UTIs are VASTLY more common in females, especially when they are potty trained and using the bathroom without supervision. But you don't see people lining up to have their daughter's labia cut off at birth. The mucus membranes of the vagina are also significantly more susceptible to STDs than the squamous epithelium of the penis. But once again, no one is saying that prophylactic removal of the cervix or somehow toughening up the vaginal mucosa to make it unnaturally transform closer to "regular" skin to prevent STDs is a good idea either.
We circ'd DS, it was no big deal. He was back in my arms in 5 minutes and no worse for the wear.
I left the decision up to DH, he wanted it done. I was relieved that he did. My college friends and I had a lot of fun laughing about a specific guy's uncut penis .... shallow as it may be, I don't want my son subjected to that kind of ridicule. Where we had DS (in Texas), our OB said appx 80% of newborn males were being circ'd, so not like the uncut penis is going to become the norm anytime soon. There, anyway.
Shallow is spot on here. This post just really saddens me. I'm sorry you haven't grown up since college. I wish to raise my son to be proud of everything about him, and to have respect for all different types of people. I certainly hope he wouldn't waste his time worrying about the shallow opinions of people like you. Just because 80% of people where you live are doing it doesn't mean you have to follow suit. If you go outside of the US, to Europe for example, the procedure is very rare. I'm neither an advocate for or against the procedure, but for real, have a decent reason for your position....not that you don't want him to get laughed at. Grow up, please.
And here's a flammable opinion: I think uncut penises are creepy looking.
As crudely as this is worded, it is true, I believe it is done more often than it is not, and therefore we are more likely to have a repellent reaction to an uncut one because we are visually use to seeing the cut version. If you were to pull up a medical diagram of the male organ, most of them are drawn cut. Personally I didn't even know what an uncut version looked like until I googled it. That tells you something.
I would take issue with the person who said that it is only common in the United States. Religiously speaking if you tallied up all the jewish and muslim men in the world, you would have a significant portion of the world population.
Are there downsides and risks...absolutely, but it doesn't seem like anything which can't be overcome by strict medical supervision when the procedure is done. Is it going to be hard for me to be there when the doctor performs it on my son?..oh yeah! Is that going to stop me? ..no way.
This is where you're wrong.....so far all the posts that say it's not common practice in the US also state they can see it being done for religious reasons but a large majority of people in the U.S. do it as common practice, not for religion.
I did a quick google search and according to the recent statics I found there are 13.3 million Jewish people and 1.57 billion Muslims in the world. There is an estimated 7 billion people in the world, so there goes your argument about it being a large majority....doesn't even come close to half.....not even 1/4.
Most of Europe is Catholic religion and circumcision is not a common practice there, most of South America is Catholic and I know for a fact it's not common there....DH is originally from Peru and NO one in his whole family is circumcised and it was not something they even offered at the hospitals.
Trying to say it's common all over the world is false and people need to accept that.
Re-read her post. No where does she claim it is a "large majority," she just stated that it was a "significant portion."
We circ'd DS, it was no big deal. He was back in my arms in 5 minutes and no worse for the wear.
I left the decision up to DH, he wanted it done. I was relieved that he did. My college friends and I had a lot of fun laughing about a specific guy's uncut penis .... shallow as it may be, I don't want my son subjected to that kind of ridicule. Where we had DS (in Texas), our OB said appx 80% of newborn males were being circ'd, so not like the uncut penis is going to become the norm anytime soon. There, anyway.
So better to promote shallow thinking than to teach your child to be above it? Let smaller minds prevail?
And an uncirc'd penis IS the norm. It's how your child is formed in the womb and the condition they are in when they are born. Then we alter it so simple-minded college girls won't make fun of it.
I wish it wasn't the norm to accept a backasswards way of thinking for convenience and vanity.
We circ'd DS, it was no big deal. He was back in my arms in 5 minutes and no worse for the wear.
I left the decision up to DH, he wanted it done. I was relieved that he did. My college friends and I had a lot of fun laughing about a specific guy's uncut penis .... shallow as it may be, I don't want my son subjected to that kind of ridicule. Where we had DS (in Texas), our OB said appx 80% of newborn males were being circ'd, so not like the uncut penis is going to become the norm anytime soon. There, anyway.
Shallow is spot on here. This post just really saddens me. I'm sorry you haven't grown up since college. I wish to raise my son to be proud of everything about him, and to have respect for all different types of people. I certainly hope he wouldn't waste his time worrying about the shallow opinions of people like you. Just because 80% of people where you live are doing it doesn't mean you have to follow suit. If you go outside of the US, to Europe for example, the procedure is very rare. I'm neither an advocate for or against the procedure, but for real, have a decent reason for your position....not that you don't want him to get laughed at. Grow up, please.
