said it can be a hygiene/health concern. I'll give 3 examples ranging from gross to medically valid.

1. In college, a friend called me freaking out about her uncircumsized bf. Post-sex and post-shower they were messing around again and he still had "funk" under the foreskin. Clearly no one had taught him or emphasized highly enough proper hygiene.

2. It is my understanding that the risk of contracting certain STI's like HIV/AIDS is increased slightly by having foreskin due to fluids being trapped in or small tears more likely. Something like that. 

3. I personally know 2 families who had sons who had to undergo circumcision later in their youth due to recurrent infections. So not only did they end up undergoing circumcision anyway but they also had to deal with recurrent infections (frequent and severe).

I suspect for the vast majority of boys/men who practice good hygiene/safe sex it isn't an issue, but since you asked for reasons, I am throwing those out there.


----------



## WallaWallaMamma (Dec 14, 2013)

I don't know if this adds to your conversation or not, but circumcision is an integral element of a boy being welcomed into the Jewish community ( the bris ). I cannot imagine breaking with thousands of years of cultural tradition for my own sons, and frankly, I don't think it is a big deal when done young. I understand that it is a shock to go through as an adult. I'm sorry if my callousness hurts anyone's feelings, but I just don't see the magnitude of this issue compared, say, to the unnaturally high American C-section rates and accompanying health risks. If you're against it, don't do it. Why do you want to be convinced otherwise?


----------



## JLUK (Jun 16, 2015)

WallaWallaMamma said:


> Why do you want to be convinced otherwise?


Am looking for some natural reasons why my not having a foreskin is better then when I had a perfectly good one. Religion is an aside, I'm not applying to get into a mosque or synagogue.

Hygene : America has high cut rates, and high STD rates compared to other developed countries. Somethings odd. For example Europeans, for all their foreskins, have Chlamydia rates 40 times lower than the US - what goes on over there ?

As I started with, hygene just doesnt seem to wash as a natural upside reason for cutting off a healthy foreskin, as other developed countries have evolved to accept medically, culturally and socially over the last 50 years (religious influences on those excluded). You are either a consciously clean person or you dont give a damn. If it isnt clean down there, then fingernails etc are probably in the same state. And when you see the rows of female intimacy hygene products in the shops, keeping that area clean is a challenge both sides share. Both sexes have bad odour etc experiences with the other. My wife is not perfect, but I dont send her off to the surgeon to remove her loose skin which does occasionally trap 'gunk'.

Or is the upside message that I really dont need to be so careful in my cleaning anymore, or use protection since there is less risk of infection (to me) ? by the way, I am more susceptible to tears now, given the reduced foreskin movement and increased friction/rawness. I am more exposed and feel more at risk.

The above posts are the classic social for/against arguments when looking down at a baby boy, and well versed. I was hoping for something with a bit more "happy man" upside, as I look down at myself - and then look to my future.

Telling me it would have been easier to get used to if I had it done young does not help much either - for example one would get used to the discomfort and handicap of growing up say without a thumb too if it had been cut off when a baby. I dont see the upside as a man in getting used to something which is less, whatever time in life it was removed. "Getting used to it" is consolation, not upside, it does not offer any "yippeee" factor.

'its no big deal' ? I magine the response to a thread from a man giving that view on female cutting, even the lowest grade (just labia removal), for hygene, religion or whatever. The pages of stories of 'regret' in this forum are testament to it being a big deal. I am far from being alone in seeking upside.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

JLUK said:


> To the 2 posters above : Any upside or positive news to report on being cut ?


I can't offer any upside at all. I was circumcised in infancy and the only time that I was ever totally at peace with it was prior to the age of six when I was oblivious to what had been done to me.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

abostonfamily said:


> I personally am anti-circumcision that being said it can be a hygiene/health concern. I'll give 3 examples ranging from gross to medically valid.
> 
> 1. In college, a friend called me freaking out about her uncircumsized bf. Post-sex and post-shower they were messing around again and he still had "funk" under the foreskin. Clearly no one had taught him or emphasized highly enough proper hygiene.
> 
> ...


I have to comment on your last two reasons, since they are typically what the pro circ crowd throw out to validate their position.

2. All those so called studies that profess to prove that circumcision protects against HIV etc have been disproven. The sad fact is that, among first world countries, the U.S. has by far the highest percentage of circumcised males, yet also the highest incidence of HIV etc.

3. Infections in children are most often caused by bad advice from the medical profession. A foreskin is a self cleaning organ, and until at least puberty does not need to be retracted and "cleaned" underneath. It is perfectly designed to keep contaminants out and the preputial cavity is flushed out each time the boy pees. Urine is sterile until it exits the body. Retraction is only for sex. So I would be willing to bet that both those boys who "had to be circumcised" were victims of bad advice given to their parents. Also, like girls, the introduction of soap in the genitalia will often disrupt the normal balance of flora and cause irritation and odours. This, then often illicits more vigorous "cleaning" and the situation gets worse until some doctor advises them to amputate the unfortunate boy's foreskin. If they had left it alone in the first place, he would have been fine.

I like to quote the statistic from Finland, a non circumcising nation with exceptional health records: Only one man in over 16,600 will die without his foreskin. Clearly something is seriously amiss in the U.S. with such a high rate of 'medically indicated" circumcisions.


----------



## JLUK (Jun 16, 2015)

Over 600 viewers have nothing positive to report ? I was expecting at least a little glimmer that there is something good in this for me

Post note : Delete request made - my sarcastic frustration to lack of response was pompous and inappropriate provocation


----------



## Dule114az (Jan 12, 2016)

Decreases the rates for STD transmission, penile cancer, and UTIs in men. I can't tell you how many foreskins I've retracted in a hospital setting to insert catheters, both 6 days old and 90 years old, and discovered prevalent smegma. Your tone is pompous, yet you could have googled these things and researched yourself. Instead you take 12 responses and 700 views as a universal answer. And truth is, there isn't. It's a cultural, religious, preference type of thing. My dad was circumcised after birth and so was I. My wife thinks uncircumcised penises are disgusting and completely unattractive. If I have a boy one day you can bet he'll be circumcised. I sure don't not have a good time with sex. Foreskin certainly has nothing to do with female lubrication and readiness when it comes to sex unless she has a specific preference. The idea of thrusting in my own inexistent foreskin to stimulate myself sounds gross and like I'm cheating myself when the entire time I'm rubbing on her with every thrust instead of a skin tube (Because I have no foreskin). 

In the end it comes down to cleanliness. One man is not like the other 3,500,000,000 others.


----------



## JLUK (Jun 16, 2015)

I have Googled STDs, just to get an approximate picture of hygene results. As you can see below, the off-the-scale rates in the US compared to other developed countries, despite its exceptionally high circumcision rates must suggest strongly that there is indeed a cleanliness issue going on, but that cutting is not helping, or protecting anyone effectively. US has a chlamydia rate of 1 per 250 persons, in Europe the average is around 1 per 10/15.000 despite its having a whole load more foreskins. Gonorrhea is also around 20 times more prevelant. Those arent small numbers or minor differences. Whatever the reason, people clearly arnt getting very good information or advice, and 50 yrs of cutting has not resolved much.

If you are poking around infected STD territory, its going to get into your penis pee-tube, where it sits and avoids cleaning, thats the main problem and it happens with or without a foreskin. And if you have washed after you poke, any infection bits on the outside are largely cleaned off, with or without a foreskin. Not being clean is the issue. Or what have I missed, in practical terms ? its a misleading and false sense of security to suggest cutting keeps you safer, as the stats, and common sense, point to.

Most women take time to keep their private parts clean. Its not that hard, if you respect yourself and your partner.

Is removing your foreskin, and still not cleaning, any better at keeping a man hygenic? is it OK for me to now say, "darling, I havnt washed, but its OK, as I dont have a foreskin".

_ 
Simple graph summary : _

_Europe - most men have foreskins, but STDs very low_
_USA - most men over the same period didnt have foreskins, but STDs abnormally high_
_Does the claim that cutting reduces STDs really stand, in practical terms ? _


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Dule114az said:


> Decreases the rates for STD transmission, penile cancer, and UTIs in men. It's a cultural, religious, preference type of thing. My dad was circumcised after birth and so was I. My wife thinks uncircumcised penises are disgusting and completely unattractive. If I have a boy one day you can bet he'll be circumcised. I sure don't not have a good time with sex.


Circumcision has nothing to to do with a decrease in rates for STDs etc. That is all hogwash propagated by a ignorant (of normal, intact male genitalia) medical profession in the U.S. in order to perpetuate a 1.5 billion cash cow.

You should watch the video "The Elephant in the Hospital", available on Youtube in order to understand that a foreskin is not "just skin", but a valuable organ in it's own right. It is rather arrogant to suggest that Nature/God (depending on your view of creation) made a mistake.

I hope your future son forgives you for what are planning to subject him to. You will not have the luxury of claiming ignorance as was the case in previous generations prior to the internet.

Your sex life might seem great now, but you have no idea what it might have been like had you been left whole, and studies have shown that, on average, an intact man's sex life extends 10 years longer that that of a circumcised man.

Culture is a powerful thing!


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

To address the original question: As an American woman born in a generation when nearly all boys were circumcised, all of my sexual experience has been with circumcised men. I have generally found their penises visually and texturally appealing and sexually satisfying. That doesn't mean I think circumcision is a good idea (and I didn't do it to my son) or that I have purposely avoided uncut men, but my lovers' being circumcised has not been a problem for me except for the one poor guy who'd been cut too tightly. That's about as positive as I can get, and it doesn't give a good reason for removing a healthy foreskin--I don't think there IS a good reason for that--but I'm saying that the typical circumcised penis is an attractive and useful item.

