Circumcision as a criminal act

mine where done as a baby and i yanked one out and have a scar. this is why i hesitate , but now they aer older i still hesitate because of the infection .

but when i do cave and have it done the doctor office will do it for the same price as claires and it is with a needle.

when i first learned there was options for uncut , i had to google it to see what it was all about.

i understand all the reasons , but the main reason i did it was so all the males would match in the house. nothing worse than how come questions about gential in a public place *restrooms urinal comes to mind

"hey daddy how come his looks ..........." is not something chris wanted to deal with.


trival probably , thats ok i can live with it. to each there own and i would never dream of telling someone they should/not have it done .


now the religious aspects i can not comment on becasue for me it was cosmetic. **** sounds bad but it is the truth. i was young and dumb as i said with the first and maybe foolish with the second , but hindsight id alway 20/20

I am anti circ...the foreskin is an important functioning part of the penis. Yes, a few males will have issues with it but more males have lifelong issues from circumcision and lets not forget that babies do die from the surgery.

I am VERY happy that rates here in the US are dropping.

Just want to add also, circumcision was done for "moral cleanliness" - supposed to curb masturbation as the foreskin helps the sexual experience. Its not really any different from female circumcision which is banned in most places.

I will be honest, many men freak of the thought of their son being left intact. I am pretty sure its because deep down many men are afraid if they leave their sons intact it is somehow admitting something is "wrong" with their penis (and I have had men corroborate this with me so not just making it up).

I have some people ask me if I am worried a future girlfriend of my son's may not like him intact...My response, if she is that shallow that she puts the looks over the function and feeling of his body part than she is no good for him. (plus, the fewer males who get circed the more normal intact is....females from other countries definitely seem to prefer intact looks and function)

I have two girls, so I don't have to worry about this but should I have boys, I'd have them circumcised as newborns - because according to my OB, the benefits outweigh the risks by far, and circumcision surgery is much easier and take much less time for the wound to heal if it's done on newborn vs adult males, plus, the baby will have no memories of the pain. He also said, because of the many benefits of circumcision (see excerpts below), he recommends it to all new parents. Of course, the decision is still the parents' to make.



SUMMARY (From here)

Circumcision versus Lack of Circumcision

Lack of circumcision:
• Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections in infancy. Risk = 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 for uncircumcised infants and 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 for circumcised infants. Higher risk of UTI at older ages as well. Overall lifetime cumulative prevalence of UTI = 1 in 3 for uncircumcised males compared with 1 in 20 for circumcised males, respectively.

• Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: namely kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

• One in ~400–900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis, which occurs more than 20 times more commonly in uncircumcised men. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require complete or partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is extraordinarily rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figure of 1 in 100,000).

• Higher risk of prostate cancer (50–100% higher in uncircumcised men)

• Is associated with 3-fold higher risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. This includes balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), balanoposthitis (inflammation of glans and foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin that will not return after retraction). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown or much rarer in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10–50. Risk of these is even higher in diabetic men.

• Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate 1 in 10 older children and men requiring circumcision later in life, when the cost is 10 times higher, the procedure is less convenient, and the cosmetic result can be lesser, as stitches or tissue glue are required, as compared with circumcisions done in infancy.

• Increases by 2–4 fold the risk of thrush and sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes (HSV-2), syphilis, chancroid, Trichomonas vaginalis and thrush.

• Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 2 to 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STIs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

• In the female partners of uncircumcised men lack of male circumcision is associated with an up to 5 fold higher incidence of cervical cancer (caused by sexually transmitted HPV), genital herpes, Trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis (formerly called “Gardnerellaâ€), and possibly Chlamydia (which is a cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility from blockage of fallopian tubes, and ectopic pregnancy).

Getting circumcised will result in:
• Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.

• Improved hygiene.

• Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.

• Much lower chance of acquiring HIV, the AIDS virus, heterosexually.

• Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer.

• Slightly lower risk of prostate cancer.

• More favourable hygiene for the man’s sexual partner.

• Much lower risk of cervical cancer and Chlamydia (and thus infertility and other problems) in the female sexual partner.

• More favorable sexual function and experience, with no reduction in sensation during arousal or in the sensitivity of the flaccid penis.

• A penis that is regarded by most men and women as being more attractive.