I don't think that she needs to grow up for not wanting her son to be ridiculed. I had never known the difference (only seen cut) until college when a lot of girls did make fun of guys that weren't. I didn't participate, because like I said I didn't even know the difference to begin with, but I don't think it's necessarily wrong to do something for your child that is the norm where you live. My husband said all of his friends in high school made fun of the boys not circumcised. I'm not saying it's right but it happens. In the Midwest, where we live, more than 80% are circumcised. When my OB brought it up (she would be performing it at the hospital), she was very surprised when I mentioned that I had run into so much controversy on the subject.
It couldn't be more opposite here in the northeast. My husband is circed and actually feels like he's missing out on something. Girls here talk about how much better sex is with an intact man. I would say the circ rate here is far less than 50% and the pediatrician in our hospital actually said he was glad to see another family not doing the procedure. It's very common here to not even consider it.
And here's a flammable opinion: I think uncut penises are creepy looking.
I love you! I wanted to say this, but was too scared. Even if someone says, "its just cosmetic" well then why not do it? As a woman who has seen both, they are unattractive sorry. I'm not really thinking about my little baby and sex right now, but I don't want him to be the poor guy that all the girls talk about in college.
And here's a flammable opinion: I think uncut penises are creepy looking.
As crudely as this is worded, it is true, I believe it is done more often than it is not, and therefore we are more likely to have a repellent reaction to an uncut one because we are visually use to seeing the cut version. If you were to pull up a medical diagram of the male organ, most of them are drawn cut. Personally I didn't even know what an uncut version looked like until I googled it. That tells you something.
I would take issue with the person who said that it is only common in the United States. Religiously speaking if you tallied up all the jewish and muslim men in the world, you would have a significant portion of the world population.
Are there downsides and risks...absolutely, but it doesn't seem like anything which can't be overcome by strict medical supervision when the procedure is done. Is it going to be hard for me to be there when the doctor performs it on my son?..oh yeah! Is that going to stop me? ..no way.
This is where you're wrong.....so far all the posts that say it's not common practice in the US also state they can see it being done for religious reasons but a large majority of people in the U.S. do it as common practice, not for religion.
I did a quick google search and according to the recent statics I found there are 13.3 million Jewish people and 1.57 billion Muslims in the world. There is an estimated 7 billion people in the world, so there goes your argument about it being a large majority....doesn't even come close to half.....not even 1/4.
Most of Europe is Catholic religion and circumcision is not a common practice there, most of South America is Catholic and I know for a fact it's not common there....DH is originally from Peru and NO one in his whole family is circumcised and it was not something they even offered at the hospitals.
Trying to say it's common all over the world is false and people need to accept that.
Re-read her post. No where does she claim it is a "large majority," she just stated that it was a "significant portion."
It's not even a "significant portion" Any other arguments you want to defend?
And here's a flammable opinion: I think uncut penises are creepy looking.
I love you! I wanted to say this, but was too scared. Even if someone says, "its just cosmetic" well then why not do it? As a woman who has seen both, they are unattractive sorry. I'm not really thinking about my little baby and sex right now, but I don't want him to be the poor guy that all the girls talk about in college.
So if you had a daughter, would you put her through surgery to "fix" something cosmetic that will make the guys in college less likely to make fun of her?
And btw, all of the shallow women who think an uncut penis are missing out. Uncircumcised is much more sexually satisfying than cut, for both the man and the woman.
And here's a flammable opinion: I think uncut penises are creepy looking.
I love you! I wanted to say this, but was too scared. Even if someone says, "its just cosmetic" well then why not do it? As a woman who has seen both, they are unattractive sorry. I'm not really thinking about my little baby and sex right now, but I don't want him to be the poor guy that all the girls talk about in college.
So if you had a daughter, would you put her through surgery to "fix" something cosmetic that will make the guys in college less likely to make fun of her?
And btw, all of the shallow women who think an uncut penis are missing out. Uncircumcised is much more sexually satisfying than cut, for both the man and the woman.
Absolutely. If it was a common procedure that was done by doctors right after birth.
And here's a flammable opinion: I think uncut penises are creepy looking.
As crudely as this is worded, it is true, I believe it is done more often than it is not, and therefore we are more likely to have a repellent reaction to an uncut one because we are visually use to seeing the cut version. If you were to pull up a medical diagram of the male organ, most of them are drawn cut. Personally I didn't even know what an uncut version looked like until I googled it. That tells you something.
I would take issue with the person who said that it is only common in the United States. Religiously speaking if you tallied up all the jewish and muslim men in the world, you would have a significant portion of the world population.
