August 26, 2009

To cut or not to cut: Did you or did you not circumcise your son? And why or why not?

I won't say what choice we made with our son, 11 years ago.

At this stage in his life, that's his business.

However, I continue to be interested in the debate, which heated up recently with news that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will release a report recommending that all baby boys born in the United States be circumcized to reduce the spread of HIV.

A friend of ours, who is not happy that infant boys are subjected to this procedure, alerted us today to his recent participation in that debate, via Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish blog on, and to Sullivan's own adament opposition to what he calls "male genital mutilation."

This disturbing YouTube video, posted on Sullivan's plog, shows an actual circumsion taking place on a newborn male in a supposedly state-of-the-art American medical setting. But as the video points out, circumsion, once performed routinely on "95 percent" of all newborn males in the United States, is becoming less common. More recently, in California, circumcision takes place in only 20 percent of male births, the video's narrator says.

"It is very painful," according to the narrator--even when analgesics are used and especially when it subsides.

The foreskin, which is removed in circumcision, is a "normal protective sexually functioning organ," the narrator says. "Circumsion is an amputative surgery with inherant risk, including hemmorhage, infections, and many forms of surgical mishaps, even death."

Our friend put it a little more directly, if less delicately:

"It’s my dick. It’s my dick. It’s my dick. It is no one else’s dick but my dick. And I should have the choice to circumcise it when I am old enough to make that decision."


Anonymous said...

If I had a son, I would not have him circumsized. I don't think I could allow such a horribly painful thing to be done to a tiny baby. I don't think that anybody has the right to decide to cut off part of anybody else's genitals.

And now there is talk of making it a legal requirement?! Insanity!

Anonymous said...

HIV is prevented by not having sex with multiple unclean partners or by using condoms. Circumcised men still get HIV. People may think that circumcision will keep them from getting HIV and then they will go out and have promiscuous and unprotected sex.

There is also the myth that the foreskin causes cancer. This is not correct. Penile cancer is caused by a sexually transmitted virus called HPV. Most other countries do not circumcise their babies and the rates of penile cancer are quite low. More people lose their penises to botched circumcisions than penile cancer.

Women don't get their breasts removed to prevent breast cancer.

Removing a part of the penis desensitizes it and reduces pleasure. Men who are circumcised will never know what a pleasure it is to have a foreskin.

There is a myth that an uncircumcised penis is dirty. It is very simple to clean and anyone who showers daily can keep it clean.

We should let babies remain intact. If a man wants to get a circumcision, let him be able to decide later in life. Circumcising a baby means that the person does not get to choose. We all should be able to choose what we want done to our bodies.

Anonymous said...

I simply don't have enough information pro or con circumcision, but I do shake my head reading statements like "We all should be able to choose what we want done to our bodies."

When did your kid choose to have its umbilical cord cut? Or simply his/her finger or toe nails? His/her hair? How about did your kid agree to brush his/her teeth or take baths or showers? How about vaccines?

That's why I disagree with the statement that kids should be able to choose what we want done to our bodies. Parents have a responsibility to make such decisions in the interest of their kids based on the best evidence available.

Anonymous said...

Against, it's a cosmetic procedure. Unless it's done for relgious reasons, no way, no how and no thanks.

Paul said...

Please do not compare a vaccination with a circumcision. A circumcision is an amputation of a body part that British and European and South American and Asian men get to keep on - without higher rates of disease. It is such a bullshit ptocedure and Americans particularly need to wake up. A vaccine is good, it adds something. A circumcision is bad, it takes something away. Get it?

Anonymous said...

"When did your kid choose to have its umbilical cord cut? Or simply his/her finger or toe nails? His/her hair? How about did your kid agree to brush his/her teeth or take baths or showers? How about vaccines?"

Umbilical cord - actually medically *necessary*. Not recommended, necessary.

Hair, finger & toenails: The effects of these are not permanent and are not even long-term. If a child becomes a consenting age where s/he no longer wishes to have his/her hair/nails cut, they may stop at their choice and all the effects previous will wear off.

Same with baths & showers & teethbrushing - that all falls into a combination of the last two paragraphs. Vaccines I feel can fall into those as well.

Foreskin WILL NOT grow back, and it's not medically necessary (all current *recommendations*, both for and against, aside) to have it removed.

MickeyMartin said...

