to circ or not to circ

[DesertRat]

Originally Posted by lynn97 We both know too many older men who weren't and had to be later because of health problems.

Nobody wants their child to go through unnecessary pain and all parents would like to avoid future health problems if we could. However, the foreskin is THE ONLY healthy, functional body part we remove to avoid future problems. We don't take out babies' appendixes or tonsils to avoid the small chance they may have problems with them later in life. We take them out when there's a problem and only when there's a problem.

And I think Galatea is right on when she points out our culture doesn't value the foreskin. A hundred+ years ago in the U.S., circumcision was encouraged in infants because doctors KNEW that it desensitized the penis, which they assumed would discourage masturbation. (it didn't) I find the anatomy and function of the foreskin to be fascinating. It's job is to protect the penis. The penis was never meant to be an external organ. Removing it causes the penile skin to thicken as it touches clothes all day, which causes loss of sensitivity. Also, the role the the foreskin plays during intercourse is beneficial to both the man and woman. When you talk about the risks of circumcision, there's a 100% chance a child will suffer from loss of penile sensitivity. To me that is the biggest reason I've chosen to leave my sons intact. Their foreskins have a purpose! And there is only a very small chance they ever have a problem with it!

[lynn97]

I am done replying to this thread. It is fine that you are all passionate about your decisions but I am equally passionate about mine. When DH and I discussed this topic, we looked at the AAP recommendations and statistical data. Most if the data I have seen quoted here has been declared questionable at best by reputable sources. (Yes, I realize many if you completely di do not trust most large medical authorities). I believe time will tell with all of us what is best but I do not think that either way is "wrong" per se; still, I get really tired of seeing a lot if misinformation quoted as the gospel on threads like these. I am sure many of you feel the same about people like me. We shall have to agree to disagree.

Sent from my iPhone using DS Forum

[lynn97]

Additionally, I have two family members who were left intact and have had numerous problems only as adults. No, I am not aware of their intimate hygiene but I know their hygiene is good in general. Both of them, plus my father (who is circ'd) are very pro-circumcision based on their personal experiences as well as knowing some the men around them. One family member was circ'd as an adult while the other dreads it but feels it will be inevitable because of recurrent infections and issues.

Sent from my iPhone using DS Forum

[burnsis]

Interesting...I've always read about people thinking the plastibell is the best method. I've often heard people saying that it doesn't involve cutting, and you just wait for the little bell to fall off and it's done. Not true of course, but I am surprised that so many are learning that it is not a good method. There is no ideal method IMO. I'd leave it be. If you need reasons why, there are 50 reasons to leave it alone, link below in siggy

FWIW, my dh is cut. My two boys are not. They shower together often, and the only comment my ds has made is that dad's is bigger, and has hair, etc. I'm sure he has seen friends go to the bathroom as well, and has never mentioned that his or theirs looks different.

[Puppydog]

Why is it that countries where circ is not routinely performed don't have such high cases or "problems" with foreskins? My DH has never had an issue, nor any of the men I've dated. I have never heard of an adult man having a problem with his penis from being intact and most of the men I know are intact.

This is a genuine question. It seems to me that there are a lot of intact men having issues in the US. Why is that?

[burnsis]

Originally Posted by Puppydog Why is it that countries where circ is not routinely performed don't have such high cases or "problems" with foreskins? My DH has never had an issue, nor any of the men I've dated. I have never heard of an adult man having a problem with his penis from being intact and most of the men I know are intact. This is a genuine question. It seems to me that there are a lot of intact men having issues in the US. Why is that?

I think a lot of parents are given improper care advice...told to retract to clean, when it is still fused to the head. If you keep ripping it back, it will cause infection. When it gets infected, most docs immediately think cut it off. Also, many of them are not aware of things that are normal with regards to the intact penis, and give out false diagnoses. It balloons, cut it off. It doesn't retract yet, phimosis, cut it off. Then someone tells their story, and it gets made into a big scary deal. Just bad information, and a lot of cut happy docs in it for the money...and most of the docs themselves are probably cut, and see that as what is normal. Therefore, intact=abnormal. Of course, that is now changing, as most people nowadays are leaving their boys intact!

[Puppydog]

Good point. I never thought of it that way.

We wouldn't have out labia chopped off for a yeast infection. Why would a man have his foreskin removed for the same thing? Very odd.

[redhairboy]

My oldest is and my youngest isn't. I'm very happy that I made my decision to keep my youngest intact.

[Galatea]

Originally Posted by Puppydog Good point. I never thought of it that way. We wouldn't have out labia chopped off for a yeast infection. Why would a man have his foreskin removed for the same thing? Very odd.

