Baby circumcision

I am having a little boy, so one of the questions is to circumsize or not to circumsize. I have no religious standings for it if I decided to do it. I know neither have health benefits better than the other, and it's mostly a cosmetic decision. At my hospital they numb the base of the pen*s before hand, and also use a topical numbing agent. My question is to the parents mostly, which did you choose and why?

Often performed without anesthesia this procedure does HURT!

Circumcision does not prevent one from attracting STD's or HIV as behavioral factors are far more important.

Circumcision does not prevent cancer of the pen*s.

Causes a decrease in sensitivity as most of the nerve endings are contained within the foreskin.

Circumcision is purely cosmetic which is why no National Medical Organization recommends circumcision.

Circumcision does not lower the incidence of Urinary Track Infection (U.T.I.)

Circumcision rates have fallen between 50 - 60% while some parts of the country such as the west coast are as low as 33%.

85% of all men in the world are intact.

Everyone's body is different so why should we try and make the child's pen*s look like the fathers?

Children are not teased in the locker room as that would only acknowledge that they are looking at another boy's body.

Is amputation really necessary when Soap and water are adequate to keep any body part clean?

Circumcision causes chaffing and dryness during intercourse.

Complications from circumcision includes scarring, adhesions, skin bridges, skin tags and pyronies (curvature of the pen*s) not to mention that some infants have had their pen*s amputated.

The practice of circumcision is fear-based and excuses for circumcision always have been consistent with the disease of the day.

Shouldn't the child have the right to decide?

Visit http://www.ksnocirc.org for more information.

theres no point in doing it
it doesnt change how everything works down there
it wont make sex easier
majority of the population arnt circumsized
there just no point

I did not allow to do it with my son, because this custom is not of my nation and culture.

there's also no reason to not do it.
it's easier to keep clean with it done.
my parents had both of my brother's done for that reason.

I would.
For the fact that it's easier to clean.
Everytime you change his diper you would have to put back his forskin and clean to.
I'd say go for it!

I hope my opinion helped.

As a male I can say that I've had friends that are and are not circumcised. I can say that of my friends that are not, they do complain about having to pullback the foreskin to wash, and that it can really smell if they don't do a good enough job.

I've also read that a larger number of women (64%) prefer a circumcised man.

For myself, I am circumcised. When my son was born, my wife and I also chose to have him circumcised as well. It is a personal choice, but one you want to make now rather than later. I do have a friend that was circumcised as an adult, and he really hurt for a couple of days after.

Hope it helps

NO!!! don't do it. not now maybe a ear or so but not now.

In the UK, no-one circumcises any more unless they're Muslim or Jewish, so the question never came up. I don' t think I have the right to have part of his genitals cut off anyway. His body, his choice. If he wants to be circumcised later, I'll pay for it, but I don't think it's very likely. Doing it to a baby is the worst possible time anyway. If you wait, it hurts less, it's safer, and the results are cosmetically better.

Keeping him clean down there is a total non-issue. I'd actually worry more about cleaning a baby down there that was circumcised, and either way, you're going to spend a lot more time wiping his nose than his privates.

Drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 56%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 3% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ('routine' circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

It's worth remembering that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) mas*urbat*on caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tubercolosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped mas*urbat*on.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link:
http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians' Own Words

Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.

It's much lower maintenance if you have him circumcised. Males who aren't circumcised have to worry about infections between washings (the area under the foreskin is a moist, warm environment where bacteria can grow), and sometimes the foreskin is too tight to pull back, requiring circumcision later, or won't go forward again after being pulled back, which constricts the blood flow to the head of the pen*s.
Also, fair or unfair, some women are really grossed out by uncircumcised penises. I know some women who have broken up with guys because they were uncircumcised. A lot of women won't go down on a guy if he's not circumcised.

Women have a much larger 'moist, warm environment where bacteria can grow' too, but they seem to manage without cutting parts of them off.

