If you got you SON circumcised how..

[Stamina]

Originally Posted by greencarnation It is important for information to be around, because most people who circ do not know the facts. I'm not saying the OP doesn't, but most mothers who do are simply in the dark. I'm sorry, but intactivism does not spread misinformation. Maybe drama, I'll give you that, but all information that talks about benefits are genital cutting are untrue. The only reason to do it is cosmetic. If you think it is important for your sons penis to look a certain way, that's not my problem. Stopping people from cutting their boys for lies, is. That being said, I would not use Vaseline, if you can help it. I would use CJs butter or coconut oil, and avoid petroleum products!

Mama, can you please cite your scientific sources that state that there are no medical benefits to circumcision? I've done a great deal of research from both sides, and I've never seen a reputable source that scientifically disproves every proposed medical benefit of circumcision.

I just posted this on another thread:
The issue that bothers me in the anti-circumcision discussion is that people are constantly telling others to "do their research." Yet, I've often seen the same people say that circumcision is "purely cosmetic." In fact, one that has done extensive unbiased research would know that there are medical benefits to circumcision. The organizations frequently cited by in-activists themselves acknowledge that there are medical benefits (American Academy of Pediatrics, World Health Organization, American Urological Association). It's a matter of deciding whether the benefits offered by circumcision are worth the risks involved. The AAP may no longer recommend it routinely for all infants, but they do not deny that it has potential medical benefits.

http://www.auanet.org/content/guidel...rcumcision.cfm

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...103/3/686.full

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

Personally, I feel that when people insist that it is simply "for looks," it holds no other purpose than to guilt induce parents into not circumcising. Fear mongering, if you will. That is certainly not informing or educating.

[greencarnation]

I have a baby chewing on my face, but I will later. I have boatloads of info! Though I don't want to take over this thread. :/ Here is my quickie copypasta, though:

In a nutshell, the only reasons to do it have to do with how less tissue=less disease. If there is less penis, there is less penile cancer. Just like how women with larger breasts get are more likely to get breast cancer. So, if you feel that is sound reasoning, then women should all get breast reductions, to reduce breast cancer! All studies about HIV, UTI, etc... have been disproved!

Also, it is very detrimental to sexual enjoyment. This is actually why it began to be common practice in America, as it was though to reduce masturbation. It is like having your clitoral hood removed. The delicate skin that is meant to be protected becomes callused. The foreskin is there for a reason. I have known many cut men who are so upset that they had this major choice taken from them, and many intact men who are very happy!

Also, while not very common, a number of babies die every year from the surgery. I urge all mothers to consider whether cosmetic surgery is worth possible death for their child.

It's his body, please let him make the choice about how his penis will look!

[Rdesonia]

I used sposies with my son and also did vaseline. I discussed this with my DH before we found out my dd was a girl. We planned on using fleece liners with the prefolds since vaseline is not recommended for cloth and didn't was to damage the dipes. Fleece liners also wick away moisture so they are just nice to have anyway. You don't have to sew fleece so basically you just cut out rectangles to lay in the cloth dipe. I made some for dd 4 1/2 inches x 12 inches . (That is something like 27 liners per yard of fabric) The fleece will not fray when you wash them.

[Boheme]

Originally Posted by Stamina Personally, I feel that when people insist that it is simply "for looks," it holds no other purpose than to guilt induce parents into not circumcising. Fear mongering, if you will. That is certainly not informing or educating.

I think all this "for looks" stuff come from mamas of circ'd babies making "ew, yuck" faces when you mention your baby is intact. Or when those same mamas SAY that they circ because "it" just looks gross uncirc'd. Granted, not ALL circ'ing mamas feel this way, but I know AT LEAST a dozen people IRL who have told me that they circ to make the penis more attractive, regardless of any health benefits it may or may not have (all the rest of them say it's so that baby and daddy can have matching penises, how cute).

So there may be benefits (and I'd like to know whether those same benefits hold true for female circumcision, because I'd bet they do), but there is also a reason why intactivists claim people do it for aesthetic reasons.

But as for circ and CD, we circ'd my oldest (biggest regret of my life). He wore newborn prefolds and we didn't have any problem with it sticking or not healing (well, there were other issues from the pediatrician botching the job, but not related to cd'ing). The initial circ healed quickly and when we had to go back and have more done to it, that healed quickly too.

[Rdesonia]

PS... The OP was not wanting a debate on circ-ing. She wanted to know how to diaper a baby in cloth if that is the choice she makes.

[jc12551]

With both DS 1 & 2 we used sposies. With #1 because I didn't know about modern cloth and with #2 because people had (against my wishes) bought me a butt load of sposies from the hospital. I had cut up squares of cotton t-shirts and fleece to use. But my dr. provided me with these gauze bandages impregnated with vaseline and something else that I can't remember. They came in foil wrapped packages and were specifically designed for circumcisions.

And it looks like the OP congratulated herself too soon on no anti-circ rhetoric.