Are there downsides and risks...absolutely, but it doesn't seem like anything which can't be overcome by strict medical supervision when the procedure is done. Is it going to be hard for me to be there when the doctor performs it on my son?..oh yeah! Is that going to stop me? ..no way.
This is where you're wrong.....so far all the posts that say it's not common practice in the US also state they can see it being done for religious reasons but a large majority of people in the U.S. do it as common practice, not for religion.
I did a quick google search and according to the recent statics I found there are 13.3 million Jewish people and 1.57 billion Muslims in the world. There is an estimated 7 billion people in the world, so there goes your argument about it being a large majority....doesn't even come close to half.....not even 1/4.
Most of Europe is Catholic religion and circumcision is not a common practice there, most of South America is Catholic and I know for a fact it's not common there....DH is originally from Peru and NO one in his whole family is circumcised and it was not something they even offered at the hospitals.
Trying to say it's common all over the world is false and people need to accept that.
Re-read her post. No where does she claim it is a "large majority," she just stated that it was a "significant portion."
It's not even a "significant portion" Any other arguments you want to defend?
According to malecircumcision.org (as well as other websites googled) about 30% of males (globally) are circumsized. I guess it depends on your definition of "significant."
FWIW I'm not criticizing your choice to leave your son intact or your husband's appearance or anything like that. I was just pointing out that samanthalsher did not claim that circumscision is a "large majority."
Where we had DS (in Texas), our OB said appx 80% of newborn males were being circ'd, so not like the uncut penis is going to become the norm anytime soon. There, anyway.
I haven't finished the thread so I don't know that anyone has responded to this. While my OB says its the norm among her patients I have seen stats that rates in Texas are MUCH lower due to the large Hispanic population and circumcision not being the norm among them. That when our kids are locker room age more will be uncut than not!
Penile infections and cancer are rare but not nearly as rare as complications from infant circ (in the US at least). Also, UTIs are not as rare and (while relatively harmless) are more common in uncirced boys.
This combined with the decreased risk of STDs in why we are choosing to circ our son. Yes, we can teach our kids about safe sex but that doesn't mean they will do it. Think about how many guys you know that "hate condoms" or how many girl friends have had a pregnancy/STD scare. We all believe our kids will behave differently but chances are they will not.
from the AAP policy statement on circumcision (link I posted on page 1)
"In summary, all studies that have examined the association between UTI and circumcision status show an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised males, with the greatest risk in infants younger than 1 year of age. The magnitude of the effect varies among studies. Using numbers from the literature, one can estimate that 7 to 14 of 1000 uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life, compared with 1 to 2 of 1000 circumcised male infants. Although the relative risk of UTI in uncircumcised male infants compared with circumcised male infants is increased from 4- to as much as 10-fold during the first year of life, the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%)."
again, results are not significant enough to convince us (personally) that prophylactic removal of the male foreskin is necessary.
FWIW, my son is past his first year and has never experienced a UTI. We keep him clean down there. And its even more so in the first few years because the forsekin is still fused to the head of the penis. No additional folds to clean under. Foreskin doesnt start to retract until about age 3-5. From the research that I've seen, there isnt that great[er] risk of UTI's in that agre group, and for adult males, the prevalence of UTIs is pretty much the same between those circumcised and those who are not.
r.e. decrease in STDs, the major studies in support of circ'ing came from a population and culture who's sexual practices are not exactly comparable to our own. Furthermore, circumciszing isnt a guarantee either that they won't get an STD.
In the end, we can't protect our kids from every bad thing out there in the world. The best we can do is educate and hope they make the right decision.
Sorry but what I've read states that UTI's are ten times more likely in an uncirced boy and personally knowing at least 5 or 6 intact boys who've developed UTI's makes me suspect that those statistics are more accurate.
To those of you who made the comparisson: no, I wouldn't cut off my daughter's labia but I do have a DD who has bladder reflux and is very prone to UTI's. They are horribly painful and embarrassing for her. We are strongly considering a surgical proceedure to help prevent these attacks. This surgery comes with signifigant risks (as does any surgery) and no guarantees. So, in short, yes...I would "fix" my daughter or at least strongly consider it if given the chance.
This is a topic I'm very pro-choice on. I think that both sides of the argument have very valid points. I'm going to try to paste a link that offers insight on both sides...
*Link didn't work
Read again what lissydee posted. The AAP agrees that UTIs are 10x more likely in uncirc'd boys, but says that the overall risk is still very low and therefore doesn't warrant routine circumcision. In other words, it doesn't make sense to circumcise well over 900 baby boys just to prevent maybe 10 UTIs.