JLUK: Washing your genitals after sex--male or female, intact or cut--has little to no effect in reducing the odds of catching an STD if you've just had sex with an infected partner. The difference in STD prevalence in the U.S. vs. Europe has much more to do with American attitudes that foster cheating and lying in sexual relationships and under-use of condoms, and with higher prevalence of STDs on this continent that began when our troops brought home new cases and new strains of bacteria to mix into the population after the world wars and Vietnam. I agree that comparing STD rates and circumcision rates in the U.S. and Europe sure doesn't show a benefit for circumcision, but that doesn't mean it proves the opposite case, any more than Europe's lower rates of teen motherhood prove that European women become fertile at a later age--they don't; they are more conscientious and better educated about safe sex than American women on average. The studies about STDs and circumcision that _may_ have a valid point were conducted in Africa, which has high rates of both. It may be true that foreskin somewhat increases STD risk. Still, I'd rather teach my son to choose partners carefully and practice safe sex than have a healthy part of his body amputated, and I think that would be a wiser approach to public health in general.



> Is removing your foreskin, and still not cleaning, any better at keeping a man hygenic?


During recovery from the surgery, I'm absolutely certain it makes things worse. I shudder to think what it must be like to change the diaper of a newly circumcised boy. But once it's healed, yes, I would think it must be easier to clean just one layer of skin than to clean in between two layers. Again, I have no direct experience, as the only intact penis I've handled is my son's and only before he was retractable. But when I have watched intact men clean themselves in the shower, it looks simple to get really clean, and most of the process is accomplished simply by letting water run over the penis--so yes, I think the level of hygiene that could be achieved without really trying would be higher.

Overall, I don't think that there's much of a case FOR circumcision, but I also don't think you started this thread to be open to hearing about what case anyone might be willing to make, because you're slamming back hard at everyone who's said anything positive. I'm sorry you were circumcised.


----------



## JLUK (Jun 16, 2015)

Please be assured there is plenty of lying and cheating going on over here too. Living in France, I sometimes wonder if its considered rude not to try.

i accept my inexperienced and frustrated posting tone can be inappropriate, but I am just trying to highlight painful inconsistencies between what I am told and what I am now seeing for myself. so I have tried to edit/delete my earlier responses accordingly, being credible with the time I invest discussing this issue is important to me.

From the OP start I specifically asked to avoid the hygene related discussion (ie smells, STDs, other later in life medical issues etc) as for me it did not really 'wash much' as an upside to a person who already had good hygene. I was very open that I was interested in alternative positive feedback. Accept the scold on my tone, but not my intentions, I was upfront and repeated the request. 

But since hygene related issues have been more or less the only points raised so far, may I give my general observation : I just think its obvious that its not a particularly interesting benefit if you know from childhood that you have to clean yourself maticulously, foreskin or no foreskin. Thats how I was raised. you knew that if you dont look after it, you pay a hygene price in various forms in life, including losing it (the ultimate threat) and believe me after 45 yrs I confirm that its not that difficult to look after, if you are taught to care - for yourself, and your partner. And cutting it off does not remove or even reduce the need to care down there either. 


I will agree that a dirty man with a foreskin is worse than a dirty man without one and will suffer or inflict hygene issues more - its obvious, but both are trouble as a partner. However a clean responsible man is just that, foreskin or no foreskin, with the right attitude and respect to himself and his partner, .

As a practical observation : since being cut I definitely sense I am lazier in cleaning myself down there and much less inclined to use a condom (since being cut I feel very little when I wear one now). Is my standard of hygene/sex care actually dropping, even though I thought I was pretty good ? Am I becoming subconsciously more distant in my relationship with my penis, and carefree ? I am certainly not closer to it. If thats common with some men cut from birth, its not a good practical result. 


The parallels above between recent high STD rates and high cut rates in the active males over the same period cant be ignored or swept away lightly. So I wonder :
- do some men think 'Im cut, Im OK, no worries down there', resulting in an element of hygene carefreeness ? 
- could this end up in being less responsible in sex too? 
- is the low condom use levels you suggest linked, like it is for me, to reduced sensitivity ? note that I buy condoms extra thin, marketed as extra sensitive and optmised for circumcised men, so its a recognised issue. 
- Does being around a cut penis give a girl a false sense of security? 

Its just speculation, as I am far away and just looking at numbers. But the stats really raise the question that the hygene case from the Drs office - particularly the sexual hygene upside - is not translating into good sexual practice by cut men out in the field. Whats gone wrong ? It clearly questions mind sets. My thought is that its better for a boy to understand that he is responsible for cleaning his foreskin, because its really worth keeping, rather then taking it away. Its good general hygene and sexual awareness learning, which may be lost between boy and parent if they think they have dealt with the issue/conversation simply by cutting it off. Total speculation, I had girls. But between natural schoolboys, we all knew what we had to do down there. If cut men are also less inclined to use condoms, thats not good either. Bottom line, hygene is an obvious personal responsibility not to be compromised - foreskin or no foreskin, there should be no difference. Hence my request not to raise it in this thread.

Aesthetics ? : appreciate the goodwill behind the thought. Careful with your message, a well cut vagina with the loose skin removed may be much prettier too. Genital aesthetics is questionable social pressure for either sex. For the record, I felt I looked magnificent, sleek and mobile before, much praised by my wife - compared to the kinda chopped up and more fixed stump I now have. Its not been a pretty trade up, for me, and I really miss that full length glide.

Feel sorry for the "poor guy cut too tight". It would seem having an aesthetically pleasing and hygenic cut will be of little consolation to him. Its a real risk and unrepairable. Its a huge and unspoken negative.

So back to the beginning please: other than the highly personal hygene related stuff, is there anything else I can look to as upside ? and as I said in my OP, its a question loaded with doubt, based on what Ive experienced so far. But Im open, for my own sake.


----------



## JLUK (Jun 16, 2015)

EnviroBecca said:


> I'm sorry you were circumcised.


Side note, to share a lesson from my toils : ladies please dont try pushing an erect penis downwards (towards his knees). Its not designed to go that way - under that pressure, it can 'pop' a vein. Its very very rare, but worth skipping some acrobatics to avoid.

Appreciate the sorry. I got unlucky one lazy afternoon with my lifelong partner. Im not looking for pity tho, I just want my bewilderment at my trip from one state to another to serve a useful informative purpose on this forum and to add some reality to a discussion that to me so often seems detached from it, full of theoretical misconceptions, easy maintenance of a baby and little on the longer term considerations.


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

I have a friend who circumcised- there's a specific medical condition that causes hte need for circumcision as an adult that runs in both her and her husband's family. Because there's almost 100% certainty that their son will _need_ to be circumcised, they decided it was a kindness to do it sooner.

There absolutely are medical conditions where circumcising is necessary, or that it reduces other problems.

But, yeah, don't get why they'd cut a healthy body part off a healthy body. Any other part and it sounds barbaric.


----------



## JLUK (Jun 16, 2015)

sillysapling said:


> they decided it was a kindness to do it sooner.


Parents with past experience know best on such a tough call. The romantic in me thinks "its better to have loved and lost then never loved at all " (yeah, I loved my foreskin), but have to warn of the risk of the 'WTF?' confusion and mourning in your head once lost. That mourning is greatest if the foreskin was perfectly healthy and not giving any problems, as was my case. In the very few cases that it causes adult problems, like being too tight/causing repeated infections, the men I know have been OK with getting rid of it and digest the consequences fine.

This is off topic, but since its raised, may I share my experience :

Some men seem to have the ability to 'get over it' - especially if they gave consent. Other men less so. Looking back, thats been the painful part of the procedure, more so than the surgery itself. Most women I speak with, even in Europe, tend not to understand why it can be difficult - which adds to the frustration. "Its no big deal" to quote an earlier post. They do get it when you suggest it can feel, to the man, like the female emotional equivalent of having your nose cut short. Its there, in front of you, every goddam day.

Once you get used to the daily discomfort of having your gland exposed all the time (which is not fun, and contributes to it becoming numb with sensitivity loss) your are left to deal with the reality that having sex can become a whole different ball game - and underwhelming by comparison. For me that was the real loss. This thread was started in the hope of finding upside compensation for that.

The discussion between 'those that have' and 'those that never had' is also kinda blocked. When I had a foreskin I certainly avoided the conversation, for fear of upsetting. The discussion is usually rather futile anyway, each side tends to think theirs is best and neither side really knowing what the other is talking about. Its like 2 parallel universes.

The most revealing discussion on the subject would be between men who share the experience of being cut as adults. I am sure the whole issue would take a huge leap forward - if only in the sharing of relevant and credible information gathered from experience in both universes. But there are not many of us. And we tend to keep our heads down, the discussion with the outside world is rarely welcome, and always provocative. I applaud this forum for offering the opportunity to speak and share. I wish there were more cut-as-adult men, or partners of, on this forum to exchange with.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

sillysapling said:


> I have a friend who circumcised- there's a specific medical condition that causes hte need for circumcision as an adult that runs in both her and her husband's family. Because there's almost 100% certainty that their son will _need_ to be circumcised, they decided it was a kindness to do it sooner.
> 
> But, yeah, don't get why they'd cut a healthy body part off a healthy body. Any other part and it sounds barbaric.


Just curious what the condition was? Previous to your post I was never aware of a condition that affected foreskins that was hereditary.

Your last sentence typifies the general opinion in the U.S. What I don't understand is why cutting off a foreskin does not seem barbaric to most, if not all people. Once one steps back and views circumcision for what it is - cosmetic surgery on the genitalia of a baby - it can only be seen as bizarre.


----------



## Ron_Low (May 11, 2007)

sillysapling said:


> I have a friend who circumcised- there's a specific medical condition that causes hte need for circumcision as an adult that runs in both her and her husband's family. Because there's almost 100% certainty that their son will _need_ to be circumcised, they decided it was a kindness to do it sooner.
> 
> There absolutely are medical conditions where circumcising is necessary


A) I would certainly want more details about such an exceedingly rare condition, and I'm flabbergasted that by sheer chance it happens to run in both the families of two people who just happened to marry.