In my very long post above, I link to an article about a circumcised woman who commented on a blog that her circumcision prevented her from getting infections, and that her sex life is normal. You see, it's all in what your culture considers normal. For over 100 years, our culture considered foreskins to be dangerous and useless, and so that is what we think.

In addition, many people have an attitude like doctors are infallible gods, and so never question their recommendations, which is a problem sometimes, as doctors are people, too, and just as much products of their culture as anyone else. This is why the AAP changed its stance slightly, though the rest of the world still thinks they are nuts, and there is a scientific article to be published this winter in which doctors from around the world call out the AAP's new position as culturally biased and medically wrong.

Foreskins are not dangerous, and they are worth preserving. Even if being circumcised did prevent some condition, the choice on whether that potential benefit is worth the loss of complete sexual functioning should remain with the man who owns the foreskin. In lynn97's example above, why do you think that adult man who "has to" be circumcised is dreading it so? I am sure he (or she) would say that he wishes it had been done when he was an infant and did not remember. But his problems are not destined to happen to every man who has a foreskin, and so perhaps other men would not have liked to make that trade. My mother had breast cancer and had a mastectomy. She does not wish her breast had been removed at birth.

The reason why circumcision continues is because it is forced on an infant, removing his choice, so that his only psychological defense as an adult is to believe very strongly that what was done to him without his choice was actually a very good thing. Consider the alternative: he has to admit that his parents chose to remove part of his penis and he cannot get the whole thing back. That's a much more painful thought. If you could somehow get the culture out of the way (which you cannot), and you asked men, "Would you like to have more of your penis that moves around and provides even more sensation?" what do you think they'd say? It's only our culture and some very deeply buried feelings that allow circumcision to continue. Luckily, we have some brave men now who speak out that they are not happy to be circumcised, and more and more men are joining them to end infant circumcision.

Originally Posted by lynn97 I am done replying to this thread. It is fine that you are all passionate about your decisions but I am equally passionate about mine. When DH and I discussed this topic, we looked at the AAP recommendations and statistical data. Most if the data I have seen quoted here has been declared questionable at best by reputable sources. (Yes, I realize many if you completely di do not trust most large medical authorities). I believe time will tell with all of us what is best but I do not think that either way is "wrong" per se; still, I get really tired of seeing a lot if misinformation quoted as the gospel on threads like these. I am sure many of you feel the same about people like me. We shall have to agree to disagree.

First, it is not about whether you or I or anyone else on this thread is wrong, and we do not need to agree to disagree. What is at issue here is not our egos, but the rights of all people, men included, to decide what happens to their bodies. It is not some abstract issue that constantly causes drama on parenting fora. We should not let the hurt feelings this can cause obscure the fact that we are talking about babies who will grow to be men, and who have rights, and who may be very unhappy they were circumcised.

What questionable data has been presented? Even if all the data did not exist, there is a basic moral argument against infant circumcision that remains:

-It is not your body. You will not live with the consequences.
-Given that people claim both benefits and risks to circumcision, and that we cannot know whether a man will be happy to be circumcised, only the owner of the penis should be the one to balance those risks and benefits and make the decision for himself.

[s@hmommy]

Originally Posted by Puppydog I know 3 women who have had double mastectomies because they developed breast cancer. I still have my breasts.

Originally Posted by Puppydog Good point. I never thought of it that way. We wouldn't have out labia chopped off for a yeast infection. Why would a man have his foreskin removed for the same thing? Very odd.

Originally Posted by Joyful Tie Dyes Funny that this "had to be circed as an adult" thing pretty much only happens in the US... And the risks are much lower for adults. In addition an adult can choose for themselves whether or not to have this procedure.

As a circing pregnant mamma who is open to being educated on the matter I am going to say that the first two comparisons are just ridiculous inflammatory comments. RIC exists in the US, so these comparisons are silly to even bring up, they make no sense. I believe that the posters that made them are well aware and are really not trying to further the intact cause, they have a superior mindset and could care less as long as they think they are right.

The last one is a matter of opinion, I along with many others still say it is a parenting choice, and by telling me it is not seems ridiculous as well. Once again RIC exists, so I get a choice. Your opinion on whose choice it is holds no water with me so using that as a supporting reason again is useless.

If you use these types of inflammatory comments in any of your reasoning I will guarantee you have lost my interest. If you are truly out to help a cause you already know this though, constantly putting people down for their choices and attempting to make yourself feel superior doesn't do any good, but you already know that. If you provide factual and reliable (some of the sources I see a lot are questionable imo) information you have a better shot at getting peoples attention. It looks like a lot of you intactivist are not really out to help a cause but out looking for some entertainment for the day by being rude and nasty to those who make choices that differ from you own.