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 think that you might be right on with the religious purpose of circumcision. I have also heard the bit about the loss of pleasure, but that is difficult to figure out since I have nothing to compare it to since I was circumcised as a baby.
As for the concept of circumcision being culturally normal and people finding an uncircumcised penis repulsive or weird, that shows that people are uncomfortable with the human body. Given that it is a normalized practice to do it, people aren't used to seeing one uncircumcised. In fact, of all the diagrams we had in sex ed classes showed a circumcised penis. but just because it is normalized does not mean that it is necessary or even right.
As you pointed out, the studies about the health benefits can be confusing to look at and one says "do it" and the other will say "do not". In my view, circumcision, especially of an infant, is like doing an appendectomy on the infant; removing the appendix is not absolutely necessary, however it will prevent appendicitis (potentially harmful to him) in the future. It would be helpful, in fact you could say it would be in the child's best interest to remove the appendix, even with some of the risks that come along with such a surgery. But come on, would it really be necessary? Why not leave that up to the child himself when he is old enough to make the choice for himself? Isn't it less risky? And since the removal of the foreskin is meant to prevent the acquisition of some STIs, why not just teach him to use condoms when he becomes sexually active? Isn't a condom going to prevent an infection way better than removing a piece of flesh?
In my opinion, it's not necessary and could be harmful to the child. Plus, I wish that my parents hadn't chosen to circumcise me. I don't hate them for it, but it's makes me angry that I had no input on what happened to my body, since they're not the ones who will use my penis. If it were just for my health, they should have just taught me to use a condom as a serious method of prevention.
I'll see if I can find any information out there about this, but it'll take me a while. Hopefully this helps
It does help. So if you could, you would go back and not be circumcised? I have thought about not doing it and he can choose to have it done as an adult if he wishes, but it is harder for an adult. I guess I am leaning toward not circumcising. My major fear is that women may find it weird on him just because it is uncommon and I dont want him to have that disadvantage. However, I found the following statistic and it is encouraging.
In the U.S., the circumcision rate for newborn boys in 1965 was about 85 per cent, compared with 57 per cent in 2008, according to the National Hospital Discharge Survey.
It seems that going back natural is catching on and perhaps it will not be as "weird" or "gross" as some women find it today once it is more common.
If I had a choice, I would make the choice to remain uncircumcised. To be honest, it's not a huge sticking point because I don't think about it all the time, mostly when it is brought up as a topic like this or if I get in a discussion about religious practices. However, if given the opportunity to make the decision myself I'd never let it happen.
If you're concerned about women accepting it #1 if that's a huge sticking point in a relationship then that speaks more about the partner than about him and #2 don't forget men :P (you never know). If the state of his penis, circumcised or not, is a huge deal, then it's possible the relationship might not get past just the physical aspects. Maybe you could look at it as a way to weed out the bad prospects who are more concerned with how he looks than about him as an individual
In my experience, uncircumcised men do not look grotesque (I've only come across a few). In fact, I think of them as just another variety of guy and it's just another aspect of them. Hopefully that is they way potential partners look at it for him.
I hope natural is coming back in style and stays that way. Found this quick list of interesting facts too. They even talk about the ethics of infant circumcision and some basic facts about the foreskin. Look around on the site. It seems like it was fairly well done (and opposes circumcision, so maybe you could look for one in favor of it)
Thanks for your input, I feel more confident in the idea of not circumcising them. Thanks for finding that site. It looks well put together and makes me feel better that this decision is one a lot of people are fighting with and I am not so weird for making it out to be a really big decision.
Cameron, the information you have offered is very useful and apt. But, saying,"I hope natural is coming back in style" is just creepy. Can we shamelessly consider cutting parts off babies as simply a fashion, a style? It would be better to tattoo the child all over, than to cut a piece of penis off! STYLE?
She is just saying it's becoming aesthetically "not weird or unacceptable". No need to be creeped out.
Lol, I'm a guy. Ambiguous name, I know
Funny, I always assume it as a male name. I know there are exceptions, but, it just doesn't feel like a woman's name.
I think if parents knew what it meant, there probably would be a lot fewer women with that name. Women may find crooked noses attractive on some types of guys, but I can't think of many actually want to have one for themselves.
Sorry, aside over...
Tattooing would be better? Really? Typical tattooing is a body mod that would usually be obvious to the world at large whereas being cut or uncut is lurking in the boy's pants. Tattooing puts a public mark on the boy.
"Tattooing puts a public mark on the boy."
...and is rather his choice to make
I thought we were talking about infants.
you're right. I read that bit wrong :(