B) Assuming the condition exists, one must question whether circumcision is in fact the best remedy. Perhaps less-destructive remedies were never investigated due to medical malpractice.

C) Even assuming adult circumcision was the best course in the past, the child has rights. Any decision that can be safely deferred until he can give rational informed input should be deferred.

D) ESPECIALLY in the case where adult circumcision may someday be needed, it is the height of arrogance to assume that no treatment breakthroughs will occur during the time between now and when treatment can no longer be postponed.

I ain't buying it.


----------



## Mitchell756 (Oct 14, 2012)

They do it because they can, and they do it to children on the basis that it will be permanent. These are the only reasons for it. The only way to put an end to this practice is to undue it. This will remove any reason or power associated with it and put the true damage of it in a place that is impossible to deny. I have and will continue to support Foregen to this end.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

There are zero reasons for a healthy newborn to have his foreskin removed. 
American's do it because:
1)it's what they know. They do it without thought. Some don't even know it's an option not to do. 
2) They think it looks better/matches dad. As if what they like in a penis is important. I find it creepy.
3)They believe all the bunkum of so called health benefits which are all based on straw men that people have made up.
4)They do all of the above because they don't know the functions of the foreskin, the benefits it gives and so don't see value in it.

I see nothing positive in it at all only a child deprived of a healthy body part, whose rights have been violated. I guess some woman might iron out a few of their wrinkles using face cream made on baby foreskins, so a positive for them. Then of course the companies and Doctors are making money cutting them off and selling lube and later Viagra so win win win for them. Probably also keeps American urologists in business as they repair the botched ones.

I see American mothers cry over a tongue tie clip but hand their sons over willingly for a circumcision. makes no sense to me.


----------



## HelloSweetie619 (Feb 9, 2016)

My son is cut. It was something my husband and I agreed on from day one. I read a lot of information and all major medical groups suggest that it is not something the suggest universally for all babies they say it is a personal choice. Basically I found that there is no black or white answer. There are pros and cons to both sides. Contrary to what I was told in parenting groups there are still medical benefits to being cut there are studies to support it. However these issues are not common and can be avoided by proper cleaning. So basically everything lead me back to there is no right or wrong it's a personal choice for parents to make. It's between them and their doctor. At the end of the days it's not something you need to talk about it's a private decision. 

The thing I hate is when people just assume I did no research and just went with the flow and that's absolutely not true. Even though my son is cut I did research. My research just found me in a place of the medical community is neutral on it. They don't tell you an answer one way or the other they are clear that it's a personal choice.


----------



## Ratchet (Mar 24, 2011)

I agree with the idea of allowing a child to decide. However from what I can tell from observing lots of infant circumcision, and reading up on the technique for adults, it is a more complicated procedure for adults, needing more anesthesia, and thus more risk.


----------



## profe (Aug 19, 2015)

Ratchet said:


> I agree with the idea of allowing a child to decide. However from what I can tell from observing lots of infant circumcision, and reading up on the technique for adults, it is a more complicated procedure for adults, needing more anesthesia, and thus more risk.


It only takes a 2.3oz blood loss for an infant to go into shock and potentially die.

Many infants receive no anesthesia or what they do get is inadequate compared to an adult who can be properly anesthetized, even knocked out if needed, and can also take follow up pain relief.

100+ baby boys die each year in the U.S. from circumcisions and circumcision complications. Not sure you can get more risk than that.


----------



## Ratchet (Mar 24, 2011)

Babies not having anesthesia is inexcusable and I would say no longer the standard, certainly in our area. Local is always used, typically along with oral sucrose. Tylenol is (should be) suggested after. That is comparable to the pain management in adults after surgery. "Knocking someone out" (general anesthesia) is very risky (relative to local anesthesia) and in countries where more boys are circ'd when older, general anesthesia becomes one of the significant causes of death. That statistic of 100 deaths is very very controversial.

I oppose routine newborn circ for moral reasons; I'm almost neutral for health reasons; for the PP who mentioned a genetic issue, I think she has the moral obligation to balance current suffering vs future suffering and make a decision on that, and that's what I was referring to in my post. That is not 'routine' newborn circumcision and thus it is important to consider what a circ as an adult would be like. Since the vast vast majority don't have to consider that future possibility, the procedure of an adult circ shouldn't figure in.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

HelloSweetie619 said:


> My son is cut. It was something my husband and I agreed on from day one. I read a lot of information and all major medical groups suggest that it is not something the suggest universally for all babies they say it is a personal choice. Basically I found that there is no black or white answer. There are pros and cons to both sides. Contrary to what I was told in parenting groups there are still medical benefits to being cut there are studies to support it. However these issues are not common and can be avoided by proper cleaning. So basically everything lead me back to there is no right or wrong it's a personal choice for parents to make. It's between them and their doctor. At the end of the days it's not something you need to talk about it's a private decision.
> 
> The thing I hate is when people just assume I did no research and just went with the flow and that's absolutely not true. Even though my son is cut I did research. My research just found me in a place of the medical community is neutral on it. They don't tell you an answer one way or the other they are clear that it's a personal choice.


Here's the thing - I would bet that all the research you did was on American medical sites. Routine infant circumcision is a huge revenue generator for the American medical community, to the tune of 1.5 billion per annum. They will never discourage parents from circumcising their sons for two reasons : One, because of loss of revenue, and Two: they could never admit that what they've been doing for the last hundred years was an unethical hoax.

So that leads to two questions: Do you, and more importantly, the medical community think that God/nature (depending on your belief of creation) made a mistake with male babies? Secondly, given that 80% of the males in the world are intact, and most circumcised males are Muslim or Jewish, are American male babies different from those in the rest of the world?

The intact penis is a self cleaning organ - forcibly retracting a foreskin and "cleaning", as advised by many North American doctors is what causes all the issues one reads about. If left alone, there're no problems - just look at the European experience: In Finland, a country that does not circumcise, does not mess with children's foreskins, and has impeccable health records, fewer than one in 16,000 men will die without his foreskin. That tells me that nature did not make a mistake.

Another thing: The North American medical community, in general, places no value on a foreskin. However, in reality, it is a valuable and useful organ in it's own right. Go to www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org and view the video "The Elephant in the Hospital" by Dr Ryan McAllister, as well as other info on that website. There are other sources of information: www.cirp.org , www.nocirc.org , www.circumstitions.com and others. Make no mistake - the American medical profession has an agenda, and I'm sorry that you were misled by them.

Finally, I have to take issue with your comment that it is "a personal choice". For who? It should be a personal choice for the person who owns the penis in question - and most times he can't answer !! And if he could, you can bet he'd yell "NO".


----------



## Nightwish (Sep 9, 2008)

HelloSweetie619 said:


> My son is cut. It was something my husband and I agreed on from day one. I read a lot of information and all major medical groups suggest that it is not something the suggest universally for all babies they say it is a personal choice. Basically I found that there is no black or white answer. There are pros and cons to both sides. Contrary to what I was told in parenting groups there are still medical benefits to being cut there are studies to support it. However these issues are not common and can be avoided by proper cleaning. So basically everything lead me back to there is no right or wrong it's a personal choice for parents to make. It's between them and their doctor. At the end of the days it's not something you need to talk about it's a private decision.
> 
> The thing I hate is when people just assume I did no research and just went with the flow and that's absolutely not true. Even though my son is cut I did research. My research just found me in a place of the medical community is neutral on it. They don't tell you an answer one way or the other they are clear that it's a personal choice.


Yes, definitely a personal choice but you just took this choice from the only person it affects: your son.

YOUR personal choice would be to get a circ for yourself.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

HelloSweetie619 said:


> My son is cut. It was something my husband and I agreed on from day one. I read a lot of information and all major medical groups suggest that it is not something the suggest universally for all babies they say it is a personal choice. Basically I found that there is no black or white answer. There are pros and cons to both sides. Contrary to what I was told in parenting groups there are still medical benefits to being cut there are studies to support it. However these issues are not common and can be avoided by proper cleaning. So basically everything lead me back to there is no right or wrong it's a personal choice for parents to make. It's between them and their doctor. At the end of the days it's not something you need to talk about it's a private decision.
> 
> The thing I hate is when people just assume I did no research and just went with the flow and that's absolutely not true. Even though my son is cut I did research. My research just found me in a place of the medical community is neutral on it. They don't tell you an answer one way or the other they are clear that it's a personal choice.


You are correct about one thing: it is a PERSONal decision, one to be made by the PERSON who will have to live with said decision. That was taken from your son. I see you live in the midwest, a place where the forced prepuce amputation rate is still very high. I suspect had you delivered in California or even better, the UK, forced prepuce amputation would have been a lot less likely (they stopped cutting babies routinely in about 1949 - at this point, it's largely only religious cutting that happens here) if not something you never even considered. I have to wonder, if you'd had a girl, would you have considered removing healthy parts of her body? Why or why not?

Yes, there are lots of studies. Did you know that there are also studies that support the idea of female genital cutting? The concept of removing healthy tissue from unconsenting individuals is a deeply CULTural practice. How did we make it this far, no matter what you believe on how we got here, if the human prepuce (remember women have them as well) needs to be removed?

There are many moms who were once supportive or ambivalent to the reality of forced prepuce amputation. I'd encourage you to view some of the aforementioned resources to see just what happened to your son & speak out so that no boys & mothers you come across will suffer the same fate.



Ratchet said:


> I agree with the idea of allowing a child to decide. However from what I can tell from observing lots of infant circumcision, and reading up on the technique for adults, it is a more complicated procedure for adults, needing more anesthesia, and thus more risk.


