Circumcision - advice sought

Great Debates
101

Just going to offer my own personal experience and views.
Our son (now 17) was not circed, even though his father was. It was something we didn’t really have to discuss much, as we just both agreed almost immediately it was unneccessary and a risky/painful surgery lacking any logical benefit.
I mean, the foreskin IS a natural part of the human anatomy…why in the world would Nature or God include a part that required surgical modification? Makes no sense.

He’s never had any problems as a result…zero infections or other issues to date. (and I am fairly sure he is already sexually active…and not just masturbating:o)

The issue of hygiene never was one…from the time little boys can retract their foreskin (around 3-5 yrs) they WILL, at every opportunity:D IN the bath, esp. What a great toy! :stuck_out_tongue: (VERY important that the foreskin NOT be forcibly retracted, ever…even some Drs will try this, and it can result in tears and scarring that will cause later problems or even a need for circumcision.)

It gets clean. And as parents, it is simply a matter of educating them as they grow to retract and WASH, same way we have to educate our little girls as they grow to retract THEIR external “business” and WASH. (I’ve heard so many use THIS as an excuse for circumcision, and it just doesn’t cut it with me, lol, no pun intended:p)

The issue of looking like Dad was equally non-existant…it was noted, explained, and dismissed by about age 3. He got it that “daddy had that part cut off when he was a baby because his parents decided that was best. We decided it wasn’t best for you and didn’t.” No biggie (again, no pun…ehh:p)

Ditto for looking like the other boys; the circ rate has declined so much recently in the US that this is really not an issue anymore. It is likely to be roughly half and half or at LEAST not be a lone intact/uncirced male being teased by his all circed peers.

Many also argue that “it just looks WEIRD!” :eek: But come on, it looks NORMAL…your idea of “weird” is seriously skewed. Get used to it. Looks the same when ERECT, by most accounts. :rolleyes:

I have come to believe that there ARE significant benefits to an intact and functioning foreskin. It serves to protect the glans from irritation and dryness, it provides pleasurable friction during sexual activity, it contains a great many nerve endings which contribute to sensation.

Many women around the world profess to prefer intact men as lovers. Some don’t, but they seem to be in the minority, from what I’ve heard (and many of THEM had bad experiences due to poor hygiene or just flat-out bad lovers and they judge all men by that)

As for STDS, those studies were done in Africa. Many variables involved that do not apply to other areas. (including social and sexual mores, hygiene standards and practices) My response to that argument is, “they’re called CONDOMS”. :rolleyes: In this day and age, do we REALLY think the surgical alteration of our childrens’ genitalia (male OR female…they still circ and otherwise alter/mutilate the females in some areas) is the best way to protect them from VD or otherwise make their lives better? :smack:

Bottom line, if my son ever decided to get circed as an adult, that is his perfect right. He can have it done with anesthetic and deal with putting on and replacing the gauze and the recovery as an ADULT, not as an infant with no say in the matter and a limited ability to be dosed for pain. This was just not a decision I felt I should make for him, lacking any solid evidence that there was any benefit to circing him.

102

P.S. Congrats on the newbie…your life will never get back to normal, but it will be worth it. :smiley:
And my hat is off to you for taking the time and thought to consider the issue and make an informed decision, either way. I think most don’t bother, they just go with the family tradition (one friend of mine confided that the only reason her son, a bit younger than mine, wasn’t circed was that their insurance wouldn’t pay for it and they couldn’t afford it at the time but that she was, in retrospect, glad.)

Anyway, good on you for THINKING about it beforehand! (That’s important, because if you don’t, all sorts of decisions get thrown at you at the worst possible time, when you can hardly function, lol!)

103

Some adults get braces, but it is hardly the usual case (some adults get circumcised as well). Having orthodontic work as an adult, rather than when the teeth are growing, involves a lot more pain ant effort - in your opinion should a parent then refuse orthodontic work and subject their child to that extra effort, so that they can make an informed decision later in life?