Your daughter's situation is very different in that she's having surgery to address a specific problem that she's actually experiencing. Circumcision is more comparable to me deciding to put my daughter through the same surgery, even though she's never had a UTI in her life. You know, "just in case" she develops bladder reflux in the future and starts having recurring UTIs.
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
My DS is not circumcised and I've never had a problem with infection..he will be 4 in June. My Dh is not as well and is 32 and has never had a problem....I think it is just personal choice...I left it up to DH and he said why would we cut somthing off that is suppose to be there! lol he even said you don't cut your eye lids off!
Ps there is also the small concern of slightly elevated cancer risk in uncirc and the small possibility of phimosis as an older child and requiring general anesthesia
Risk of phimosis requiring circumcision in an older uncirc'd child: 10 in 1000 Risk of circumcision complications requiring re-circumcision in an older circ'd child: 10 in 1000
Risk of penile cancer in an uncirc'd man: 3 in a million Risk of penile cancer in a circ'd man: 1 in a million
Don't you see that? The rate of penile cancer TRIPLES!
My human sexuality professor in college was very anti-circumcision and taught a lecture on the misinformation surrounding health risks of leaving males intact. She stated the risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men as 2 in a million and said that parents are often afraid not to circumcise because they read that "the risk of penile cancer doubles if a male is left uncircumcised." Just shows how biased organizations can phrase things to give parents one idea or the other.
Married to my best friend 6/5/10
BFP #1 9/7/10, EDD 5/14/11, Violet born 5/27/11.
BFP #2 4/9/12, EDD 12/16/12, M/C Rory 4/24/12.
BFP #3 10/6/12, EDD 6/16/12., Matilda born 6/17/13.
Penile infections and cancer are rare but not nearly as rare as complications from infant circ (in the US at least). Also, UTIs are not as rare and (while relatively harmless) are more common in uncirced boys.
This combined with the decreased risk of STDs in why we are choosing to circ our son. Yes, we can teach our kids about safe sex but that doesn't mean they will do it. Think about how many guys you know that "hate condoms" or how many girl friends have had a pregnancy/STD scare. We all believe our kids will behave differently but chances are they will not.
from the AAP policy statement on circumcision (link I posted on page 1)
"In summary, all studies that have examined the association between UTI
and circumcision status show an increased risk of UTI
in uncircumcised males, with the greatest risk in
infants younger than 1 year of age. The magnitude of the effect varies
among
studies. Using numbers from the literature, one can
estimate that 7 to 14 of 1000 uncircumcised male infants will develop
a UTI during the first year of life, compared with 1
to 2 of 1000 circumcised male infants. Although the relative risk of
UTI in uncircumcised male infants compared with
circumcised male infants is increased from 4- to as much as 10-fold
during
the first year of life, the absolute risk of
developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%)."
again, results are not significant enough to convince us (personally) that prophylactic removal of the male foreskin is necessary.
FWIW, my son is past his first year and has never experienced a UTI. We keep him clean down there. And its even more so in the first few years because the forsekin is still fused to the head of the penis. No additional folds to clean under. Foreskin doesnt start to retract until about age 3-5. From the research that I've seen, there isnt that great[er] risk of UTI's in that agre group, and for adult males, the prevalence of UTIs is pretty much the same between those circumcised and those who are not.
r.e. decrease in STDs, the major studies in support of circ'ing came from a population and culture who's sexual practices are not exactly comparable to our own. Furthermore, circumciszing isnt a guarantee either that they won't get an STD.
In the end, we can't protect our kids from every bad thing out there in the world. The best we can do is educate and hope they make the right decision.
I'm very curious what you mean by "culture who's sexual practices are not exactly comparable to our own", especially how that relates to STIs and HIV/AIDS. I work in the HIV/AIDS field, and have done research in sub-Saharan Africa around sexual practices, and I wouldn't say sexual practices - in how they relate to STI risk - differ. This biological processes of sex and virus transmission are more or less the same anyway you slice it, regardless of culture or geographic location. And even at that, people have sex without condoms, have multiple partners, have affairs, rape each other, etc. in every part of the world.
I may be misinterpreting your point, but I think the attitude that it's 'other people' who are at risk is the reason so many people are still contracting HIV and other STIs in North America.
All that being said, most men are going to grow up just fine whether they are circ'd or not. There are risks and benefits both ways. You can have sexual pleasure both ways. Yes, it sucks that circ'ing encourages the attitude among some folks that uncirc'd penises are weird, but other than that it's no one's business. Then again, the attitude that uncirc'd men are more sexually satifying is also pathetic and problematic. I'm not having a boy, so luckily I don't have to make this decision right now. My inclination is to be pro-circ'ing, mainly because of where I work and because a huge chunk of North American men have been circ'ed in the last 40 years with no problems, but I figure my husband should decide. Just because something's always been done a certain way doesn't make it the right way, but I don't have a penis, so how the heck would I be able to think through all the pros and cons?