Did you know that the AAP themselves, in their most recent statement in 2012 endorsing the forced prepuce amputation of unconsenting boys said that the risks are not studied? How can we say that the risks of adult consensual prepuce amputation is more risky than forced infant prepuce amputation when the risks are not kept track of? Did you know that meatal stenosis, a condition virtually never seen in intact/whole males happens in 10-20% of circumcision victims (my stat may be wrong, but nonetheless, it is a large amount & it almost is never labeled as a complication/risk of the prepuce amputation)? Did you know that further surgery is often needed to correct this complication? The doctor Adrienne Carmack MD speaks honestly about what she sees in her urology practice in an area that still has a high cutting rate.

Sus


----------



## Ron_Low (May 11, 2007)

Ratchet said:


> reading up on the technique for adults, it is a more complicated procedure for adults, needing more anesthesia, and thus more risk.


Sorry that's not true.

Adults can tolerate more pain medication with less risk, both during and after the procedure.

Adults can weigh in on the style of amputation so there's FAR less risk of dissatisfaction. In fact hundreds of thousands of men are non-surgically restoring their foreskins so obviously forced (child) circumcision carries a significant risk of removing tissue he would rather keep.

The odds of actually needing a circumcision before he could rationally weigh in are incredibly slim.

The cosmetic quality of the outcome is obscenely haphazard for children, in part because they can't communicate what doesn't feel just right during healing. About half of all child child circumcisions result in artifacts that no circumciser would claim as his/her best work (Fletcher 2010).

The only thing that might make the adult procedure more complicated is that they do it the right way. The simplistic and crude methods used on infants would get a doctor slugged in the jaw if the doctor attempted them on a thinking adult. A proper circumcision takes into account the penis owner's wishes as much as possible, and also repairs the vessels, muscle fibers, and skin separately to ensure good skin mobility.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Ron wrote:


> The cosmetic quality of the outcome is obscenely haphazard for children, in part because they can't communicate what doesn't feel just right during healing.


Not only that, but the physical function of the penis can be impaired if the surgeon underestimates its adult size. A former boyfriend of mine had a thicker-than-average penis as an adult and simply did not have quite enough skin for it when fully erect; the skin was pulled VERY tight in the circumcision area and sometimes would actually crack and bleed. :crying:


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

EnviroBecca said:


> Ron wrote: Not only that, but the physical function of the penis can be impaired if the surgeon underestimates its adult size. A former boyfriend of mine had a thicker-than-average penis as an adult and simply did not have quite enough skin for it when fully erect; the skin was pulled VERY tight in the circumcision area and sometimes would actually crack and bleed. :crying:


How absolutely tragic. This is the type of feedback that needs to get back to doctors who advocate and perform circumcisions. They have their heads so deep in the sand that they believe they are are doing the child a favour, where in reality they have destroyed his sex life for ever, but unless this type of damage is documented and propagated among the medical profession, they carry on oblivious.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

HelloSweetie619 said:


> My son is cut. It was something my husband and I agreed on from day one. I read a lot of information and all major medical groups suggest that it is not something the suggest universally for all babies they say it is a personal choice. Basically I found that there is no black or white answer. There are pros and cons to both sides. Contrary to what I was told in parenting groups there are still medical benefits to being cut there are studies to support it. However these issues are not common and can be avoided by proper cleaning. So basically everything lead me back to there is no right or wrong it's a personal choice for parents to make. It's between them and their doctor. At the end of the days it's not something you need to talk about it's a private decision.
> 
> The thing I hate is when people just assume I did no research and just went with the flow and that's absolutely not true. Even though my son is cut I did research. My research just found me in a place of the medical community is neutral on it. They don't tell you an answer one way or the other they are clear that it's a personal choice.


Firstly an adult circumcision is not the hell that American's make it out to be, my English friend needed one (due to horrific trauma perpetrated on him as a child) He was done awake and he said he felt nothing and that while there was some pain after it was done he said it was nothing he couldn't handle with some pain medication. Not only that, these days an adult can get circumcised with a laser. This isn't 1960 where you have to be knocked out, old style drugs to the eyeballs with a hundred stitches. The US need to move into modern times and realize they are alone on their island fearing adult circ while they cut on babies with knives for no good reason at all.

As to personal decisions between yourself and the DR, what about the third person in that equation, your son? What about his say? If you are fine with parents making such decisions than why do people go crazy when female circ is mentioned. Not talking about infibulation in dirty conditions (really is that the only thing people see?) You do know it's often a less invasive procedure than male circ and is often done for cleanliness in hospital like surroundings. But that is illegal in the US, why? If it's okay to cut pieces off boys, why not girls? If it's wrong for girls it's also wrong for boys.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

profe said:


> It only takes a 2.3oz blood loss for an infant to go into shock and potentially die.
> 
> Many infants receive no anesthesia or what they do get is inadequate compared to an adult who can be properly anesthetized, even knocked out if needed, and can also take follow up pain relief.
> 
> 100+ baby boys die each year in the U.S. from circumcisions and circumcision complications. Not sure you can get more risk than that.


I work in a hospital. Circumcisions are done in an office behind the main desk in the Mother / Baby wing. Not an operating room. Not even an actual "doctor's office." The baby is brought into a multi-purpose room (there are a couple of computers, a table, a counter, small fridge, etc), put on a table, the procedure is done and then he is brought back to the parents. As if they are clipping a hang nail.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

joandsarah77 said:


> You do know it's often a less invasive procedure than male circ and is often done for cleanliness in hospital like surroundings. But that is illegal in the US, why? If it's okay to cut pieces off boys, why not girls? If it's wrong for girls it's also wrong for boys.


Because our primary lawmakers are men, and men who will admit that their cut penis isn't quite what it _could_ be if left natural are very few and far between. Bring up this exact topic on a public forum like FB and see the chest thumping commence about how they are so incredible that a foreskin couldn't possibly make them better! And how DARE anyone suggest anything different!

Fact is, if your argument is cleanliness, then every girl should have their labia removed at birth. There are a zillion little folds and crevices that get all full of funk and gunk. We deal with that with _proper bathing_, not removing natural healthy body parts.

I was very very proud of my staunchly pro-circ husband, who after reading articles and learning about the actual health facts, changed his mind and agreed to keep his son intact.

If you ever suggested to a pediatrician that you wanted to cut your daughter's labia you'd find CPS at your front door before the end of the day. But that same doctor shrugs and lops 1/4 of the skin off of a healthy penis. It's a horrible double standard, but until MEN stand up for their SONS, things will not change.

In some European countries, infant female AND male genital mutilation is illegal. Europe isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but on this one, they have it right.

Evidently "labial sculpting" is all the rage in big cities right now. And as an adult, if you want pieces removed from your body, that's 100,000% your right. Let your children make their own decision for their own bodies.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

My argument is that no child should be cut. I just find it puzzling that a country that is so blasé about cutting boys reacts in such horror at the slightest mention of cutting girls. Not talking about Doctors, but mothers. I have seen so many posts over the years where circumcision is debated and then circumcision of girls is brought up, and oh it all hits the fan then. I've been posting on intact boards for a good 15 years and see it over and over again. People do not like to see that it's the same and that in some countries the same arguments are used when talking about girls. Head in the sand syndrome I think. No the US procircumcises like to live in their bubble which says it;'s okay to cut boys, it's cleaner, nicer looking and they will thank you! Bah.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

joandsarah77 said:


> My argument is that no child should be cut. I just find it puzzling that a country that is so blasé about cutting boys reacts in such horror at the slightest mention of cutting girls. Not talking about Doctors, but mothers. I have seen so many posts over the years where circumcision is debated and then circumcision of girls is brought up, and oh it all hits the fan then. I've been posting on intact boards for a good 15 years and see it over and over again. People do not like to see that it's the same and that in some countries the same arguments are used when talking about girls. Head in the sand syndrome I think. No the US procircumcises like to live in their bubble which says it;'s okay to cut boys, it's cleaner, nicer looking and they will thank you! Bah.


It's a horrific double standard, but until MEN stand up for it (and the vast majority do NOT) nothing will change. Women don't care because most American women have never seen (let alone experienced) an uncut penis first hand. (ha ha) So their opinion is based on nothing more than their lack of experience and what they think "looks good." I personally find that attitude rather revolting, as the question revolves around a healthy body part, which has nothing at all to do with personal opinions about beauty.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

As a non American, (I'm Australian with European family) The US mentality on this is so strange to me. Mothers saying I would never be with an uncut guy, somehow bringing that over as an argument to cut their baby I find very creepy. What does your sexual preference have to do with it? It seems normal for a child's penis to be topic of dinner conversation, that the talk revolves around how it looks and if it 'matches' dad. I'm sorry, but 'match' dad? Yes it is all very revolting. I don't think pro circ America realizes how crazy they appear to the rest of the world.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

joandsarah77 said:


> I don't think pro circ America realizes how crazy they appear to the rest of the world.


I agree, and I'm an American. My DH is British by birth. He's never really understood circumcision because he's never seen a circumcised penis and he can't work out what they cut off. He doesn't feel that there is anything "extra" about his penis that could be removed.

However, it was priceless when we were expecting our first child and my mother, who is a very old fashioned American, brought up the subject of circumcision. I told her that we were NOT planning on having the baby circumcised. Whether it was a boy or girl, there would be no cutting on genitals.

After she got over her shock of me putting male and female circumcision in the same category, she brought up that my husband might feel differently, and that he might want a vote on what his son's penis looks like. I had to explain that circumcision is an American thing, and that as a man who was born and raised outside the US, my DH does want a vote, but that his vote is that we should not go chopping off body parts for no good reason. The fact that by leaving any potential sons intact, they would look like their father was a side note to my DH and I, but it really completely freaked my mother out. That was WAY more information about her son in law than she wanted to know.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

:laugh: I bet she was shocked. I guess after that she didn't really have an argument left lol. 

