Circumcision

[Sophus]

I'm just curious to see what the opinions on it are here. I know it's a bit controversial. So.... what do you think?

[Chimera]

I don't think it's really necessary, personally. Yeah, there are those rare instances where it is necessary, but overall I think it's a pretty unneeded and terrible thing to inflict on an infant or child. When I was going through my medical assistant training, I assisted on several circumcisions and while it didn't really affect me much, I hated seeing these tiny newborns screaming in pain when the doctor would inject the anesthetic into the area. Sometimes it didn't take effect, and as the doctor was trying to loosen the skin around the shaft, the baby would scrunch his face up and scream, though no sound would come out. All we could do to comfort him is shove a pacifier dipped in sugar water in his mouth and wait for the anesthetic to work.

Circumcision could be a good thing, though. I guess. I mean, when my cousin was circumcised after birth, the doctors discovered he had hemophilia.

If I ever have a son, I'll probably pass on the circumcision thing. If he wants it later in life, that's his own business.

[Neoncamouflage]

From what I've heard there's only one good reason. Something to do with the foreskin(can't remember what, it :p) makes it like 80% less likely to catch STDs with circumsition. Plus the feeling of being different if you live somewhere like the US if you're not.

Bad is unneeded pain at birth, fear of a botched job, and possibly decreased sexual pleasure.

But the thing to really keep in mind: Circumcise or you make Jesus cry.

[joeactor]

More info than you could possibly want:


And don't even get me started on Meatitus (yeah, that's a real term!)

There's no real medical reason to circumcise every guy, but it does seem to have some benefits...

Wincing,
JoeActor

[Kylyssa]

From what I've heard there's only one good reason. Something to do with the foreskin(can't remember what, it :p) makes it like 80% less likely to catch STDs with circumsition.

And now for why there is a tiny bit less chance of getting an STD if a man is circumcised - during vigorous sex the foreskin might experience tiny tears, also on an uncircumcised man there is way mucous membrane on the head of the penis.  But a circumcised penis becomes scarred due to exposure from removal of the foreskin and parts that used to be more permeable are now scar tissue.  

Use a damned condom.  Teach your kids to use condoms.  

I've known four guys (not all of them biblically) with circumcision related Peyronies (bent penis, in one case, severely bent) one of whom has very limited sensitivity in his penis, due to a severe post-circumcision infection which required removal of infected tissue.  Orgasm is mostly about arousal rather than penile stimulation for him, with creativity he can still get off but it sure would be nicer if he hadn't been messed up that way.  The men in my family (aside from my religious sister's kids) are not circumcised.  They've had no problems with urinary or penile infections or STDs and use condoms without difficulty.

That's just anecdotal evidence and doesn't add much to the argument but the fact is that 100% of healthy babies that get circumcised are getting their genitals carved up, sometimes without anesthetic (depending on the practitioner) for no real practical purpose.  

There's also zero difference in the protection against STDs provided by circumcision performed on newborns and circumcisions performed on teens and adults old enough to become sexually active.  The risk of accidentally carbonizing an adult penis with an electrocautery device during circumcision is much smaller as is the chance of bent penis due to circumcision.  

The old argument was that people with foreskins more frequently got penile cancer.  Well, about one in eight women get breast cancer and we don't nick out newborn babies' breast buds and the risk of penile cancer is far, far lower than one in eight.

[Will]

They used to be necessary, but aren't anymore at least in industrialized countries with modern medicine.

[hismikeness]

Here's my take. The pain at childbirth is irrelevant. Ask any guy who is circumcised if he remembers that pain. Nope. I think it is a totally personal decision for the parents. If it's left up to the adult male later in life, it never happens. No way someone is whacking foreskin off my Johnson any time after 0.02 years old. Medical reasons, meh. Used to be about 100 years ago. Hygiene. I've heard this one that infections, not necessarily STD's, are more common around the enclosed tip of an uncircumcised person. Teach them to wash properly, no biggie. Stigma of not looking like others, I guess. But after a while you could probably retort by blasting someone back and asking that they stop looking at your dick. I have heard claims that for the man, sexually, being uncircumcised is better, because the foreskin covers the most sensitive areas during times of non arousal, and only during arousal do those areas get any exposure, which usually means sexual activity of some kind, and the area is less prone to becoming desensitized. Better orgasms, umm, I'm ok with that.

I will probably pass if I have a son or sons. Don't know how the wife feels, haven't asked. Probably will now though.

Hismikeness

[Tanker]

My mother is a very secular person. She was vaguely bhudist 20+ years ago but is an atheist now. She had both my brother and myself circumcised. Her reason why when it came up some years ago was "health reasons". I have never had any problems resulting from being circumcised, I can only assume my brother hasn't either. I don't get why some people make such a big deal about it either way. I'll probably have any sons I have circumcised too. Pain at that age is irelevent you might as well make mothers get c-sections if you're worried about kids being in or rembering pain when they are so young. Birth is WAAAYYY more tramatic for a kid and they don't get any pain killers for that (at least I think not, I'm not an OBGYN and have never given birth after all).

(slightly off topic I just wanted since my penis is the only one I see on a regular basis, and the only one I know in any detail, uncirumcised penises look somehow odd or wrong to me. Not that I believe there is anything wrong with them I know that's the natural state but I guess since I consider myself normal anything varying from that seems abnormal. I don't know how well I've expressed myself just thought I'd share that. Hmm now that I think about it that may contribute to why I would have my child circucised)

[Whitney]

Considering that they don't give the baby any decent pain medication (if at all), it causes irreversible changes, and is unnecessary in most cases...I think doctors should refuse to do it on ethical grounds.  Soap, water, and condoms fix the majority of the potential drawbacks.  Those who have issues with the foreskin when they are older can always have it removed...an no, it doesn't necessarily hurt more just because the man is an adult and yes it does matter that it hurt even if the baby doesn't remember.

