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?
I am not saying removing the clitoris. I am saying removing the labia minora. It is exactly what the foreskin is. Leave the clitoris intact, just remove the labia minora. You know the flappy skin, the lips, sliced turkey meat. The difference in pleasure from this would be identical to the difference in pleasure from removing the foreskin.
I have no idea whatsoever how that metaphor could be more than speculation. I'm circumcised and I have no idea what some other circumcised guy feels, and never will. Add the difference between the sexes and you have wandered into an area where I think we can but speculate.
It seems like you are leaning towards not circumcising him (yay), but you are worried about aesthetics and, more precisely, the reaction of future partners. So your choice now is between giving him the chance to deal with this issue on his own when he is able to think for himself or to make the choice in his place based on your fears of his future. As much as we can try to plan for the future of our children, they will not be us and should be trusted to make their own decisions once they are able to grasp the issue. We cannot predict future events with 100% certainty.
I am trying to say this with the utmost respect that I can, so please don't look at this as sarcastic or biting. However, one of these approaches seems more sound than the other to me.
Given the number of responses, you're clearly not the only one who has thought about this issue and finds it difficult :)
Jaret, I say this with all due modesty, I am uncircumcised, and instead of complaints, I could show you notarized letters of reference (I'm lying) - but seriously, don't do it. Tell him about your concerns when he's 20, and I PROMISE he will thank you, or double your money back --
In essence then, we're removing something that protects us - how much sense does that make?
Our hair protects us.
but it grows back. and the choice to cut it is eventually ceded to the individual
not the same
Judging from your avatar, you've lost most of that, as well --
Circumcision has never been about cleanliness or disease control in the post-industrial world. It is an elective cosmetic surgery that gained prevalence in 19th century England to curtail masturbation (If you are disregarding the religious aspect.) If you're not Muslim, Jewish or worried about your kid having a normal wank, there isn't much reason to have your child undergo an irreversible surgical procedure that he might or might not want.
Because the American Association of Pediatrics no longer suggests routine neonatal circumcision, Medicaid and Medicare no longer cover it. Since less people are willing to pay out of pocket for a cosmetic/elective surgery, the number of parents who decide to circumcise has dropped substantially and is continuing to drop every year.
Really, America is the last stronghold of neonatal circumcision. The rest of the non-religious world finds us either odd (but well meaning) or down right criminal and abusive. Considering how fast globalization is happening in our generation, and considering the fact that it's falling out of fashion in America, too.. your kid is not going to get teased in the locker room or rejected on prom-night. Intact anatomy is the norm everywhere else and it's becoming the norm here, too. Besides, by the time he's old enough to worry about sex, he'll be old enough to make that decision for himself.
Adult circumcision is an outpatient procedure that carries less risk than neonatal.
There is a reason why most doctors frown on cosmetic/elective surgery on newborns. Even corrective surgery for real medical issues is generally delayed until the human body develops and is stable. There is a reason for that. We sure as hell don't do routine neonatal tonsil removal or neonatal appendix removal, do we? A burst appendix still kills people in the modern world. Never heard of a foreskin doing that. Which is the bigger threat?
Even if the risk of complication is very, very small.. could you live with yourself if you are that one in a million parent who sacrificed his child's sexuality or even life for an unnecessary procedure?
Look. I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't have a penis of my own and I am not procreating.
I've had wonderful sexual experiences with both cut and intact men. My preference for intact is just that. A preference. Some other girl on here had an opposite opinion. For anyone that insinuated she was shallow, I take offense to that as well. People have no control over what they are sexually attracted to or are not. Some men are only attracted to women with large breasts. Does that mean small women should get breast implants? Don't be silly.
I have never heard of anyone but the religious or an American express disdain for an intact man. I think that a lot of the disdain comes from the fact that it's simply unfamiliar to Americans in our generation.
But your kid isn't 'our generation.' He's a generation where that's going to be the norm, or at least not unheard of.
When it comes down to it, you just have to ask yourself.
"Do I want to put my newborn through an unnecessary surgery just to keep up with a declining fashion?"
Cus that's all it is. Fashion.
RE: "Some men are only attracted to women with large breasts."
Been there, done that, gave the T-Shirt back!
I much prefer small and perky to large and pendulous.
Not that anyone asked --
Circumcision has never been about cleanliness or disease control in the post-industrial world. It is an elective cosmetic surgery that gained prevalence in 19th century England to curtail masturbation.
That's silly. I can assure you that if that was the intent, it failed miserably.
But it continues as a practice in spite of the utter failure to justify the act with the reasoning that brought it to be a prevalent practice. Now the proponents grasp for new reasons to do it in order to continue doing it, even though they have to ditch old arguments to continue to justify it. Seems oddly reminiscent of another group.....