And here's a flammable opinion: I think uncut penises are creepy looking.
I love you! I wanted to say this, but was too scared. Even if someone says, "its just cosmetic" well then why not do it? As a woman who has seen both, they are unattractive sorry. I'm not really thinking about my little baby and sex right now, but I don't want him to be the poor guy that all the girls talk about in college.
So if you had a daughter, would you put her through surgery to "fix" something cosmetic that will make the guys in college less likely to make fun of her?
And btw, all of the shallow women who think an uncut penis are missing out. Uncircumcised is much more sexually satisfying than cut, for both the man and the woman.
Well thanks for clearing that up. It must be nice to be able to personally experience both sides. Literally both sides not only as a man and woman but circ'd and not!
We will be circumcising our son. I am completely indifferent to what anyone else thinks about that. I am also indifferent to what anyone else does with their own son's foreskin.
And the vitriol, hyperbole and smug pearl clutching these posts always brings out is ridiculous, on both sides.
Penile infections and cancer are rare but not nearly as rare as complications from infant circ (in the US at least). Also, UTIs are not as rare and (while relatively harmless) are more common in uncirced boys.
This combined with the decreased risk of STDs in why we are choosing to circ our son. Yes, we can teach our kids about safe sex but that doesn't mean they will do it. Think about how many guys you know that "hate condoms" or how many girl friends have had a pregnancy/STD scare. We all believe our kids will behave differently but chances are they will not.
from the AAP policy statement on circumcision (link I posted on page 1)
"In summary, all studies that have examined the association between UTI
and circumcision status show an increased risk of UTI
in uncircumcised males, with the greatest risk in
infants younger than 1 year of age. The magnitude of the effect varies
among
studies. Using numbers from the literature, one can
estimate that 7 to 14 of 1000 uncircumcised male infants will develop
a UTI during the first year of life, compared with 1
to 2 of 1000 circumcised male infants. Although the relative risk of
UTI in uncircumcised male infants compared with
circumcised male infants is increased from 4- to as much as 10-fold
during
the first year of life, the absolute risk of
developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%)."
again, results are not significant enough to convince us (personally) that prophylactic removal of the male foreskin is necessary.
FWIW, my son is past his first year and has never experienced a UTI. We keep him clean down there. And its even more so in the first few years because the forsekin is still fused to the head of the penis. No additional folds to clean under. Foreskin doesnt start to retract until about age 3-5. From the research that I've seen, there isnt that great[er] risk of UTI's in that agre group, and for adult males, the prevalence of UTIs is pretty much the same between those circumcised and those who are not.
r.e. decrease in STDs, the major studies in support of circ'ing came from a population and culture who's sexual practices are not exactly comparable to our own. Furthermore, circumciszing isnt a guarantee either that they won't get an STD.
In the end, we can't protect our kids from every bad thing out there in the world. The best we can do is educate and hope they make the right decision.
I'm very curious what you mean by "culture who's sexual practices are not exactly comparable to our own", especially how that relates to STIs and HIV/AIDS. I work in the HIV/AIDS field, and have done research in sub-Saharan Africa around sexual practices, and I wouldn't say sexual practices - in how they relate to STI risk - differ. This biological processes of sex and virus transmission are more or less the same anyway you slice it, regardless of culture or geographic location. And even at that, people have sex without condoms, have multiple partners, have affairs, rape each other, etc. in every part of the world.
I may be misinterpreting your point, but I think the attitude that it's 'other people' who are at risk is the reason so many people are still contracting HIV and other STIs in North America.
All that being said, most men are going to grow up just fine whether they are circ'd or not. There are risks and benefits both ways. You can have sexual pleasure both ways. Yes, it sucks that circ'ing encourages the attitude among some folks that uncirc'd penises are weird, but other than that it's no one's business. Then again, the attitude that uncirc'd men are more sexually satifying is also pathetic and problematic. I'm not having a boy, so luckily I don't have to make this decision right now. My inclination is to be pro-circ'ing, mainly because of where I work and because a huge chunk of North American men have been circ'ed in the last 40 years with no problems, but I figure my husband should decide. Just because something's always been done a certain way doesn't make it the right way, but I don't have a penis, so how the heck would I be able to think through all the pros and cons?
To each there own.
I meant simply their cultural practices and beliefs regarding monogamy v polygamy. Sure, on paper, intercourse is intercourse. But there are far more factors that come into play than the actual act.
I mean I can also say that breast cancer is still breast cancer and sees no colors or difference in race. Yet we are not suggesting prophylactic removal of one's breasts are we?