I am circumcised. My two sons are circumcised because I wanted them to be like daddy for one. And also because I think if there is a chance for disease reduction, then it is a relatively small price to pay that could help to avoid some relatively serious consequences in the future. In relation to vaccines, with the theory that some vaccines could be related to Autism, I would say that vaccines could be taking more away than one knows. Circumcision is a tradition in my family and I believe is a good hygiene practice. I found it interesting that 30% of the worlds men were circumcised and 68% of those men were muslim. Very interesting stuff. Without being too graphic, I will just say that I like riding with my top down:). I never woke up one day and said, "Geez. I wish I had my foreskin back." It is a non issue and I am glad my parents followed my family tradition, as did I.

Anonymous said...

"I would say that vaccines could be taking more away than one knows."

Fair point.

'Without being too graphic, I will just say that I like riding with my top down:). I never woke up one day and said, "Geez. I wish I had my foreskin back."'

The question I have is, how do you know you wouldn't enjoy it that much more with? Why deprive other people of the opportunity to find out just because our parents deprived us of that.

Anonymous said...

Hygiene is not an issue. The foreskin is very easy to clean.

Circumcision is only done on about 20% of boys these day. Among boys today, circumcised boys are a minority.

Doctors have a financial incentive to perform circumcisions. They make a lot of money off of them. Doctors will tell you everything possible to get you to perform them. The scare you with the idea that foreskin will cause disease. It does not cause disease. HIV and penile cancer come from unprotected sex and from promiscuity.

People who believe that circumcision will keep them from getting HIV or other STDs are misguided.

Circumcised men circumcise their sons because they don't want their sons to have any more sexual pleasure than they do. It is a cycle of mutilation that just keep on continuing.

We should let people decide on their own when they are old enough. How would you feel if your son blamed you your entire life for circumcising him? Some people only think of themselves. They cannot believe that there are people out there that like the pleasure of foreskin. We need to let men decide on their own to get circumcised. If you remove it, it will never grow back. Just wait and let your son decide on his own. There is nothing worse that not knowing what you are missing out on.

There is no time deadline. You can always get a circumcision later in life. However, we need to let men choose for themselves and not just take it away from them as babies when they cannot choose.

MickeyMartin said...

Well, as much as I would like to believe your statements which are unfounded and not backed by evidence, I would much more take the advice of the World Health Organization. The United Nations, and The Center for Disease Control.

The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides minimal protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.

Not that I do not think accepting medical advice from an anonymous blogger is not a good idea or anything. I think the risk far outweighs the reward. And BTW, how do you know that circumcision does not enhance the sexual experience, thus children not being circumcised are being deprived? I think the 20% number you look to is worldwide, so obviously much of the world does not have the opportunity of optional healthcare procedures. I wonder what the numbers are like in developed countries?

Anonymous said...

"And BTW, how do you know that circumcision does not enhance the sexual experience, thus children not being circumcised are being deprived?"

That's a very good point, however, they are not being deprived, since if they are not circumcised, they still have the option to choose to get circumcised later. Those who are, however, circumcised, loose the ability to make that choice.

Anonymous said...

My son, is 10, we did NOT circumcise. However, my older son is. Our first, I fell into the trap of "he should be like daddy." or "what about the locker room." BAH HUMBUG. It is not medically necessary. All you have to do is watch it being done, or a photo like what you have posted and that was enough for me. I did research for 9 months... and decided that to be "like daddy" or like anyone else was a ridiculous reason to remove a useful part of someone's body. It is cosmetic. Much of Europe does not circumcise. There is no reason . The AAP does not recommend it at this time. It is easy to keep clean. There is no problem. If my son wants his foreskin removed later, then it can be HIS choice. I feel strongly I made a mistake with my first. I can't take it back, but I don't have to perpetuate it.

MickeyMartin said...

"A Useful part of someone's body"

What use is there for foreskin? Does the CDC and WHO lie about the risk of disease? Is it worth a risk of infection if your son may not find that it is "easy enough to clean?" in the heat of the moment of adolescent sexual activity? I will agree to disagree on these points. My two sons cried less after circumcision than when they got shots, but I did not keep them from getting shots because it created a short period of pain. Just one opinion.

Circumcision later in life is obviously a much bigger deal, as a person has to stop their active life during the formative years to have this procedure. I wonder what will happen when one son notices he is different from his brother and father. Will that make him feel odd? Who knows. There will definitely need to be an explanation.