Only about one in 200 UK males need circumcising for a medical reason, and it's getting even rarer as they find new ways to treat phimosis. Circumcision is an absolute last resort here.

Many women prefer *un*circumcised penises, especially in countries where that's normal. An intact man can get circumcised if he wants though, whereas it's very difficult for a circumcised man to restore his foreskin, and he won't get the nerve endings back anyway.

There are also men that won't have sex with uncircumcised women, because they find intact women's genitals gross. You would have even the tiniest part of your daughter's genitals cut off though.

Don't do it. You already seem to be aware that there is no compelling reason health wise which for most other medical treatments is a compelling reason not to do it, why should circumcision be any different? You seem to have gotten some good advice and also some bad advice. That is the thing about circumcision, most people (mainly American's) seem to believe in folk myths about intact boys.

For example, one respondent answered that: 'Everytime you change his diper you would have to put back his forskin and clean to.' This is false. And actually is the kind of advice that could be very harmful to an intact boy. For the correct information you should read the AAP care of an intact boy or the CIRP.org library:

http://www.aap.org/publiced/br_uncircumcised.htm

http://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/

Basically you just wipe it like a finger, never try and pull the foreskin back. The foreskin is actually fused to the head like your finger nail. Trying to force it back at each diaper change could potentially cause damage and is excruciatingly painful, this is actually the first step of a circumcision. So the take away message is that it is not in anyway more difficult to keep an intact boy clean, that is a myth.

It is also not difficult for an intact man to keep himself clean, I don't know where that comes from either. It is no more difficult than washing behind your ears or brushing your teeth. Anyone who complains that this is somehow complicated well, I have to wonder about their overall hygiene habits. It takes about 5 seconds in the shower, it takes longer to wash your hair.

Another respondent: 'Males who aren't circumcised have to worry about infections between washings.' This is also not true. In the first place most people (at least the ones I know) wash everyday. I don't know where the people she is talking about are from but it isn't hardly a problem to go days or weeks without washing (not something I would suggest for social reasons). As an example, the average age that an intact boy can retract his foreskin is about 11 or 12. You can read about that here:

http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/

So at least half of intact boys aren't even able to retract their foreskins before 11 because they're not supposed to. The same poster also brings up two fairly rare conditions, Phimosis and Paraphimosis. Both are uncommon the first, Phimosis, simply means the foreskin is too narrow to allow retraction. It can't be diagnosed until at least puberty and there are numerous treatments but it is a very rare condition. Paraphimosis most often occurs when someone tries to retract a boy who is not yet retractable, ie retracting to clean at diaper changes. This too is very rare and, like Phimosis, can be treated non-invasively. As ml66uk said in the UK only 1 in 200 men every need a circumcision, which is quite high actually. The last I read on this issue in Sweden or Finland was that it is actually more like 1/20,000 I don't have the citation but if I find it I'll post it.

Keep in mind that circumcision is very rare outside the US. It is essentially unheard of in Central America, South America, Europe, Non-Muslim Asia, Japan, China, and New Zealand to name a few. It has become recently rare (last 20-30 years) in Australia and Canada. There is no epidemic of pen*s problems that compel them to circumcise boys; in fact the US is the only industrialized country I can think of that circumcises a slight majority of baby boys for no particularly good reason. Though even here the rates have been slowly declining.

So again you know there is no good reason to do it, so why do it? If you want to research this further you can check out the http://www.cirp.org they have cataloged most academic literature on this topic and it is a good place to find information regarding circumcision.