What I find sad is that some intact American dads still get their son's circumcised because of things they experienced. Either teasing or bad care from Dr's or parents resulting in problems. Hopefully as more children are left intact that will stop. I am still shocked by the number of posts here and on Baby Centre from mothers who are asking for help after a DR retracted their child's foreskin or a urologist told them their child needs to be circumcised for kidney reflex or so called 'phimoses', whhhaaat?! One lady recently was really being bullied by the urologist basically threatening her that she said she was going over to Belgium to have her son looked at. I'm constantly saying write letter of complaint to there states medical board, but I have no idea if that actually does anything. Sometimes I wonder if these medical people got their degree off the back of a rice crispy packet.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

American medical textbooks have surprisingly little information about intact penises. Most illustrations are of circumsized penises, as if that is the "normal" way they should be.


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

MountainMamaGC said:


> My hubby had BXO and it would not heal. It was very painful. He enjoyed having a foreskin before things went wrong with it in his 30s. It was not a decision he made lightly. He now enjoys sex without pain BUT there is decreased sensation. We have a son now and there is no way he would ever do that to a baby.


BOX ( = Balanitis xerotica obliterans) is easily treated, we rarely mutilate anyone for anything is this part of the world.


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

WallaWallaMamma said:


> I don't know if this adds to your conversation or not, but circumcision is an integral element of a boy being welcomed into the Jewish community ( the bris ). I cannot imagine breaking with thousands of years of cultural tradition for my own sons, and frankly, I don't think it is a big deal when done young. I understand that it is a shock to go through as an adult. I'm sorry if my callousness hurts anyone's feelings, but I just don't see the magnitude of this issue compared, say, to the unnaturally high American C-section rates and accompanying health risks. If you're against it, don't do it. Why do you want to be convinced otherwise?


Lots of Jews don't mutilate (aka circumcise) their sons because of the damaging effects and because of the ethics.
Comparing a genital mutilation on an unconsenting child with a c-cect. on an consenting adult is a way to ridiculous comparison.

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
https://www.facebook.com/Jews-Against-Circumcision-165424110207450/
http://www.beyondthebris.com/
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/spectator.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/even-in-israel-more-and-more-parents-choose-not-to-circumcise-their-sons-1.436421
http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2016/03/08/rabbis-cantors-and-other-jewish-leaders-perform-new-type-of-welcoming-rituals/
http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2016/04/06/humanistic-judaism-and-anti-circumcision-intactivism/


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

JLUK said:


> Am looking for some natural reasons why my not having a foreskin is better then when I had a perfectly good one. Religion is an aside, I'm not applying to get into a mosque or synagogue.
> 
> Hygene : America has high cut rates, and high STD rates compared to other developed countries. Somethings odd. For example Europeans, for all their foreskins, have Chlamydia rates 40 times lower than the US - what goes on over there ?
> 
> ...


There are no good reasons. Period.


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

Dule114az said:


> Decreases the rates for STD transmission, penile cancer, and UTIs in men. I can't tell you how many foreskins I've retracted in a hospital setting to insert catheters, both 6 days old and 90 years old, and discovered prevalent smegma. Your tone is pompous, yet you could have googled these things and researched yourself. Instead you take 12 responses and 700 views as a universal answer. And truth is, there isn't. It's a cultural, religious, preference type of thing. My dad was circumcised after birth and so was I. My wife thinks uncircumcised penises are disgusting and completely unattractive. If I have a boy one day you can bet he'll be circumcised. I sure don't not have a good time with sex. Foreskin certainly has nothing to do with female lubrication and readiness when it comes to sex unless she has a specific preference. The idea of thrusting in my own inexistent foreskin to stimulate myself sounds gross and like I'm cheating myself when the entire time I'm rubbing on her with every thrust instead of a skin tube (Because I have no foreskin).
> 
> In the end it comes down to cleanliness. One man is not like the other 3,500,000,000 others.


WOW, you're really showing your ignorance here. Most of the above is totally false statements, perhaps except for the smegma one. You have really fallen for the health myth. By the way, do you know that a woman has more bacteria, smegma and grit in the nooks and crannies between her labia and under her foreskin than a man will ever get? Do some research mate, and just for the fun of it, research the foreskin functions during sex too. You'll be surprised when you find out what you've lost.


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

EnviroBecca said:


> ...and under-use of condoms,...
> ...It may be true that foreskin somewhat increases STD risk....
> ... intact men clean themselves in the shower, it looks simple to get really clean, and most of the process is accomplished simply by letting water run over the penis...


Genitally mutilated (aka circumcised) men tends to not wearing condoms because it lessen their already dimished sexual sensation even further.
It's proven that mutilations doesn't lessen the risks of getting STDs.
When showering we will of course pull our foreskins back and clean under it. That should never happen on a child until he's old enough to retract by himself.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

Steinn said:


> WOW, you're really showing your ignorance here. Most of the above is totally false statements, perhaps except for the smegma one. You have really fallen for the health myth. By the way, do you know that a woman has more bacteria, smegma and grit in the nooks and crannies between her labia and under her foreskin than a man will ever get? Do some research mate, and just for the fun of it, research the foreskin functions during sex too. You'll be surprised when you find out what you've lost.


Oh, he's apparently lost nothing, just ask him *eyeroll*

As is (sadly) extremely common, there is a large portion of men who are _positive_ that nothing could possibly make sex with them _any _better. Because nothing can improve upon perfection *eyeroll +1*

It's simply logic - 1/3 of the skin of your penis has been removed, _yes you are missing out on something_.


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

sillysapling said:


> I have a friend who circumcised- there's a specific medical condition that causes hte need for circumcision as an adult that runs in both her and her husband's family. Because there's almost 100% certainty that their son will _need_ to be circumcised, they decided it was a kindness to do it sooner.
> 
> There absolutely are medical conditions where circumcising is necessary, or that it reduces other problems.
> 
> But, yeah, don't get why they'd cut a healthy body part off a healthy body. Any other part and it sounds barbaric.


I would really know what that genetic condition was. I've heard of a "genetic condition" running in an American family that caused them to mutilate their boy. Their doctor had said so. Well, it turned out that the foreskin was fused to the glans, which is normal for little boys. The doctor was ignorant or lied, he got his $$$ mutilating those boys.


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

Ratchet said:


> Babies not having anesthesia is inexcusable and I would say no longer the standard, certainly in our area. Local is always used, typically along with oral sucrose. Tylenol is (should be) suggested after. That is comparable to the pain management in adults after surgery. "Knocking someone out" (general anesthesia) is very risky (relative to local anesthesia) and in countries where more boys are circ'd when older, general anesthesia becomes one of the significant causes of death. That statistic of 100 deaths is very very controversial.


In fact, it's proven that anesthesia doesn't work as it should on babies due to the intense pain. Sucrose is by default a fraud.
Regarding deaths, it is very controversial. Not because of it overestimated, but rather the opposite. Most likelt there are far more boys who dies in the US, but it's hidden in the statistics as other causes. Do you know that there are more boys dying of genital mutilation (aka circumcision) in the US than boys under 10 years of age dying of choking?


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

HelloSweetie619 said:


> ...it is a personal choice. ...
> ...there are still medical benefits to being cut there are studies to support it. ...
> ... it's a personal choice for parents to make. It's between them and their doctor.
> ...found me in a place of the medical community is neutral on it.


It's a personal choice, but did you ask the owner of the foreskin? No? So you did deprive your son of a very important part of his penis without his consent. ...and the doc earned a lot of $$$$.
Actually, there are no medical benefits. You're in fact quoting AAP's site, but you haven't read it all. You've mutilated your son an damaged him for life based on false statements. You son will be for ever grateful, he might even sue you as an adult. ;-)


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

PitBullMom said:


> I work in a hospital. Circumcisions are done in an office behind the main desk in the Mother / Baby wing. Not an operating room. Not even an actual "doctor's office." The baby is brought into a multi-purpose room (there are a couple of computers, a table, a counter, small fridge, etc), put on a table, the procedure is done and then he is brought back to the parents. As if they are clipping a hang nail.


I don't get it. Do you compare an male genital mutilations with clipping a hangnail? Seriously? Do the kids get anesthesia?


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

Steinn said:


> I don't get it. Do you compare an male genital mutilations with clipping a hangnail? Seriously? Do the kids get anesthesia?


Nope, normally no anesthesia, according to the people who do them, "it's not necessary most of the time." Which is total crap.

And, no, I'm not comparing circumcision to clipping a hangnail. That's sarcasm.  (I'm guessing English is probably your third or fourth language if you're like most Europeans that I know, so I'll let it slide. :wink: )


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

PitBullMom said:


> Nope, normally no anesthesia, according to the people who do them, "it's not necessary most of the time." Which is total crap.
> 
> And, no, I'm not comparing circumcision to clipping a hangnail. That's sarcasm.  (I'm guessing English is probably your third or fourth language if you're like most Europeans that I know, so I'll let it slide. :wink: )


Oh, ah, I need to have my sarcasm censors serviced! :laugh:

Poor kids! What kind of docs and parents allow such things


----------



## WallaWallaMamma (Dec 14, 2013)

Steinn said:


> Oh, ah, I need to have my sarcasm censors serviced! :laugh:
> 
> Poor kids! What kind of docs and parents allow such things


I plan to circumcise. Hate me all you want for being the kind of Jew I choose to be, you anti-Semite. Your comments are hateful and not in the spirit of the mothering community. To each his own respectful opinion. Also, read the original poster's question before rambling.


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

WallaWallaMamma said:


> I plan to circumcise. Hate me all you want for being the kind of Jew I choose to be, you anti-Semite. Your comments are hateful and not in the spirit of the mothering community. To each his own respectful opinion. Also, read the original poster's question before rambling.


Do you call me an anti Semite because I'm citing Jews that are against male genital mutilation? Really? Is it hateful to protect kids? As I see it the hateful one is the one who start name calling those who want to protect.