Another point is that having the circ procedure as an adult is not the same as having it as an infant, as the organ in its infant state isn’t the same as the adult. This is as true with circumcision than with teeth in orthodontia.

The two (infant vs. adult) are apples and oranges. They are not really comparable. Assuming for the moment that the scientific studies are accurate and that there exist health benefits to infant circumcision, apparently you cannot obtain those benefits if you wait until they are an adult. A parent has to weigh that against the benefits of non-circumcision.

As I said, I don’t really think there is any one “right answer” - it is up to every parent to weigh the benefits and choose for themselves. Every parent who does this thinking of the best interests of the child gets full marks from me, no matter what they choose (obviously, within reason). The notion that a parent should not choose in order to respect the autonomy interests of the child is IMO fine for that particular parent, but attempting to assert it is universally true and the only correct and moral position for all parents (thus criticizing others for the choice they have made in good faith) is both offensively and foolishly simplistic - parents have to make decisions concerning their children all the time.

104

I cannot resist a me-too post. Malthus states it fairly well. Grim and Pixie (I hope that is correct nomenclature and that they are indeed like Tom and Deb) thought about it and came to a reasonable decision. I may think that the default should be do nothing unless the evidence is strongly convincing that something should be done or there is a socioreligious factor that cinches the choice, and they may have decided similarly with the cost being the final tip in the decision balance. Others may not have the cost as a factor and may be more impressed by the medical benefits, or be philosophically opposed, or convinced of greater risk of harm. Fine. Think about it and decide on your baby boy’s behalf. Either way is a reasonable choice but the extreme positions staked out by some on this matter are inappropriate.

105

I’d much rather be circumcised as an infant. I can’t imagine how painful involuntary erections would be fpulling against the stitches of an adult male’s freshly cut foreskin. I was circumcised as an infant, but the doctor left enough of the foreskin that my glans was partially covered, and I couldn’t fully retract it until I was about 5 or so. I’m glad my parents made the decision for me. If they had left me intact, I am sure I wouldn’t opt for surgery, though, unless there was a clear medical reason for it.

106

Would you have minded if your parent put a permanent tattoo on you when you were 3 days old?

107

. . . if it was a medical warning of things you were deathly allergic to?

108

Since I am the owner of an uncircumcised penis I need neither studies nor anecdotes to tell me what it feels like, I have first hand experience.

If you were unlucky to be circumcised then keep reading these studies if they make you feel better

109

Also, arent these studies contradicting each other? The one with self reporting says that there is increased sensitivity while the other two didn’t find differences in sensitivity.

110

Are you also the owner of a circumcised penis? If not, how are you comparing the two experiences?

111

Dog80 I think that you may be bit confused about what specific words mean and how science works:

First, even if you are an individual who has experienced life both circumcised and uncircumcised, your individual first hand experience is an anecdote. Let me illustrate what that means: the question is say whether or not a particular treatment cures toenail fungus - one person tries it and not only does the fungus go away but at around the same time they hook-up with an amazing partner. That is an anecdote and that person is convinced that the treatment is fantastic stuff - cures fungus and results in great sex. A study is then done randomizing people into both treatment and sham treatment arms. In the study some people in both arms have their fungus disappear and some have it get worse in roughly equal numbers both study arms. That’s data. That person with his anecdotal experience of the treatment not only working but resulting in great sex may not believe the study - he has his “first hand experience” - but the rest of us will likely mock him for saying that his anecdote is stronger evidence than the study results.

Second, the claim had been made that circumcising a male newborn will result in his having less enjoyable sex as an adult. Studies that on aggregate show no difference in sexual enjoyment or penile sensitivity or even possibly more enjoyment for those circumcised falsify that claim. If the claim was being made that sex was consistently better as a result of having been circumcised then the study that showed no difference and the study that showed greater sensitivity after circumcision would be contradictory bits. But no one is making that claim, here at least. We are merely poo-pooing the claims that having your baby boy circ’ed will harm him sexually in the future. Yes I typed “poo-pooing”.

By all means continue your first hand experience with your uncircumcised penis - you may even want to try it with a partner sometime!