Anonymous said...

Did God make a mistake with the foreskin? Useful = put there by god, by birth, a functional part of someone's body. Who's right is it to surgically amputate part of someone else's body? Seriously. Besides, if you are a mad, do you compare yourself to other men? Just how alike do genitals have to be? Do all women look the same? No. And my son knows he looks different and he knows EXACTLY why. So what? Guess what, they have different colored eyes too. And their toes look different? Oh, and hair color... ohh boy.. different too. Geez, the whole "must be the same" is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

What is circumcision?
Circumcision is the surgical amputation of the foreskin of the penis.

What is foreskin?
The foreskin is a double-sided tube of skin enriched with sexually sensitive nerves and muscle that covers and protects
the glans (head) of the penis and can be retracted by the time puberty is reached. An adult male’s average foreskin is
about 15 square inches in size or roughly the same size as a 3 x 5 index card.

Foreskin functions
The foreskin is a healthy and natural part of male anatomy. It protects the glans (head) of the penis keeping the urinary
track sterile. The foreskin plays an important part during sexual intimacy, because it acts as a natural lubricant through
its unique gliding or "rolling" motion. This unique rolling motion provides women improved sensation and comfort while
preventing vaginal dryness and chafing.

The foreskin is the most sexually sensitive and pleasurable part of the penis, especially near the tip of the foreskin
called the “ridged band”. It’s the loss of this highly erogenous tissue that cause many men circumcised as adults to
report a significant loss of sensitivity and regret after having it done.

Anonymous said...

typo - I meant, if you are a MAN...

Anonymous said...

From the CDC website:

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance.

Well-designed studies of sexual sensation and function in relation to male circumcision are few, and the results present a mixed picture. Taken as a whole, the studies suggest that some decrease in sensitivity of the glans to fine touch can occur following circumcision. However, several studies conducted among men after adult circumcision suggest that few men report their sexual functioning is worse after circumcision; most report either improvement or no change.

In national probability samples of adults surveyed during 1999–2004, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) found that 79% of men reported being circumcised, including 88% of non-Hispanic white men, 73% of non-Hispanic black men, 42% of Mexican American men, and 50% of men of other races/ ethnicities. It is important to note that reported circumcision status may be subject to misclassification. In a study of adolescents¸ only 69% of circumcised and 65% of uncircumcised young men correctly identified their circumcision status as verified by physical exam.

In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) changed from a neutral stance on circumcision to a position that the data then available were insufficient to recommend routine neonatal male circumcision. The Academy also stated, “It is legitimate for the parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice”. However, AAP has recently (2007) convened a panel to reconsider its circumcision policy in light of additional data now available.

Anonymous said...

"The foreskin is the most sexually sensitive and pleasurable part of the penis"

You're just copy and pasting from an anti-circ website, can you show that based on any scientific studies? I can show you a study that shows sensitivity is NOT reduced:

Anonymous said...

has it ever occurred to you pro-circ people that you should wear a frickin condom to avoid all those diseases? WOW. Guess what, since I'm anon here, I'll tell you I got HPV and I've never had sex with a non-circ'd man. So wear a condom and you won't get syphilis, HPV, HIV, aids, or anything else.

Anonymous said...

i'm not going to argue the sexual part. It is still an amputation of a part of someone's body. There is nothing I've read anywhere that would lead me to believe that circumcision is the only way to prevent all the ghastly disease noted. Responsible sexual habits, condoms and knowing your partner is heck of a lot better than circumcision of a newborn who has /had no choice in the matter. Maybe we should just start taking out their appendix too? How about wisdom teeth.. dig them out , right at birth. How about gallbladders cuz a lot of those cause problems later too... Its all about prevention right?

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:10. First of all none of the quoted studies say that circumcision prevents any of these diseases only that studies show that they decrease the likelihood of transmission.

More importantly Anon 2:10 is living proof that while we all know, as she so clearly states, that we always should be using condoms when having intercourse with a person of unknown disease state, we do not always do so.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:13
"There is nothing I've read anywhere that would lead me to believe that circumcision is the only way to prevent all the ghastly disease noted."
Nobody says that circumcision would prevent these diseases. Studies have shown it reduces the risk, and so do all the other measures you list.
But who says it has to be one or the other? Why not both? Washing hands has shown to reduce many infectious diseases. Would you not vaccinate because you could reduce the risk by washing hands, or do you think because somebody is vaccinated you should stop washing their hands?