I agree with the previous poster. You should never retract your intact son. This is what causes problems.
I think it is great that you are researching this beforehand. Many people don't and really regret it. I am not sure if I can post a website here but I will try. Go to mothering.com and go to the circumcision forum area. There is a sticky for parents who regret circ'ing their sons. I found it very interesting.
Now to answer your question
No, I did not have my son circumcised.
1) It is his body. I am not going to cut a part of it off. When he is older and he chooses to do so, he can. I doubt he will because sexual intercourse feels much better with an uncircumcised male. There are many nerve ending that make a man's pen*s more sensitive. Another function to the foreskin is it creates natural lubrication. When having sex with a circumcised male it can feel raw and dry. His pen*s will have friction against us. That can be uncomfortable. An uncircumcised male they have the foreskin which stays in place inside of us but rubs against his shaft. I am not trying to be too graphic but I feel it is important to point out that circumcising your son will have a large impact on his sex life. Let him decide.
2) My biggest reason for not circumcising is because no matter what anyone says..it is PAINFUL! If you go to my blog http://www.shomeiscool.blogspot.com go to the link on the right hand side about circ'ing. That is a video of an actual circ being done. Before you decide anything, please watch this video. It is also at mothering.com.
3) If breastfeeding it interferes with your experience.
There are just so many reasons not to circ.
Good luck!

well. I plan on have my sons circumcised because its more sanitary. my fiance` was circumcised and I have to say that its much more visually appealing than and uncircumcised pen*s. whatever decision you make, please remember that he has to live with it for the rest of his life.

        Simply a Rose to brighten your day,
        And maybe lessen the cares in your way;
        And also, too, to help you to know,
        That in knowing you, many others grow!

 
I just don't see how any modern mother would want to inflict that torture on a child. And it is torture. Babies do feel pain. And here, when you are supposed to be bonding with your infant and demonstrating to him that he is safe and secure in your care, you cause him pain.

Think about it. Would you do it if it was your daughter? In some countries they do!

Evolution gave males a foreskin for a purpose. It has not become useless like the appendix. Leave it alone.

'whatever decision you make, please remember that he has to live with it for the rest of his life.'

That's only true if you have him circumcised. If you leave him intact, he can choose to be circumcised himself. It's actually safer, hurts less, and the results are cosmetically better for an adult to be circumcised than a baby.
\
If he's circumcised and wants to be intact, he's got a problem. You can 'restore' the foreskin by stretching what's left, but it's difficult, and the nerve endings are gone forever. The fact that some men restore anyway only underlines the fact that they shouldn't have been circumcised in the first place.

Yeah get him circumcised right after you mutilate your own genitals...

A lot of women have posted that its easier to keep a snipped one clean.. how the hell would they know that. Its no different.. you get in the shower and you wash what you've got. simple.

Leave the poor little guy alone.

Seems majority says no. I'll check out those sights, do more research and keep all of your answers in mind. It does make sense to leave it up to them, and I guess I could just have another bank, like a baby's college fund, to pay for it if he decides he wants it, or to use as he chooses later. I have another question, homeschoolingmom said it interferes with breast feeding, how so? Breast feeding is very important to me for the nutritional benefits, and bonding. I don't want anything to interfere with that.

Circumcision is traumatic and doesn't just hurt while they're doing it, but for weeks afterwards. You probably wouldn't want to eat either if you'd just had genital surgery. One mother said that it was like she got a completely different baby back after the circumcision, and he was never the same again.

These links are all about the effect of circumcision on breastfeeding:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Nursing.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Docs/nursing.pdf
http://www.nocirc.org/statements/breastfeeding.php
http://www.cirp.org/library/birth/

It’s even mentioned in an AAP policy statement:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b108/3/793

'Available research indicates that newborn circumcisions are a significant source of pain during the procedure and are associated with irritability and feeding disturbances during the days afterward'.

It interferes with breast feeding??? How could it. I look at it this way... you are born with it, nature will not let you be born with something you shouldnt have or something that is detrimental to your health and wellbeing. I'm by no means an expert but I cant fathom why it would interfere with breastfeeding. that just sounds mental to me.

Either way, best of luck to you.

Let me get some links for you hun. Give me a few minutes. My computer is slow at the moment.

I answered the question about circumcision and breastfeeding already, but that message seems to appear out of order. (it looks like messages that have been recommended are at the top)