[Sophus]

I've don't really see it as necessary either but would it be worth arguing it's better to be safe than sorry? I know the possibility of cancer is rare, but you can't really miss what you don't know, ya know?

[Whitney]

I've don't really see it as necessary either but would it be worth arguing it's better to be safe than sorry? I know the possibility of cancer is rare, but you can't really miss what you don't know, ya know?

I think most do it for social/religious reasons and not just to make their child's life potentially safer.  If it was a matter of safety the religious people who have their sons circumcised would also get their daughters the HPV vaccine when she is of age just in case she ends up sinning.

[Tanker]

Considering that they don't give the baby any decent pain medication (if at all), it causes irreversible changes, and is unnecessary in most cases...I think doctors should refuse to do it on ethical grounds.  Soap, water, and condoms fix the majority of the potential drawbacks.  Those who have issues with the foreskin when they are older can always have it removed...an no, it doesn't necessarily hurt more just because the man is an adult and yes it does matter that it hurt even if the baby doesn't remember.

I can understand the sentimet really I can, I think it's sick to pierce a baby girls ears for some of the same reasons. I believe the do medicate the child well before hand but sometimes the aplication of that pain killer can be painfull like say novacain when you get a filling but honestly I don't know or sure. If the childs pain is such an issue mabey you could consider c-sections for a pain free (nearly) childbirth for the child (I'm being faciectious). Circumcision is such a non-issue for me when you consider all the trully frivilous surgery people have or the ones just because of vanity or lazyness. In fact the only circumcision I do have issue with and it phyically disgusts me is female circumcison. That is the one you should be trying to end. Male circumcision pales in comparison to it twisted female counterpart in my opion.

[Whitney]

In fact the only circumcision I do have issue with and it phyically disgusts me is female circumcison. That is the one you should be trying to end. Male circumcision pales in comparison to it twisted female counterpart in my opion.

Yes, it is worse to do to females as it has no medical benefit, is intended to control women, and takes all or almost all of enjoyment out of sex for the woman.  

We don't let parents tattoo their child before they reach 18...why do we allow things like circumcision (esp the female kind which really is an obvious ethical issue)?

[Kylyssa]

I can understand the sentimet really I can, I think it's sick to pierce a baby girls ears for some of the same reasons. I believe the do medicate the child well before hand but sometimes the aplication of that pain killer can be painfull like say novacain when you get a filling but honestly I don't know or sure. If the childs pain is such an issue mabey you could consider c-sections for a pain free (nearly) childbirth for the child (I'm being faciectious). Circumcision is such a non-issue for me when you consider all the trully frivilous surgery people have or the ones just because of vanity or lazyness. In fact the only circumcision I do have issue with and it phyically disgusts me is female circumcison. That is the one you should be trying to end. Male circumcision pales in comparison to it twisted female counterpart in my opion.

So, if a person's religious convictions led them to remove other non-vital body parts of their infant children you'd have no problem with that either.  Say, for instance, a person's religion requires the removal of all infants' pinky toes and earlobes- would that be cool, too?  

I think this is a holdover of the attitude that parents own their children and should be allowed to do anything they like to them.  The point is that a huge number of people get a substantial portion of their genitals cut off without their permission.  Yes, female circumcision is horrible, a lot more awful than male circumcision but people care about it.  People treat it like they are talking about an inoculation or something when they are referring to involuntary male circumcision.    

It's "no big deal" that babies have cosmetic surgery forced upon them unless you happen to be one of the guys with a bent penis or who can't feel anything but pressure on his penis.  Yes, it's relatively rare that circumcisions have immediate complications - only about 1% to 3% of circumcised infants develop an infection in the surgery site.  However, that 1% to 3% figure says nothing about infants who grow up to be men with scar tissue that causes erections to be painful or to have bent penises or a lack of sensation on part or all of their penises.  Perhaps those percentages are small, too, probably less than ten percent - I've probably just known an unrepresentative number of guys with problems.  But those complications wouldn't occur at all if circumcision were not performed.

If circumcision is something a man desires, he can have it done after the age of consent.  Children are not property.  They might decide they want to keep their genitals intact and they should have the opportunity to do so.

No one ever answers the breast cancer statement.  About one in eight women get breast cancer and removing newborn babies breasts would prevent far more disease than removing foreskins does so why aren't people yowling to get that done?  Removing appendixes and tonsils at birth would likely prevent more disease than removing foreskins does, too - so why aren't we doing it?  Is it because it's a bit crazy to go hacking healthy body parts off infants in the hopes of preventing future diseases?

Condoms, properly used, are effective in preventing STDs in both circumcised and uncircumcised men.  Circumcision as a prevention method for STDs is weak, damned weak.  It doesn't even come close to comparing to condom use.

[Kylyssa]

I've don't really see it as necessary either but would it be worth arguing it's better to be safe than sorry? I know the possibility of cancer is rare, but you can't really miss what you don't know, ya know?

I think most do it for social/religious reasons and not just to make their child's life potentially safer.  If it was a matter of safety the religious people who have their sons circumcised would also get their daughters the HPV vaccine when she is of age just in case she ends up sinning.

Brilliant point.