I haven't said a word about hate, that word comes from you in fact. ;-)


----------



## MountainMamaGC (Jun 23, 2008)

Steinn said:


> BOX ( = Balanitis xerotica obliterans) is easily treated, we rarely mutilate anyone for anything is this part of the world.


I'll go tell my husband he was mutilated for no reason. /s

Seriously we tried everything except CO2 lasers. We lived too far from a clinic that could do that. It would not heal. The scarring was getting worse and sex was very painful for him. Its not easily treated for every man.


----------



## Ron_Low (May 11, 2007)

Steinn said:


> BOX ( = Balanitis xerotica obliterans) is easily treated, we rarely mutilate anyone for anything is this part of the world.


About 1/3 of BXO cases will not respond to Protopic, and some excision will be the best remedy.

So that's 9,999 out of 10,000 adult men or women who will never need any genital cutting.


----------



## Ron_Low (May 11, 2007)

WallaWallaMamma said:


> I plan to circumcise. Hate me all you want for being the kind of Jew I choose to be, you anti-Semite.
> . . .
> To each his own


The other side of that is that you are taking your son's right to be the kind of Jew HE might wish to be, including EX-Jew. Hundreds of thousands of men (including a proportionate number of Jews) are enduring non-surgical foreskin restoration to partially undo the sexual damage of circumcision.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

I can't follow how being anti-circumcision is equal to being an anti-semite.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

A hospital circumcision is in no way similar to what God commanded Abraham to do. Apart from the fact they did not have the instruments to do such a thing the whole point of circumcision was a blood sacrifice. Regular US folk are removing their sons entire foreskins (not Gods plan in any way shape or form!) and they are removing it for bogus health claims and looks. Jewish circumcision and US routine infant circumcision are two separate discussions.


----------



## MountainMamaGC (Jun 23, 2008)

Ron_Low said:


> About 1/3 of BXO cases will not respond to Protopic, and some excision will be the best remedy.
> 
> So that's 9,999 out of 10,000 adult men or women who will never need any genital cutting.


I agree. Inspite of what happened to my husband, our son is intact. My husband does not support infant circumcision.


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

MountainMamaGC said:


> I'll go tell my husband he was mutilated for no reason. /s
> 
> Seriously we tried everything except CO2 lasers. We lived too far from a clinic that could do that. It would not heal. The scarring was getting worse and sex was very painful for him. Its not easily treated for every man.


Did you for instance try a dorsal slit instead of a circumcision?


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

There is also preputioplasty but it's said to have a high failure rate. In most cases steroid cream, stretching and patience will do the trick and is much preferable to surgery. The US may not even offer either that or dorsal slit, Dr's there live in the 1800's when it comes to the foreskin. many of them with issues probably have yeast from using soap on the glans and they now have cracks and tightening from that and nobody told them to stop using soap so instead they continue with soap and get worse.


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

joandsarah77 said:


> ...The US may not even offer either that or dorsal slit, Dr's there live in the 1800's when it comes to the foreskin...


Ignorance at it's worst.


----------



## ian'smommaya (Jun 7, 2004)

Can we remember there are people on the other side of the screen and be kind in our word. Thank you.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

Steinn said:


> Did you for instance try a dorsal slit instead of a mutilation?


Steinn - you are confusing a medical procedure that an adult has decided is the best choice for his own body for medical or personal reasons with routine infant circumcision which involves no consent on the part of the person being operated on.

Please consider your wording.

It is not "mutilation" when it is medically necessary. It is not "mutilation" when an adult decides to that it is the best decision for himself for ANY reason that he deems necessary. It is not your business why any adult decides to alter his or her own body - cosmetic or otherwise.

Routine INFANT and CHILD circumcision is the question here. When the decision is made before the person in question is an adult and allowed to make their own informed decision for their own body. After someone is an adult, they can do anything they want however they want to do it.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

I have to agree. Mutilation is a loaded word and we do not know if it was true medical need or if he was given bad medical advise. We can only go by what we are told and it sounds here like it was medical need. Does the US amputate children's foreskins calming medical need for bogus phimoses? Yes it does and that is a travesty. This was not a child but a grown man and going by what we are told here yes it was medical need. Needing a body part amputated is no small matter and they would need a lot of support for that not to be told it was mutilation. No different to a woman who needs a mastectomy, I hope you wouldn't tell her she was mutilated.

There are also many people here with circ regret. Try reading through that thread, it's heart wrenching. I've tried numerous times to get through it, I can't, Those parents don't need to hear the word mutilation either, they have probably said it to themselves every day since. 

The aim should be to show the US that those health claims are bogus, that looks are not what it's about, that the foreskin their child is born with is not some ticking time bomb, that those of us not from the US do not circ our children and do not have issues with their foreskins. Changing even one parents mind on circing their infant is worth it. But you wont change minds by tossing around the word mutilation.


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

Oh, I'm sorry about that. I will rephrase the post.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

Steinn said:


> Oh, I'm sorry about that. I will rephrase the post.


Thank you for being open minded. As I noted earlier, I believe English is probably only one of many languages you speak, so some "lost in translation" errors are to be expected.


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

Steinn said:


> I would really know what that genetic condition was. I've heard of a "genetic condition" running in an American family that caused them to mutilate their boy. Their doctor had said so. Well, it turned out that the foreskin was fused to the glans, which is normal for little boys. The doctor was ignorant or lied, he got his $$$ mutilating those boys.


It's not my business to ask for the exact diagnosis. She did say that it had become practice because some of the relatives _hadn't_ been circumcised, developed this very painful condition as teens/adults. She's not an idiot, she's educated and does her own research. She made an informed decision and is _not_ in favor of circumcising all babies.

If nature were perfect, we wouldn't have modern medicine. But nature is not perfect. People have suffered and died ever since our species evolved, sometimes we can fix the problem naturally- but sometimes we can't.


----------



## bugmenot (May 29, 2005)

hakunangovi said:


> Here's the thing - I would bet that all the research you did was on American medical sites. Routine infant circumcision is a huge revenue generator for the American medical community, to the tune of 1.5 billion per annum. They will never discourage parents from circumcising their sons for two reasons : One, because of loss of revenue, and Two: they could never admit that what they've been doing for the last hundred years was an unethical hoax.
> 
> So that leads to two questions: Do you, and more importantly, the medical community think that God/nature (depending on your belief of creation) made a mistake with male babies? Secondly, given that 80% of the males in the world are intact, and most circumcised males are Muslim or Jewish, are American male babies different from those in the rest of the world?
> 
> ...


Well said.

If the medical community is neutral, then why not keep it as God/nature/other being designed it and let the child make the decision regarding his own bod when he is emotionally mature enough to.


----------



## gamerdaddy (May 12, 2016)

WallaWallaMamma said:


> I don't know if this adds to your conversation or not, but circumcision is an integral element of a boy being welcomed into the Jewish community ( the bris ). I cannot imagine breaking with thousands of years of cultural tradition for my own sons, and frankly, I don't think it is a big deal when done young. I understand that it is a shock to go through as an adult. I'm sorry if my callousness hurts anyone's feelings, but I just don't see the magnitude of this issue compared, say, to the unnaturally high American C-section rates and accompanying health risks. If you're against it, don't do it. Why do you want to be convinced otherwise?


I'm just curious if you would have this same outlook if the tradition was to cut off his nipples, or some other crazy tradition.
Simply because something is tradition doesn't make it the correct thing to do. It may have been tradition in some families to own slaves for example.

If my family and ancestors did something I found wrong, I certainly wouldn't do it just because it was tradition. I would need a solid and actionable reason to do it.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

WallaWallaMamma said:


> I don't know if this adds to your conversation or not, but circumcision is an integral element of a boy being welcomed into the Jewish community ( the bris ). I cannot imagine breaking with thousands of years of cultural tradition for my own sons, and frankly, I don't think it is a big deal when done young.


You seem to make the assumption that all members of the faith are on board with this tradition of "marking" male children. You might be interested in the following documentaries, which offer a different viewpoint:

"Cut - Slicing through the myths of circumcision" by Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon.

"Cutting with tradition" by Noelle Richardson.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

WallaWallaMamma said:


> I don't think it is a big deal when done young. I understand that it is a shock to go through as an adult. I'm sorry if my callousness hurts anyone's feelings, but I just don't see the magnitude of this issue compared, say, to the unnaturally high American C-section rates and accompanying health risks. If you're against it, don't do it. Why do you want to be convinced otherwise?


The argument isn't about parents who are against it, changing their mind. It is all about those boys who had no choice, because their parents were in favour of circumcising them, and grow up to feel violated because they would much rather have kept their foreskins. Google "foreskin restoration" - there are thousands of men desperately trying to regain a semblance of what was taken from them. There is no argument about adults - Once a person turns 18, they can do what they like. The argument is over forcing an unnecessary surgery on an unconsenting child.

Incidentally, many think that the procedure is much harder on a baby because an adult can have as much pain medication as they want. Many infant circumcisions are performed without administering ANY pain medication. It may be a bigger deal than you thing from a psychological perspective too, since our implicit memory records everything we are exposed to, starting in our mother's womb. There is evidence of much higher incidence of both PTSD and Alexithymia in circumcised males.

Also, there are health risks. Over 100 baby boys die each year from blood loss or infection directly resulting from being circumcised. There are some who believe that this statistic is highly under reported.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

hakunangovi said:


> Incidentally, many think that the procedure is much harder on a baby because an adult can have as much pain medication as they want. Many infant circumcisions are performed without administering ANY pain medication.


What are you talking about? They give the baby SUGAR WATER! That's all the pain killer they need!

*insert eyeroll here*

They don't even cry, so they must not feel anything!

*bigger eyeroll*

Perhaps they are quiet because they are in shock from having a body part removed while they are awake and aware?