Ok, have to leave but the HIV/AIDS thing is bogus. Its seems in SOME studies to slightly lower the risk in areas where it is extrememly prevelant. But, US has the a very high rate of circumcision and AIDS so yeah, not a good argument. (And some other studies showed infection rates HIGHER in circed males....there is no real way to research it as you cant have a control group)

Link to much more info on it
http://www.aidscirc.org/

Even when people agree with it, they still do NOT recommend routine infant circumcision here in the US. The American Association of Pediatricians says there is no compelling reason to do it.


Prostate Cancer -

http://www.drmomma.org/2012/03/circumcision-does-not-prevent-prostate.html

Over 80% of the worlds men are NOT circed. Proper care = no problem (except for a very few rare cases which does not likely exceed the number of issues of men who were circed). Here in the US unfortunately intact males are often retracted as babies which is a BIG no no...it tears the skin and invites infection....again, proper care and that wont happen.

And more favorable sexual experience??? Oh my, so wrong. That would be like taking a womens clit almost. Foreskin is very much a part of the sexual experience and enhances it for BOTH men and women.

More...I really have to go but while I repsect people make different choices, please dont make them in ignorance.

http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/functions-of-foreskin-purposes-of.html

Ah the American egocentrism rears its ugly head
Since this is what we do in America that’s what EVERYONE must prefer

to be fair... it didn't say ALL it said most lol so that wouldn't be EVERYONE

DH is intact and if we have a boy he will be intact too. And yes, there's very little difference in circumcised vs. intact penises visually once they are, erm, ready for action. LOL

I'm not sure how I feel about it being legislated, but I do think there needs to be way more info out there on what it entails.

The biggest issue for me is that many babies, because they are so young, really don't receive effective pain management during or after the procedure; at least if a man decides to have it done as an adult the surgery is done under full anesthesia, he has effective pain control afterward, and it's not sitting in a dirty diaper.

intresting the web site m&m linked is authored by a doctor from australia.

nothing else to add , but he aint american so it is not just us egomaniacs from the usa.

Last stats out circ rate dropped to 50% here so woo hoo! Older generations its like around 90% or so. So more and more women and men will grow accustomed to how a penis REALLY looks and soon will start to see ones that are surgically altered as the "funny" looking ones

LOL, point taken.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18833145

When I questioned it with the pediatrician when my boys were born, she said it's a choice for the parents to make, but she did see a higher rate of infections in babies whose parents chose not to. And that the process is certainly less traumatic for a newborn with a capable doctor or mohel than compared to say a toddler or older.

Haha.. just like on any controversal issues, if one finds 10,000 websites for it, another would likely find 10,000 websites against it. The website I linked is just one example which states the benefits (it's the first one that pops up when I typed "circumcision vs uncircumcision" on yahoo search ) You read to gather information, then together with your personal believes and preferences, form an opinion of your own.

So many of your said you wouldn't do it to your infant boy, I said I would. Simply at that .

I mean really... no penises are what I'd call 'attractive'. lol Amusing? Fun?

I would not circumcise a baby boy if I had a child. I am also not sure if I think it should be illegal though.

Well, I think stats from The World Health Organization and American Academy of Pediatrics as a bit more than just some website

I don't really think it should be illegal either - to each their own. I am against circumcision though, and wouldn't, unless medically needed alter my son, if I had one.
I don't think it's right for parents to make a choice about their child's body before the child can even have an opinion. Circumcision is a whole different story than piercing an infant's ears (though I don't think thats right either). You are altering a part of a sexual organ, not just putting a small hole through a flab of skin. If your child doesn't want to wear earings she doesn't have to - but you can't return someones forskin.

It's so odd how two relativly similar cultures - can be so different in certian opinions. I guess it really has alot to do with what you grow up with.

I had mine circumcised for practical purposes, cleaning under those little fingernails was enough of a challenge. Obviously if you're Muslim or Jewish it has spiritual meaning so of course it shouldn't be illegal. I was also swayed by one of my uncles. He was circumcized after repeated infections in his thirties and just owwwwie, a newborn is not going to remember...really.

Ok, so for those who have talked to men who had infections...how many of you have talked to men who cant have sex without pain from their circs? Infections are at least treatable and you can always circ if for some reason you cant keep it under control, cant easily grow it back (some men do but its a LONG tedious process that doesnt always work)

I dont know, honestly to me its like doing mastectomies in case you were to develop breast cancer later in life.

I think one of the biggest issues I've heard of through my research is the lack of information pediatricians have - retraction of the foreskin in infants/toddlers is mentioned a LOT but is incorrect. An intact penis should not be manually retracted for cleaning or exams before it can be retracted easily and without pain by the owner. I would think early retraction would certainly be likely to invite more infections!