And as someone who works in the field, are we now suggesting that
circumcision is more effective than education regarding STD/STI/HIV
transmission and safe sex practices? Because when it comes down to it, being circumcised isnt going to necessarily going to save anyone if they are reckless
with their behavior.
It is precisely that that I have issue with because for some who read these studies seem to think that is exactly what is being suggested. Its exaggerating the supposed protective effect that circumcision gives with regard to STD/HIV infection.
I don't think anyone would suggest that circumcision is a panacea or even effective method for preventing STIs (nor have I suggested that anywhere), but I do think the education people receive about them should include an awareness that they aren't safe simply because they are white, or middle class or North American, or a certain age, or whatever. Again, I don't know if that's what you are implying, but I'm having trouble figuring out what you might be suggesting otherwise.
Polygamy isn't practiced everywhere that HIV is endemic, and it certainly practiced in places where it isn't. Monogamy is the same thing around the world - when we practice it, we like to think it's 'real' but no one is ever really certain. We all have different cultural beliefs around sex, but aside from circumcision (female and male), few of them change biology. I could choose to believe the earth goddess speaks through my vagina each time I have sex or shout bible quotes when I orgasm, but that still doesn't change the biology of transmission. Circumcision reduces the likelihood of infection (by a small fraction) regardless if you have sex with one person or thirty. People can choose to use that information in their decisions to circumcise or not, but I personally think it's dangerous to suggest that there are vast cultural differences in sexual practices that change HIV & STI risk across the world. That's wishful thinking, not reality.
DH is uncirced and any son of ours will be the same. DH has never had a single problem keeping it clean, infection, etc. It looks identical to a circed penis when hard. So chances are if my future son is hooking up some dumb shallow chick in college, that so many of you are afraid of, she will never know the difference. Oh and all the supposed STD benefits are true for female circumcision as well. And don't you know all those college boys are going to be so brain washed by porn that they are not going to sleep with your daughters unless they have perfectly pink genitals with neat trim labia. If anything guys are the more visual ones, so we should do labiaplasties on newborns and mix bleach right in with their diaper cream.
We circ'd DS, it was no big deal. He was back in my arms in 5 minutes and no worse for the wear.
I left the decision up to DH, he wanted it done. I was relieved that he did. My college friends and I had a lot of fun laughing about a specific guy's uncut penis .... shallow as it may be, I don't want my son subjected to that kind of ridicule. Where we had DS (in Texas), our OB said appx 80% of newborn males were being circ'd, so not like the uncut penis is going to become the norm anytime soon. There, anyway.
Shallow is spot on here. This post just really saddens me. I'm sorry you haven't grown up since college. I wish to raise my son to be proud of everything about him, and to have respect for all different types of people. I certainly hope he wouldn't waste his time worrying about the shallow opinions of people like you. Just because 80% of people where you live are doing it doesn't mean you have to follow suit. If you go outside of the US, to Europe for example, the procedure is very rare. I'm neither an advocate for or against the procedure, but for real, have a decent reason for your position....not that you don't want him to get laughed at. Grow up, please.
I don't think that she needs to grow up for not wanting her son to be ridiculed. I had never known the difference (only seen cut) until college when a lot of girls did make fun of guys that weren't. I didn't participate, because like I said I didn't even know the difference to begin with, but I don't think it's necessarily wrong to do something for your child that is the norm where you live. My husband said all of his friends in high school made fun of the boys not circumcised. I'm not saying it's right but it happens. In the Midwest, where we live, more than 80% are circumcised. When my OB brought it up (she would be performing it at the hospital), she was very surprised when I mentioned that I had run into so much controversy on the subject.
It couldn't be more opposite here in the northeast. My husband is circed and actually feels like he's missing out on something. Girls here talk about how much better sex is with an intact man. I would say the circ rate here is far less than 50% and the pediatrician in our hospital actually said he was glad to see another family not doing the procedure. It's very common here to not even consider it.
And they are absolutely right. Its way better
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Penile infections and cancer are rare but not nearly as rare as complications from infant circ (in the US at least). Also, UTIs are not as rare and (while relatively harmless) are more common in uncirced boys.
This combined with the decreased risk of STDs in why we are choosing to circ our son. Yes, we can teach our kids about safe sex but that doesn't mean they will do it. Think about how many guys you know that "hate condoms" or how many girl friends have had a pregnancy/STD scare. We all believe our kids will behave differently but chances are they will not.
from the AAP policy statement on circumcision (link I posted on page 1)
"In summary, all studies that have examined the association between UTI and circumcision status show an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised males, with the greatest risk in infants younger than 1 year of age. The magnitude of the effect varies among studies. Using numbers from the literature, one can estimate that 7 to 14 of 1000 uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life, compared with 1 to 2 of 1000 circumcised male infants. Although the relative risk of UTI in uncircumcised male infants compared with circumcised male infants is increased from 4- to as much as 10-fold during the first year of life, the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%)."
again, results are not significant enough to convince us (personally) that prophylactic removal of the male foreskin is necessary.