"knowing your partner is heck of a lot better than circumcision"
Who knows their partner? Do you really think that for example Governor Sanford's wife or Senator Ensign's wife thought they did not know their partner?

"Appendix, wisdom teeth, gallbladder"
Do you have any evidence that not removing them prior to any problem would lead later to serious health conditions?

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:37

Did God make a mistake with the foreskin?

Are you saying only Christians have a foreskin?

Thud said...

For it to be a family tradition seems rather third world...what a strange debate.

MickeyMartin said...

Well this is a lively debate. I think it is fair to say that there are seriously differing opinions on this very "sensitive" subject. I think it is okay to circumcise if that is your belief and tradition and if not then feel free. Let's be real though. We make decisions on our child's behalf for almost 18 years of their life for their own good. This "Harming another human being" sounds great as a civil rights piece, but this is MY kid whom I am responsible for better or worse until he is grown. If I think there is a remote chance that down the road when he is an irresponsible and horny teen that he may have a higher risk of getting a serious disease in his experimentation then I would do what was necessary to prevent that, including removing his foreskin. Call me a beast if you will.

MickeyMartin said...


I think there are many family traditions that are weird, like cutting down a tree, putting it in my living room and decorating it for Jesus. But I do it every year. Why? Tradition. The birth process, including the decision to circumcise or not, is a moment where culture, religion, and yes, tradition come into serious play when making choices for this new member of your family. In my case I wanted my sons, as a part of my family, to be raised in the tradition of my family values. I do not think that is third world. I think it is how us humans find identity and common threads in our developing histories.

Anonymous said...

Many circumcised men are just subconsciously angry that there are uncut men out there who get more pleasure out of sex. They do everything they can to try to get everyone to circumcise, because don't want to admit that they might be missing some pleasure. They don't want anyone else to have more pleasure than them.

No one should tell people what they should or should not do. However, circumcision should be a choice for a man to make when he is old enough to decide. It should not be done when he is a baby and is unable to say yes or no. It is not going to grow back if a mistake is made.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:24 or should I call you Dr. Freud for your brilliant discovery of Foreskin Envy?

Sure it won't grow back, but neither will the serious chronic infection go away, because you have not considered that teens might become sexually active before they are legally adults.

Anonymous said...

"Many circumcised men are just subconsciously angry that there are uncut men out there who get more pleasure out of sex."

Oh, that's precious. Where are your studies that show this? I know, you're just making it up because you want it to be true. How stupid is that?

MickeyMartin said...


Anonymous said...

What it all comes down to is that you are happy with the way you are right now. Whether you are cut or uncut, you should be glad to be the way you are. There is no need to change yourself just because someone else disapproves.

We are a diverse country and we should all accept each other regardless of our physical differences. Whether you are black or white, cut or uncut, and so forth.

Anonymous said...

I have two boys. The older one is and the younger one is not. After my own research, I concluded that the research done was simple averages not taking into consideration the lifestyles my children will face.

The risks associated with circumcision were not worth assuming in exchange for an also immeasurable increase in cleanliness.

I took a change with the first boy and he is fine, thank God. The second boy is just fine too.

MickeyMartin said...

Interesting Stuff:

Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

He and other experts acknowledged that although the clinical trials of circumcision in Africa had dramatic results, the effects of circumcision in the United States were likely to be more muted because the disease is less prevalent here, because it spreads through different routes and because the health systems are so disparate as to be incomparable.

Clinical trials in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda found that heterosexual men who were circumcised were up to 60 percent less likely to become infected with H.I.V. over the course of the trials than those who were not circumcised.

There is little to no evidence that circumcision protects men who have sex with men from infection.

Another reason circumcision would have less of an impact in the United States is that some 79 percent of adult American men are already circumcised, public health officials say.

Anonymous said...

This is just such a sign of our times. When I read Anon 5:49 I have to just shake my head.

"I concluded that the research done was simple averages not taking into consideration the lifestyles my children will face."

What lifestyle are you talking about? Falling in love with a partner who might be infected with HIV, HPV, HSV, Chlamydia to name a few? Do you really think this is a lifestyle choice?

"The risks associated with circumcision were not worth assuming in exchange for an also immeasurable increase in cleanliness."