[jc12551]

With both DS 1 & 2 we used sposies. With #1 because I didn't know about modern cloth and with #2 because people had (against my wishes) bought me a butt load of sposies from the hospital. I had cut up squares of cotton t-shirts and fleece to use. But my dr. provided me with these gauze bandages impregnated with vaseline and something else that I can't remember. They came in foil wrapped packages and were specifically designed for circumcisions.

And it looks like the OP congratulated herself too soon on no anti-circ rhetoric.

[elkay724]

Originally Posted by Joyful Tie Dyes For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing. Simon Wiesenthal Some people feel a moral obligation to do their best to protect baby boys.

[zandj]

I guess the point for intactivists is that the 'benefits' aren't true benefits

it's cleaner - countries that don't circ don't have higher death/illness rates due to foreskin infections than the US. Infections in the US are usually caused by forced retraction and messing with it. I never knew a single boy in my family in NZ to ever have an issue with his foreskin, I have 3 brothers. The foreskin is fused in childhood to keep bugs out and even when retractable the mucous membranes in the foreskin excrete pathogen killing enzymes. Plus we now have soap and water

less STDs/HIV/AIDs - well, the US has the highest rates of circumcision besides Jewish countries and also some of the highest rates of HIV and AIDs in the developed world. Even if this was a true benefit you'd still have to use a condom anyway, you're an idiot if you don't!

less UTIs - studies showing this were/are faulty and often included premature boys who are much more likely to get UTIs in the first place. Girls are far more likely to get UTIs anyway and are just given antibiotics

penile cancer - a man is more likely to get breast cancer than penile cancer. I believe it reduces risk by 0.1% or something small like that but when your chance of getting it is 1% anyway? meh. Plus you never know, that cancer might just pop up ON the foreskin instead of on the penis b/c it's there, easier to remove the foreskin to prevent spreading, right?

prostate cancer - the US has higher rates of prostate cancer than other countries that do not routinely remove foreskins. Cancer is caused and influenced by diet, lack of exercise, lifestyle, genetics etc etc not by foreskins

then to all of the above there is the point that even IF all those benefits were true none of them apply to a newborn baby boy. If that child, when grown, looks at those studies and decides he would like to have a lower chance of catching HIV but understands he still needs to wear a condom anyway then he is more than welcome to have penile surgery.

AS for the diapering thing, there was a mama on DS who's little boy was saved by the fact that she was using cloth. Her son bled so much after the procedure he had to be admitted to hospital. If she had been using sposies she wouldn't have been able to see how much blood he was really losing

[JustSomeChickVee]

Originally Posted by Stamina Mama, can you please cite your scientific sources that state that there are no medical benefits to circumcision? I've done a great deal of research from both sides, and I've never seen a reputable source that scientifically disproves every proposed medical benefit of circumcision. I just posted this on another thread: The issue that bothers me in the anti-circumcision discussion is that people are constantly telling others to "do their research." Yet, I've often seen the same people say that circumcision is "purely cosmetic." In fact, one that has done extensive unbiased research would know that there are medical benefits to circumcision. The organizations frequently cited by in-activists themselves acknowledge that there are medical benefits (American Academy of Pediatrics, World Health Organization, American Urological Association). It's a matter of deciding whether the benefits offered by circumcision are worth the risks involved. The AAP may no longer recommend it routinely for all infants, but they do not deny that it has potential medical benefits. http://www.auanet.org/content/guidel...rcumcision.cfm http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...103/3/686.full http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ Personally, I feel that when people insist that it is simply "for looks," it holds no other purpose than to guilt induce parents into not circumcising. Fear mongering, if you will. That is certainly not informing or educating.

i posted this in the other thread:

keyword "potential." they love to say decreased risk of cancer, but they don't mention that they are more likely to have a SEVERELY botched circumcision than they are to have penile cancer. There were only 1200 cases in 2010, which is approximately 1 in 250,000 and most cases are associated with HPV. Safe sex with condoms would lower that rate even further. Also, if we chopped off our breasts, breast cancer risk would be lowered. but do we do that? no way! The foreskin and UTIs is a myth. The foreskin of the infant is fused to the glans to keep fecal matter and other debris out of the urinary tract and UTI rates in intact infants are actually much lower. Forced retraction, however, will increase the risk of UTIs, among other things. The foreskin contains flora to help prevent infection as well. UTIs may be higher in adults if the adult is dirty and does not retract his foreskin when he urinates. The study that found increased rates of UTIs in intact boys was severely flawed. http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html

As far as HIV, the reason circumcision can supposedly lower risk for HIV is because in some men anaerobic bacteria under the foreskin can cause inflammation in the genitalia, which can improve the chances that immune cells will be present for HIV to infect. This is NOT true for all or even most intact men. HIV rates in western Europe, where most men are intact but safe sex and hygiene are also practiced (unlike in Africa where the studies regarding HIV and circumcision took place,) have lower rates of HIV than the US. The rate for the US is .6% and the rate in western Europe is .2% according to avert.org (an organization dedicated to stopping HIV and AIDS.) Safe sex with condoms and cleanliness (to prevent bacterial growth,) are far more important factors in preventing HIV than circumcision ever will be.