FWIW, my son is past his first year and has never experienced a UTI. We keep him clean down there. And its even more so in the first few years because the forsekin is still fused to the head of the penis. No additional folds to clean under. Foreskin doesnt start to retract until about age 3-5. From the research that I've seen, there isnt that great[er] risk of UTI's in that agre group, and for adult males, the prevalence of UTIs is pretty much the same between those circumcised and those who are not.
r.e. decrease in STDs, the major studies in support of circ'ing came from a population and culture who's sexual practices are not exactly comparable to our own. Furthermore, circumciszing isnt a guarantee either that they won't get an STD.
In the end, we can't protect our kids from every bad thing out there in the world. The best we can do is educate and hope they make the right decision.
Sorry but what I've read states that UTI's are ten times more likely in an uncirced boy and personally knowing at least 5 or 6 intact boys who've developed UTI's makes me suspect that those statistics are more accurate.
I would love for you to share your sources/see those actual statistics, because I am actually genuinely curious. Because its one thing to say 10x as likely, and another thing if the actual stats say something like 1 in 1000 or 10 in 1000. Still can be described as 10x as likely, but in terms of actual risk, well its actually far less significant.
(I am pulling these numbers out of my arse by the way just to make make my point easier to understand).
They're in the AAP policy statement that you quoted 1-2 per 1000 risk for circ'd boys, 7-14 per 1000 risk for uncirc'd boys.
So it might actually be 14x higher. But absolutely, the actual risk is very, very low.
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
We will be circumcising our son. I am completely indifferent to what anyone else thinks about that. I am also indifferent to what anyone else does with their own son's foreskin.
And the vitriol, hyperbole and smug pearl clutching these posts always brings out is ridiculous, on both sides.
Been going through this post for a while now and this is by far the only statement I truly agree with, 100%. Yes, this is a topic of considerable controversy (obviously). Yes, there are going to be serious differences of opinion. No, we don't have to jump all up each other's buttholes about something being worded in a way that gets our hormones a-ragin'. Goosfraba.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Re: To circumcise or not to circumcise ...
Shallow is spot on here. This post just really saddens me. I'm sorry you haven't grown up since college. I wish to raise my son to be proud of everything about him, and to have respect for all different types of people. I certainly hope he wouldn't waste his time worrying about the shallow opinions of people like you. Just because 80% of people where you live are doing it doesn't mean you have to follow suit. If you go outside of the US, to Europe for example, the procedure is very rare. I'm neither an advocate for or against the procedure, but for real, have a decent reason for your position....not that you don't want him to get laughed at. Grow up, please.
Re-read her post. No where does she claim it is a "large majority," she just stated that it was a "significant portion."
So better to promote shallow thinking than to teach your child to be above it? Let smaller minds prevail?
And an uncirc'd penis IS the norm. It's how your child is formed in the womb and the condition they are in when they are born. Then we alter it so simple-minded college girls won't make fun of it.
I wish it wasn't the norm to accept a backasswards way of thinking for convenience and vanity.
It couldn't be more opposite here in the northeast. My husband is circed and actually feels like he's missing out on something. Girls here talk about how much better sex is with an intact man. I would say the circ rate here is far less than 50% and the pediatrician in our hospital actually said he was glad to see another family not doing the procedure. It's very common here to not even consider it.
I love you! I wanted to say this, but was too scared. Even if someone says, "its just cosmetic" well then why not do it? As a woman who has seen both, they are unattractive sorry. I'm not really thinking about my little baby and sex right now, but I don't want him to be the poor guy that all the girls talk about in college.
So if you had a daughter, would you put her through surgery to "fix" something cosmetic that will make the guys in college less likely to make fun of her?
And btw, all of the shallow women who think an uncut penis are missing out. Uncircumcised is much more sexually satisfying than cut, for both the man and the woman.
Absolutely. If it was a common procedure that was done by doctors right after birth.
According to malecircumcision.org (as well as other websites googled) about 30% of males (globally) are circumsized. I guess it depends on your definition of "significant."
FWIW I'm not criticizing your choice to leave your son intact or your husband's appearance or anything like that. I was just pointing out that samanthalsher did not claim that circumscision is a "large majority."
https://www.malecircumcision.org/media/documents/MC_Global_Trends_Determinants.pdf
I haven't finished the thread so I don't know that anyone has responded to this. While my OB says its the norm among her patients I have seen stats that rates in Texas are MUCH lower due to the large Hispanic population and circumcision not being the norm among them. That when our kids are locker room age more will be uncut than not!