First infection with any of this diseases are not linked to cleanliness. I will not help to wash your penis to prevent any of these diseases, the cleanliness is the increased risk of urogenital bacterial infection. And on what basis were you able to assess the risk? Based on somebody with $50 and access to internet? Or based on medical experts from the Centers of Disease Control or the National Institute of Health?

"I took a chance [I assume that's what you meant] with the first boy and he is fine, thank God."

Are your really so scared from the anti circ websites that you had real worries about that? Of course as any medical procedure there is some risk involved, but come on? Your boy probably was at much higher risk tripping over an area rug in your house or downing in bathtub or hit by a tree branch in your backyard.

This is what happens if there are a bunch of parents out there being scared by some cooks with a website.

hapamama said...

Cutting off a perfectly normal and healthy part of a body to prevent a disease that safe sex would do a better job preventing is a long shot, and pretty short-sighted.

Most of Europe doesn't routinely circumcise the way we do in the US, and the HIV infection rate there isn't noticeably higher than the US.

Matter of fact, the HIV infection rate in the US is higher than most European countries.

My boys are intact. Circumcision never was an option because IMO, it's a cosmetic procedure that has little medical benefit, thus not my place to make that decision for my children.

MickeyMartin said...

Safe sex is great, but is it a reality? We know it is not. Kids are irresponsible sometimes. Do you have any resources to back up the claims you make? I believe the World Health Organization is one of the most reputable out there, and I think their recommendation is good enough for me. Me and 78% of my fellow American males. I think Europe is great, but I do not like mayo on my french fries. Just cultural differences I suppose. I would be interested in more facts that disprove the CDC and WHO recommendation.

Anonymous said...

It's not my body. It's my son's body. When he's an adult, he's welcome to cut off, pierce, and tattoo any part of himself that he wants (I reserve the right to roll my eyes at any tattoos and piercing.)

Before my son was born, I really didn't give the issue any thought. I just assumed that we would circumcise. That changed at the hospital when the pediatrician came in to meet my newborn son. She gave him the basic new-baby exam and then asked me matter-of-factly if I wanted him circumcised. I looked down at the most perfect thing that God has ever created and the question suddenly sounded completely absurd. I heard myself respond, "That'll be his decision".

Ansilatoms said...

I'm not cut, and danged glad for it. Thankfully my folks didn't buy into some religious mutilation garbage, or some doctors admonition that it would make things easier. BS. There's nothing so difficult about keeping yourself clean.

Anonymous said...

I don't have children, and as a woman, I have less vehement opinions on this subject than many men probably do (though, on a related subject, it's been very rare for me to encounter a "sweater wearer" among my sexual partners over the years).

One thing I am sure of: I'm glad the disturbing photo of this child in distress has MOVED DOWN on the blog's homepage. Every time I came across that photo, I shuddered and felt bad for that child and other children going through the procedure.

MickeyMartin said...

It is absurd to think a person who is grown will decide to get circumcised. If they wanted to be circumcised, but weren't at birth, then they may also hold some resentment that their parents did not do the procedure when they were young enough to not remember and did not have a life they needed to abruptly stop to recover from penis surgery. A kid may have an encounter with a young lady who calls him a "sweater wearer" and be horribly embarrassed because he is seen as different than others by someone he is attracted to. It could go both ways. It is not realistic to think a person will decide to have this procedure later in life when the are "old enough to make that decision for themselves." By that time you have basically made the decision for them one way or the other and they will most likely deal with the fact that they are uncircumcised for life, whether they want to or not. My two sons and myself do not remember the procedure and my sons cried less than when they were hungry for their mother's tete.

Anonymous said...

I did not have my son circumcised as an infant; couldn't subject an infant to the pain. However he decided himself around age 14 that he wanted to be circumcised. Missed a day of school, and was a non-event. He's happy and it was his choice.

Thud said... equate putting a christmas tree up with the mutilation of a childs interesting view.Perhaps when the child is older he can decide wether to have a tree or not....choice is all.

Anonymous said...

Wow Thud "Choice is all"? I guess you meant to say "My choice is all" or do you want to say that you are now all of a sudden Pro Choice?

Dan Simoes said...

Lots of heated comments, good topic Crazy!

All I have to say is, do your research, talk to your pediatrician, and make the decision that you think is best. Don't look back, don't second guess, don't bother telling people who have no business in knowing (unless it's a close friend contemplating the same decision).