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

PitBullMom said:


> Perhaps they are quiet because they are in shock from having a body part removed while they are awake and aware?


Yeah, I forgot that part - " He didn't feel a thing; he slept right through it" . Oh sure !!


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Some places do a full pain relief procedure. This is one reason why the rate in my state of Queensland has the highest rate; the Russel clinic advertises it's full pain relief procedures as it's main advertising drive. So it is possible to get places that use Emla cream with the full waiting period and two shots of lidocaine to the base of the penis. In the best case scenario a baby can be well numbed. However even with full measures often the numbing does not extend around the entire area and since the patient can't be asked there can never be a guarantee . Many places use some emla and a pacifier while saying they use pain medication (worthless and only makes parents feel better about what they are doing) ) and others use none. However even if a baby is lucky enough to be fully numbed, and it is pure luck, that still doesn't make it right. I do think though that we need to be up on how things can be done and not assume every place uses sugar water and nothing else. Really though that's a side issue to the fact that baby is being operated on for non medical reasons and does not have laws of bodily autonomy in place as do girls.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

The easiest way to tell if FULL pain relief is offered to the child is to ask how long the procedure takes. If it's less than 45 minutes, it's probably not. Emla takes 20-30 minutes to work, then you have to wait for the shots to work, then the procedure. When we went on our hospital tour, they showed us the OFFICE where they did it and said it was a quick ten minutes tops. Those poor babies.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Good point, the time they quote would be very telling. I have heard that Dr offices are the worst places to get the procedure done. I doubt it can be done properly under 45 minutes.

According to this, they should wait an hour before giving a needle. http://www.medicinesforchildren.org.uk/emla-cream-local-anaesthesia

Also Quote: _The cream must not be applied to the eyes, ears, nose, inside the mouth or near the back passage (anus) or genitals _hmmmm.


----------



## Ron_Low (May 11, 2007)

joandsarah77 said:


> According to this, they should wait an hour before giving a needle. http://www.medicinesforchildren.org.uk/emla-cream-local-anaesthesia
> 
> Also Quote: _The cream must not be applied to the eyes, ears, nose, inside the mouth or near the back passage (anus) or genitals _hmmmm.


Right, effective pain relief is dangerous and unpredictable. Many doctors cite the risks as why they avoid using it. And EMLA can't reach the inner foreskin until it has been tortuously torn from the glans.

And doing something perfectly painlessly is not a justification for doing something destructive to a healthy normal non-consenting person.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Ron_Low said:


> Right, effective pain relief is dangerous and unpredictable. Many doctors cite the risks as why they avoid using it. And EMLA can't reach the inner foreskin until it has been tortuously torn from the glans.
> 
> And doing something perfectly painlessly is not a justification for doing something destructive to a healthy normal non-consenting person.


That is what the needles of lidocain are for I presume- to numb the inner foreskin. Emla cream and Lidocain both have possible side effects even if used carefully. Even if the baby has no visible side effects and good pain relief there is also the fact that these are strong chemicals used on a newborns genital region. That alone should give people pause for thought, especially if they are trying to live as naturally as possible.

Which is what I said in the post before that one. That pain management is really a side issue because even if they came out with a new drug tomorrow which gave every baby full safe pain relief we are not going to say oh its fine to cut on them. The core issue of bodily integrity remains which is what I feel we should focus more on.


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

EMLA shouldn't be being put on or near the foreskin. It should be applied at the base of the penis to numb the site where the local anaesthetic injections go for the penile block. "Do not apply to genitals" refers to mucous membranes so careful application to the base of the penis is ok. 

EMLA needs to be on for about 40mins. LMX only needs to be on for 20mins. 

NB this is for information only and should not be interpreted as an endorsement of RIC. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

I was thinking they meant not near the opening when they said do not apply to genitals, but at the base for the needles. Still a baby can make quite a mess given 40 minutes so my thought was it could move from the applied area. Full of if's and buts. So much easier to bring your whole baby home.


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

We would generally cover it with an adhesive dressing to keep it in place. It won't work if it's all smeared everywhere. It really needs to be in a blob on the spot you want to numb. 








https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...AUICCgC&biw=667&bih=269#imgrc=A1gYQFKyIgJqqM:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Okay, thanks for the info. That makes more sense for EMLA used anywhere on a baby. Are you a nurse?


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

Yep. And for anyone really. I've never seen EMLA applied without a dressing.

Yes, I've been a nurse for 20years this year and a midwife for 16. Mostly in ED and maternity (funnily enough). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

I had to have laser treatment a few years ago, and you put EMLA on in a very thick layer and then cover with a dressing or plastic wrap and wait for the skin to go numb. It can take up to 30 minutes, and if it's put on unevenly or too thin, it doesn't work. So IF they are using it (and I have my doubts) that poor baby would have to be tied down for the full 30 minutes because the cream can't be squished around or rubbed in.


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

PitBullMom said:


> I had to have laser treatment a few years ago, and you put EMLA on in a very thick layer and then cover with a dressing or plastic wrap and wait for the skin to go numb. It can take up to 30 minutes, and if it's put on unevenly or too thin, it doesn't work. So IF they are using it (and I have my doubts) that poor baby would have to be tied down for the full 30 minutes because the cream can't be squished around or rubbed in.


See my posts above


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

Even it the boy is completely sedated (asleep) the anesthesia finally wears out. What then? An excruciating pain which an adult would have taken very strong pain killers to combat. A baby can't take those and have to live with the pain as the wound is soaked in urine and feces. What kind of parents are willingly letting their boys go though that? What kind of ethics do the parents have? We all know that the docs don't have it (the ethics that is).

"Like sugar, EMLA Cream used as "pain relief," or as an anesthetic, is equally ineffective." "In fact, not only is EMLA ineffective at blocking pain in the many dermal layers of the skin, it does nothing to block the deep and highly sensitive nerves in the penis - the majority of which are concentrated in the foreskin. And even when used in an ernest attempt to reduce pain, physicians are not waiting the recommended 1-2 hours after application of EMLA to begin cutting of the exterior layers of the penis (the only tissues that would be numbed by EMLA Cream)." 
"The EMLA Cream manufacturer's insert cautions: EMLA is used to temporarily numb the surface of the skin. It is used for pain relief on the skin prior to procedures such as needle insertion and minor skin surgery in adults and children over 12 months of age. Its effectiveness is lessoned in children under 7 years of age. 
"EMLA Cream must be applied to intact skin at least 1 hour before the start of a routine procedure and for 2 hours before the start of a painful procedure.

"Logic would suggest that if we cannot reduce the pain of genital cutting by sugar water or EMLA Cream, a block to the dorsal nerve in the penis may be the solution. However, studies demonstrate that even a nerve block is ineffective when it comes to the intense pain of genital cutting. In a study conducted in part by the University of Iowa College of Medicine, approximately half of newborn males were circumcised with a local dorsal penile nerve block (experiment group), and the other half (control group) were circumcised without anesthetic. Adrenal cortisol levels in the brain (neurological indicators of extreme stress exhibited when humans are in pain) were compared. The findings indicate that neurological and physiological response to pain of the surgery was not significantly reduced by the administration of the penile nerve block. All infants showed trauma-induced stress responses."
"Watching these examples contributes to the ubiquitous realization that circumcision surgery is extraordinarily painful, and is not remedied with anesthetic in the majority of cases. Only under full anesthesia would an infant not experience pain during genital cutting. And because general anesthesia is counter-indicated for newborns unless there is a life-threatening reason to us these operative means, rarely would they be implemented."
http://www.drmomma.org/2008/11/the-effectiveness-of-anesthesia-for.html


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

EMLA doesn't require 1-2hrs to work. It requires 40 minutes. And it isn't (or shouldn't be!) used as anaesthetic for the circ or applied to the foreskin. It should be applied to the base of the penis to provide numbing for when the local anaesthetic for the penile nerve block is injected. 

Again, not in any way supporting RIC, just providing information. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

katelove said:


> EMLA doesn't require 1-2hrs to work. It requires 40 minutes. And it isn't (or shouldn't be!) used as anaesthetic for the circ or applied to the foreskin. It should be applied to the base of the penis to provide numbing for when the local anaesthetic for the penile nerve block is injected.
> 
> Again, not in any way supporting RIC, just providing information.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Did you actually read what I wrote, cited and provided in the link? The manufacturer says 1-2- hours in fact. :wink:
There many cautions in addition.


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

Yes, I did. It says that you can leave it on for 1-2hrs *if* you want the effect to last for 2hrs. It further says that you can get reliable anaesthesia for cleaning ulcers after 30mins. If a clinician thought it was going to take them two hours to instil some local anaesthetic then by all means they could leave it on for longer (we could use the extra time to discuss their technique!). However, as a clinician working in ED for 16 years, I can assure you that 40 minutes is more than adequate for cannulation or subcutaneous injection. 

Most of the precautions relate to drug interactions which would not be relevant for a newborn. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

Ok. You're talking about numbing for a "needle prick", I'm talking about surgery. So we are in fact agreeing - sort of.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

She is talking about how EMLA cream should be used for surgery. The cream numbs a small area of the top layer then the needles of Lidocain are given to numb the area the best they can. So it is included as part of the surgery prep. Some doctors do give as much pain relief as possible. The word being 'some' -most do not. It's no good us going on about sugar water as being the only thing ever given when that is not true. Doctors have a huge range of practices from mere sugar water, to sugar water and EMLA cream to 2 needles of Lidocain. Some leave time for the cream to work some do not, some are no doubt better at giving the needles, some babies respond better to the medication than others. So it's possible for a newborn to be circumcised without much pain although I highly doubt there is none at all.