Read again what lissydee posted. The AAP agrees that UTIs are 10x more likely in uncirc'd boys, but says that the overall risk is still very low and therefore doesn't warrant routine circumcision. In other words, it doesn't make sense to circumcise well over 900 baby boys just to prevent maybe 10 UTIs.
Your daughter's situation is very different in that she's having surgery to address a specific problem that she's actually experiencing. Circumcision is more comparable to me deciding to put my daughter through the same surgery, even though she's never had a UTI in her life. You know, "just in case" she develops bladder reflux in the future and starts having recurring UTIs.
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
Don't you see that? The rate of penile cancer TRIPLES!
My human sexuality professor in college was very anti-circumcision and taught a lecture on the misinformation surrounding health risks of leaving males intact. She stated the risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men as 2 in a million and said that parents are often afraid not to circumcise because they read that "the risk of penile cancer doubles if a male is left uncircumcised." Just shows how biased organizations can phrase things to give parents one idea or the other.
BFP #1 9/7/10, EDD 5/14/11, Violet born 5/27/11.
BFP #2 4/9/12, EDD 12/16/12, M/C Rory 4/24/12.
BFP #3 10/6/12, EDD 6/16/12., Matilda born 6/17/13.
I'm very curious what you mean by "culture who's sexual practices are not exactly comparable to our own", especially how that relates to STIs and HIV/AIDS. I work in the HIV/AIDS field, and have done research in sub-Saharan Africa around sexual practices, and I wouldn't say sexual practices - in how they relate to STI risk - differ. This biological processes of sex and virus transmission are more or less the same anyway you slice it, regardless of culture or geographic location. And even at that, people have sex without condoms, have multiple partners, have affairs, rape each other, etc. in every part of the world.
I may be misinterpreting your point, but I think the attitude that it's 'other people' who are at risk is the reason so many people are still contracting HIV and other STIs in North America.
All that being said, most men are going to grow up just fine whether they are circ'd or not. There are risks and benefits both ways. You can have sexual pleasure both ways. Yes, it sucks that circ'ing encourages the attitude among some folks that uncirc'd penises are weird, but other than that it's no one's business. Then again, the attitude that uncirc'd men are more sexually satifying is also pathetic and problematic. I'm not having a boy, so luckily I don't have to make this decision right now. My inclination is to be pro-circ'ing, mainly because of where I work and because a huge chunk of North American men have been circ'ed in the last 40 years with no problems, but I figure my husband should decide. Just because something's always been done a certain way doesn't make it the right way, but I don't have a penis, so how the heck would I be able to think through all the pros and cons?
To each there own.
Umm, yeah.. *their* not *there*.
So much for trying to make a pithy point
Well thanks for clearing that up. It must be nice to be able to personally experience both sides. Literally both sides not only as a man and woman but circ'd and not!
You rock!
I don't think anyone would suggest that circumcision is a panacea or even effective method for preventing STIs (nor have I suggested that anywhere), but I do think the education people receive about them should include an awareness that they aren't safe simply because they are white, or middle class or North American, or a certain age, or whatever. Again, I don't know if that's what you are implying, but I'm having trouble figuring out what you might be suggesting otherwise.
Polygamy isn't practiced everywhere that HIV is endemic, and it certainly practiced in places where it isn't. Monogamy is the same thing around the world - when we practice it, we like to think it's 'real' but no one is ever really certain. We all have different cultural beliefs around sex, but aside from circumcision (female and male), few of them change biology. I could choose to believe the earth goddess speaks through my vagina each time I have sex or shout bible quotes when I orgasm, but that still doesn't change the biology of transmission. Circumcision reduces the likelihood of infection (by a small fraction) regardless if you have sex with one person or thirty. People can choose to use that information in their decisions to circumcise or not, but I personally think it's dangerous to suggest that there are vast cultural differences in sexual practices that change HIV & STI risk across the world. That's wishful thinking, not reality.
And they are absolutely right. Its way better
They're in the AAP policy statement that you quoted
1-2 per 1000 risk for circ'd boys, 7-14 per 1000 risk for uncirc'd boys.
So it might actually be 14x higher. But absolutely, the actual risk is very, very low.
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
Been going through this post for a while now and this is by far the only statement I truly agree with, 100%. Yes, this is a topic of considerable controversy (obviously). Yes, there are going to be serious differences of opinion. No, we don't have to jump all up each other's buttholes about something being worded in a way that gets our hormones a-ragin'. Goosfraba.