In the end, it's not a life changing choice. I've never know anyone circumcised who walks around wishing he had a foreskin, or vice versa. :)

Anonymous said...

3:01.. God, mother nature, whatever, did you know that other religions (besides christian based) believe in a GOD. Yes, Jews believe in G-D. And Muslims in Allah, and so on and so on.. wow, you are really dumb aren't you. DId you miss my point ? I guess you did. The point was that were kids that are born with foreskins (which I think is ALL boys of all cultures, religions, race and color) , shouldn't have them cut off!!!

Anonymous said...

I think that Mickey Martin is stoned from all the cannabis he has.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:56 before you start calling other people dumb you might want to look in a mirror. If you would venture a little bit out into the world you might realize that not all people believe in creationism. But that isn't even the main point. Strange that you people invoke god when it fits your argument.

How about god created that tumor and how dare you to cut it off. Or how about do you put clothes on your boy? If god wanted him to be dressed wouldn't he at least given him some fur? Or how about sending him to school because if god wanted him to read he would have made him read without having to go to school.

It's called taking responsibility if modern scientific evidence shows that circumcision is a health benefit, your original statement "Did God make a mistake with the foreskin?" probably does not give you the right to call others dumb.

Anonymous said...

10:52. I'd say you're pretty dumb. Your arguments are completely irrelevent and irrational. Feeling guilty ? I didn't invoke god as an entity we must obey, I invoked the FACT that people are born a certain way and it doesn't mean it is wrong, or needs surgical correction, or needs to be amputated. That's it. Is that clear? Here is a hint the AAP DOES NOT (repeat NOT) recommend this as a routine. Yes they are looking at some changes, but it reminds me of a quote I heard "If fifty million people say (do) a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France

MickeyMartin said...

What is with the personal attack? Is that necessary? You demean my support for cannabis medicines because I was courageous enough to put my name on my comments and did not cower behind an anonymous alter ego. People are brave behind their keyboards. I choose o be brave in the real world, with my real name, and my real identity and you choose to attack me for that? You are weak.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:03 you should do somthing against your anger. It's not healty for you

MickeyMartin said...

Yawn. Passive aggressive nonsense. Let us attack and then call someone angry when they respond. That is a tired approach.

Anonymous said...

Mickey, thanks for saying that , I was not angry in my response ,, I was the 11:03 that the previous poster referred to. I guess I must have made a point though that 11:24 couldn't refute :) I respect your manner of debate Mickey, and though we are opposite ends of this spectrum, I feel we can respectfully agree to disagree. Now shall we discuss abortion now? or Breast vs Formula? or politics ? :)))

Anonymous said...

Someone brought up the topic of reduced sensitivity, and it was countered by a webmd article saying that sensitivity is not reduced---for the MAN. While that's debatable, the fact that the foreskin rubs where women are most sensitive during penetration makes me believe that sexual partners of circumcised men are missing out. I have heard the foreskin called "the best sex toy you can't buy". I'm a woman, and that's good enough reason for me not to circumsise my boys.

MickeyMartin said...

You have heard the foreskin is the best sex toy...? No hands on experience? This conversation may spiral out of control, but here goes. My wife has had both experiences and would simply disagree with this theory. So the argument is that disease is acceptable because of your son's ability to please women in the future? Seems like an odd compromise. I am still sticking with the CDC and WHO recommendations. As much as folks have said that you can use a condom to protect from disease you can by a sex toy if that is what you are into to create the perceived missed pleasure. This conversation is beginning to make me blush, so I will respectfully bow out. :)

Anonymous said...

Mickey, lets see how far it goes.. how long did your wife breastfeed if you have kids? WHO recommends breastfeeding 2 years. Hope she did that as long as you're doing everything other entities tell you to do. I strongly believe that the stance WHO has taken is in response the sheer numbers of HIV cases in Africa where people can't seem to get the message that a simple condom would stop the spread. Still not a reason to make it routine.

Anonymous said...

"in Africa where people can't seem to get the message that a simple condom would stop the spread"

Unfortunately nothing is ever that easy. You seem to imply that people in Africa just don't seem to get it, but you do not mention that there are many myths about AIDS and condoms spread around Africa. One side you have the Catholic Church who strongly lobbies against the use of condoms and actually teaches that condoms will not protect against HIV. On the other hand you have groups going around Africa saying that HIV is not sexually transmitted but actually a disease spread by the US to eradicate Africans. This myth makes it very difficult for example for the WHO to try to eradicate polio which had major outbreaks in Nigeria. People are going around spreading the rumor that the polio vaccine is how the US is infecting people in Africa.