----------



## Steinn (Aug 4, 2012)

joandsarah77 said:


> She is talking about how EMLA cream should be used for surgery. The cream numbs a small area of the top layer then the needles of Lidocain are given to numb the area the best they can. So it is included as part of the surgery prep. Some doctors do give as much pain relief as possible. The word being 'some' -most do not. It's no good us going on about sugar water as being the only thing ever given when that is not true. Doctors have a huge range of practices from mere sugar water, to sugar water and EMLA cream to 2 needles of Lidocain. Some leave time for the cream to work some do not, some are no doubt better at giving the needles, some babies respond better to the medication than others. So it's possible for a newborn to be circumcised without much pain although I highly doubt there is none at all.


Yes and no. She's talking about the "needle prick" (local anesthesia) before the actual surgery. I'm talking about how they use it to numb the actual surgery (genital mutilation) site.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Yes, that's why I mentioned that is all some doctors do, they could not put much on since that is contraindicated and they would not apply it close to the end seeing it states not to be applied to genitals (openings) The use there is more lip service to parents saying pain management was used when we all know it did pretty much nothing.


----------



## foreskin_is_normal (Jul 30, 2016)

Steinn said:


> Even it the boy is completely sedated (asleep) the anesthesia finally wears out.


Even if the boy is completely sedated it is still unnecessary genital mutilation that deprives the victim of normal intact genitals.


----------



## foreskin_is_normal (Jul 30, 2016)

joandsarah77 said:


> A hospital circumcision is in no way similar to what God commanded Abraham to do. Apart from the fact they did not have the instruments to do such a thing the whole point of circumcision was a blood sacrifice. Regular US folk are removing their sons entire foreskins (not Gods plan in any way shape or form!) and they are removing it for bogus health claims and looks. Jewish circumcision and US routine infant circumcision are two separate discussions.


http://www.circinfo.org/Circumcision_and_masturbation.html

In 1895 a leading American medical journal published an article by a prominent MD who asserted that in all cases of masturbation:

circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally, offering as it does a certain means of alleviation and pronounced benefit &#8230;. Those cases in which the glans presents a moist, semi-oily appearance &#8230; long thickened foreskin, pliant and giving, large and often tortuous dorsal veins, go to make up a picture that is exceedingly tempting to the surgeon's scissors. &#8230; To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on a stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found readily to resume his practice, not begrudging the time and extra energy needed to produce the orgasm. It is true, however, that the longer it takes to have an orgasm, the less frequently it will be attempted, and consequently the greater the benefit gained.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

I think you were missing the point of my post. Circumcision brought to the US by John Harvey Kellogg came from the Victorian notion that preventing masturbation would prevent disease. The form of circumcision done was the whole foreskin often included the frenulem was removed. That was the US hospital form. 

Traditional Jewish circumcision(by traditional I mean back to Abraham not modern Jewish circumcision) was for blood sacrifice and was only the tip. Basically they would pull the foreskin down and do a tiny snip. Perhaps this is where the modern idea of it being a 'snip' comes from. It is of course today no snip. There is documentation on this and how when Jewish men tried to participate in the Greek games (where they were all naked) they would attempt to pull there foreskin down to make them look more Greek. It was this that caused those doing Jewish circumcisions to start taking more skin. I have no idea how a modern Jewish circumcision looks, but possibly nothing like what was intended. 

In my post I was saying that it's best to keep the two as separate subjects. It's useless for people to bring up Abraham as an example of why they should circ (as sadly some Christians seem to think they should) because what they are doing looks nothing like what Abraham did. Not saying what downfalls/merits it had, just that it's a different fish.


----------



## foreskin_is_normal (Jul 30, 2016)

joandsarah77 said:


> I think you were missing the point of my post. Circumcision brought to the US by John Harvey Kellogg came from the Victorian notion that preventing masturbation would prevent disease. The form of circumcision done was the whole foreskin often included the frenulem was removed. That was the US hospital form.
> 
> Traditional Jewish circumcision(by traditional I mean back to Abraham not modern Jewish circumcision) was for blood sacrifice and was only the tip. Basically they would pull the foreskin down and do a tiny snip. Perhaps this is where the modern idea of it being a 'snip' comes from. It is of course today no snip. There is documentation on this and how when Jewish men tried to participate in the Greek games (where they were all naked) they would attempt to pull there foreskin down to make them look more Greek. It was this that caused those doing Jewish circumcisions to start taking more skin. I have no idea how a modern Jewish circumcision looks, but possibly nothing like what was intended.
> 
> In my post I was saying that it's best to keep the two as separate subjects. It's useless for people to bring up Abraham as an example of why they should circ (as sadly some Christians seem to think they should) because what they are doing looks nothing like what Abraham did. Not saying what downfalls/merits it had, just that it's a different fish.


The rabbis changed it to the much more radical periah to stop Jews from restoring like that. The hospital version looks exactly the same as periah. It's just done by a "doctor" instead of a rabbi.


----------



## foreskin_is_normal (Jul 30, 2016)

Ron_Low said:


> If they're suffering from something that someone has convinced them circumcision will fix, then they'd be willing and perhaps grateful to be cut. Often, there exist less destructive alternatives that are not shared with patients.
> 
> One thing circumcision can cure is tainting from ignorant or non-compassionate folks, but the less-destructive alternative in that case would likely be to just cut those folks out of your life.


Being mutilated like this makes me feel like I've been cut off from the whole world. It doesn't even seem real. I must have been born in the wrong universe. Maybe I'm in some kind of simulation where somebody is doing a sick experiment on me.


----------



## foreskin_is_normal (Jul 30, 2016)

profe said:


> It only takes a 2.3oz blood loss for an infant to go into shock and potentially die.
> 
> Many infants receive no anesthesia or what they do get is inadequate compared to an adult who can be properly anesthetized, even knocked out if needed, and can also take follow up pain relief.
> 
> 100+ baby boys die each year in the U.S. from circumcisions and circumcision complications. Not sure you can get more risk than that.


It's supposed to be painful for the baby to receive his proper punishment. It used to be punishment for being caught masturbating, but then they just started preemptively punishing all boys because all boys masturbate. (There's nothing wrong with masturbation... :serious

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg

"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed."


----------



## foreskin_is_normal (Jul 30, 2016)

joandsarah77 said:


> My argument is that no child should be cut. I just find it puzzling that a country that is so blasé about cutting boys reacts in such horror at the slightest mention of cutting girls. Not talking about Doctors, but mothers. I have seen so many posts over the years where circumcision is debated and then circumcision of girls is brought up, and oh it all hits the fan then. I've been posting on intact boards for a good 15 years and see it over and over again. People do not like to see that it's the same and that in some countries the same arguments are used when talking about girls. Head in the sand syndrome I think. No the US procircumcises like to live in their bubble which says it;'s okay to cut boys, it's cleaner, nicer looking and they will thank you! Bah.


It's not nicer looking at all. I've seen what a normal penis looks like and a normal penis looks a lot nicer. A mutilated "circumcised" penis looks ugly and deformed. It looks mutilated!


----------



## foreskin_is_normal (Jul 30, 2016)

joandsarah77 said:


> As a non American, (I'm Australian with European family) The US mentality on this is so strange to me. Mothers saying I would never be with an uncut guy, somehow bringing that over as an argument to cut their baby I find very creepy. What does your sexual preference have to do with it? It seems normal for a child's penis to be topic of dinner conversation, that the talk revolves around how it looks and if it 'matches' dad. I'm sorry, but 'match' dad? Yes it is all very revolting. I don't think pro circ America realizes how crazy they appear to the rest of the world.


As an American, I don't get it either. "My dad lost an arm in an accident, so when I was a baby I had an arm amputated." "My dad is blind so I was blinded when I was a baby."

A lot of Americans do realize how they appear to the rest of the world, but they think it's something that makes them better than everyone else. America is the best at everything. They think the rest of the world is uneducated and uncivilized for not being aware of all the "health benefits" of baby foreskin amputation.


----------



## foreskin_is_normal (Jul 30, 2016)

PitBullMom said:


> I can't follow how being anti-circumcision is equal to being an anti-semite.


If you're anti-FGM you're anti-Muslim. That makes as much sense. Muslims have freedom of religion right? No, they don't have right to violate other people's rights. FGM is totally horrific, and so is MGM actually.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

I have run into the 'America is best and I will only listen to US sources' mentality over the years. It's not something I know how to fight.


----------



## foreskin_is_normal (Jul 30, 2016)

joandsarah77 said:


> I have run into the 'America is best and I will only listen to US sources' mentality over the years. It's not something I know how to fight.


I fully support immigration by non-assimilating non-English speakers. They seem like a lot nicer people. They tend not to mutilate babies. I wonder if that's the real reason Trump wants his "wall".


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Actually over on Baby Center we are having an interesting discussion on the different groups in the US. From what has been said there, Hispanics don't circumcise, but some natives now are (very sad) children of immigrants are also circumcising (probably in an effort to fit in) 
My post though was about using research and information from intact countries and having some Americans disregard it because the source in not from the US. Since I am not American (I'm Australian with European family) I tend to use non US sources and have run into this 'US is superior' mind set a few times.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

WallaWallaMamma said:


> I'm sorry if my callousness hurts anyone's feelings, but I just don't see the magnitude of this issue compared, say, to the unnaturally high American C-section rates and accompanying health risks. If you're against it, don't do it. Why do you want to be convinced otherwise?


Well if you are a woman, (which your name suggests) obviously the issues that you mention are going to feel have greater "magnitude" than ones like circumcision, especially considering all the issues you mentioned not so coincidentally only affect people of your same gender...

Circumcision is an important issue because it represents how our culture values the male body, their basic human right to control their own body. Beyond the sexual functions lost from circumcision (which you obviously are entirely unable to know, since you don't have a penis) the penis is symbolic of the entire male identity- an incredibly intimate and important thing. And something that shouldn't be controlled or altered cosmetic purposes by anyone other than the owner.

Sorry to side track the discussion!


----------

