My wife and I are trying to have a baby. One of the biggest concerns we have if it is a boy is circumcision. I am circumcised and my first reaction is to say "Well I wouldn't go back so it is the right choice". But unfortunately there is more to it than that. Circumcision started, in my mind, to remove sexual pleasure from the male because sex was the road to sin and only for reproduction and should not be enjoyed. Many nerves are removed from circumcision and I have heard sex is more pleasurable for males not circumcised, but unfortunately that is hard to know for sure.
Then there is the idea that it is a part of our culture now and completely acceptable. But what is it really other than male genital mutilation? They say that is is healthier, but I have also heard that the data for that claim is inconclusive.
Female circumcision disgust me and yet many cultures practice it. To them it is normal. I am sure that uncircumcised females in those cultures have "ugly" vaginas to them just as a lot of women have told me that an uncircumcised penis is "ugly".
I have seen a circumcision and it is horrifying. I dont know if I should do this to my future son. There is the part of me that thinks it is normal and I should. Then there is the part of me that sees it as another brutal religious act setup by an ancient brutal god to remove our sexuality that we, for some reason, still practice like idiots. Then we go through all this trouble to "prove" it is healthy to mutilate sex organs to justify the insane act.
What are some of your thoughts on this?
My head's in the bin! DAMN!!!
I've been told that oral sex is more appetizing when one doesn't have to pull the loose skin down only possibly to be confronted with smegma (a paste consisting of a combination of sweat, dead skin, and whatever microbes may have been breeding in that matrix).
I saw a circumcision in Israel some years ago, blood was everywhere, the baby was howling apoplectically, the dude doing the chopping was in religious bliss, what a circus. I am not circumcised. I was brought up in Britain. One is not circumcised by default in the UK. It only occurs by special request in the UK. When my son was born 25 years ago in the U.S., multiple times I had to fend off nurses attempting to get my newborn son in the system for his circumcision. Now, I don't really care if he looks like me or not, or has good oral sex or not. I did care that when he turns 18, he has all his body parts intact, and if he wants to start whacking off parts of his body at the age of consent, well, if I did my job he should be able to make an informed decision by the age of 18. Well, he's 26 now, and still has a foreskin. So...bottom line, at least for my son, he preferred to keep all of his body parts. Something tells me, most males, if given a choice, would opt for not getting chopped up.
There's no law that says circumcision can only occur in infancy. Let the kid decide for himself when he's thirteen.
Think about it rationally - you are cutting off part of your son's body, and as much as 70% of his sexually sensitive nerve endings in the interests of improving his hygine, and altering the appearance of his genitalia.
The risks may be miniscule, but it's an unnecessary procedure, which could result in the complete destruction of his penis, and his hopes for a normal life. It's rare, but infections, accidents, and malfunctioning cautary equipment do destroy a few penises each year - even under modern western sterile conditions.
Not only that, but it REALLY smarts!
Wow, 35 pages was quite a read. Felt like a 2 season marathon.
Heather I thought I remembered you saying you're not a sciency person, but you did pretty well here.
I'm cut, wish I wasn't, but it's not a big deal. I would have chosen No for a boy if I had one, i.e. his choice, later in life. I liked seeing both sides of the story here. My only criticism (as in many forum discussions) is how some people feel so strongly about their side, that they generalize their opinion to a one-size-fits-all "everyone should... blah blah". I personally think the default should be to leave the choice open to the kid, unless the unlikely infections become likely and do cause a problem.
This thread should be relevant for several more years, at least in the U.S.
I've never claimed that I'm not sciency - I've simply claimed that I'm not an actual scientist and do not feel that my failure to believe in fairy tales should require my having to prove scientific theories.
I realize this is an old topic, but I misplaced the URL to a site that responds thoroughly and definitively to this issue, which I've now recovered, and would be remiss if I did not share it with any who might have an interest.
Sagacious Hawk, not trying to play matchmaker here, but the blog in question is written by a "Sagacious Mama" (I'm just sayin' --), and can be found here:
It's more entertaining (imo) paired with rebuttal and subsequent exchange:
Also interesting that there was a link provided to a class action suit:
The comments range from people who seem like they should be filing individual malpractice suits to seemingly frivolous or misdirected claims.
On the whole, I agree, unless or course, the doctor actually botched the job, and I read one account in which that may well have been the case. I don't know how successful such a lawsuit would be, but other than an actual malpracticing doctor, the parents are the ones who should be named as defendants.