Anonymous said...

"People are going around spreading the rumor that the polio vaccine is how the US is infecting people in Africa."

Well, then people are very stupid for believing that over there. And people are very stupid over here for believing that vaccinations cause autism.

I think people are just very stupid in general.

MickeyMartin said...

My wife did breast feed for two years to the day with both of my boys and then she had a glass of wine:). She did a lot of research into that and gave my two boys their nutrition for everyday of those first two years. I personally think it is a good idea to listen to experts. Others, not so much. Who needs all that scientific mumbo jumbo anyhoo.

MickeyMartin said...

"I strongly believe that the stance WHO has taken is in response the sheer numbers of HIV cases in Africa where people can't seem to get the message that a simple condom would stop the spread."

Are these type of personal inferences into how worldwide health constituents make their recommendations really a reliable way to go? Let's try it.

I strongly believe that the World Health Organization is the premiere expert on all subjects health related and do not believe they would make claims to suggest people do circumcision to simply serve the needs of one geographic region. I believe this organization has far more credence than any of the personal opinion from non-heath professionals that have idealistic reasoning for not wanting to circumcise.

Now does it really matter what "I believe" anyway? I think the organizations dedicated to the health cause are reputable and I choose to follow their recommendations. I believe in all sorts of crazy stuff like flu shots, washing my hands to avoid swine flu, not giving my children certain medicines until they are old enough, and regular check-ups. I am like a voo-doo master or something, eh? Why would I listen to these crazy crackpot organizations who are obviously conspiring to create a worldwide outbreak of foreskin envy:).

Anonymous said...

My husband nearly died from his circumcision from bleeding complications. He had to be rushed from Concord Community (back in the day) to Children's (I think).

I have four boys and only one is circumcised because he had a problem with the foreskin retracting.

I actually sought my husband's input on this decision because I did want to take into consideration whether the boys should 'look' like their dad. His position was absolutely not for a few reasons.

It is an amputation of a body part, and just because we don't really understand it, doesn't mean we should be hacking it off of every male child. This, like most medical procedures, come with risks. Why would anyone want unduly risk the health of his/her child unless there is an overriding reason to do so?

And the main reason: My husband's circumcised penis is not nearly as sensitive as an uncircumcised one (because of the glans being exposed and rubbing against clothing). My husband hates this.

People circumcise for strange reasons. My friend and I were having the circumcision discussion some years ago because my youngest son is seven. She explained that she circumcised her son because a circumcised penis was 'more attractive' than an uncircumcised one. I told her that I could line a dozen of them up and none of them would win a beauty contest, so that wasn't really our concern.

Anonymous said...

"And the main reason: My husband's circumcised penis is not nearly as sensitive as an uncircumcised one (because of the glans being exposed and rubbing against clothing). My husband hates this."

ok, I get it now, you're not very bright. Firstly, I have listed a study which shows that there is no decreased sensitivity after circumcision. Secondly, how would your husband know? Does he have two penises?

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:39 I noticed this too. You say your husband had to be rushed to Children's following his circumcision, which would indicate the procedure was performed prior to him becoming sexually active. Thus he really doesn't have a point of reference regarding the sensitivity of his penis. The best statement I can make is that he feels very unsatisfied and believes it might be due to his circumcision, but there is no way that he can know. But who knows it could be that he just has to much of an expectation or any other problem, I guess you and your husband will just never know.

Anonymous said...

I suffered from a seriously botched circumcision. Back in the 70s they used to do tons of circumcisions and apparently someone got careless. They cut off too much and I was left seriously scarred. I have suffered from extreme tightness and pain my entire life during the times when I need to function. Nerves were severed and several areas are dead to sensitivity.

I regret being circumcised as I have lifelong scars and never will be completely functional.

Those who are circumcised as teens or adults have it much better. They will usually get a nice even cut. However, I never had that choice and now I am stuck with a horrible uneven scar and severed nerves.

I would not circumcise my son when he is an infant. However, if he wanted to be circumcised as a teen I would support him. At least, at that time the doctor would be sure not to carelessly cut or botch the procedure.