112

I don’t normally post to just to say I laughed; in this case, I am because I did.

As a matter of pedantry, I think you should have also made a bit more explicit is how the randomizing is done and for what reason. To wit, it’s specifically done such that bias by the poster to whom you’re replying is factored out. Normally, I’d find what you wrote quite elegant and sufficient, but in this case -given poster’s ignorance of how these things are done - I think it would have been helpful.

113

On the first study you have a group of men who were circumcised as adults report on month 24 after circ (why so late?) that sexual intercourse became more pleasurable. Why was this group of men circed? If they had phimosis then sex would be almost painful and circumcision would be a huge improvement.

The other studies found that there’s no difference in the glans sensitivity between circed and non-circed men. Fair enough.

But actual intercourse with an intact foreskin is more pleasurable. The foreskin itself has very little sensitivity, similar to the earlobes. The extra pleasure (at least for me) comes from the fact that the foreskin gets between the glans and the vagina walls and acts like a buffer. If I keep it pulled back there’s a sensation overload, it is still pleasurable but it is a bit like rubbing a sore point and I can’t concentrate. Granted, I usually keep it pulled back (I have a pronounced head so it stays in place) or use a condom because I can last longer that way.

Oh, that hurt. It was a hit below the belt.

114

And another thing: I find it extremely irritating when I see women having a strong opinion regarding male circumcision. It is like a man saying how natural birthing is so much better than c-section and all women should have it.

115

Hrm, extra pleasure? This pleasure is in addition to what? The points cutting against you are simply that you lack a frame of reference. No amount of assertion to the contrary will change the fact that you lack a frame of reference.

Even if I were inclined to listen to mere anecdotes, the anecdote would be stronger coming from someone who has experienced sex both with and without foreskin. To the extent that it would be more a cogent argument it would be limited exclusively to what that person thinks is the case. It wouldn’t somehow translate into what would actually generate more pleasure for him exclusively because of the alteration.

Some guys have a hangup after the procedure, like with vasectomy, that the loss of part of their “manhood” invokes in them a sense of loss that negatively affects their sexual performance. But that’s a psychological issue, not a physiological one. Your argument, sadly, is just “I like sex and since I’m uncut, clearly uncut sex is the best possible.” That a hard (sorry) fact. It’s just your assertion, which carries no force outside of your own impression of what your pleasure is.

If you really want to find out which is better, the solution is obvious. But even then, it won’t be precisely the same as having been cut for the duration of your life thus far.

116

Read again my previous post. I can pull back my foreskin therefore exposing the glans completely. If that is not like being circumcised then what is it?

117

Well, why can’t men have an opinion of c-section vs. natural childbirth? It’s not like there’s no objective information regarding outcomes, complications, etc. There would always be the caveat that men can’t experience childbirth of either sort but I see no obstacle to them having an opinion. Imposing that opinion on others is a different matter.

118

Yeah, because men have absolutely no opinions on women.

Breast size or the lack thereof, fake boobs and their opinions of the women who get them, appearance of labia, body shape and size, etc.etc. Hey, there might even be one or two websites devoted to something like that…

And there are plenty of men who think women should have C-sections, so their women will remain ‘tight’ even if it’s not medically necessary, nor true.

There are plenty of opinions floating around; get off your high horse.

My opinion? I like cut men, I like the appearance and the feel.

My husband is cut, my 2 boys are cut.

Minor procedure, not a big deal.

You are free to do what you like with yourself and your own boys. So am I.

119

If you don’t know the differences after having read this thread, then I’m surely not going to type them back out for you. Perhaps a short little search would answer the question.

120

Is there a difference in feel? And without wanting to be indelicate (actually yeah I want gory details) how big a sampling are we talking here? What exactly is the difference in feel?

Also, does you preference for as you put it “the look and feel” have anything to do with having the boys snipped? I sure as hell hope not because that would be a pretty shallow thing to base a medical decision on.

Yes its a minor procedure and no big deal (when being done to an infant) but you really want to cut them because you prefer the look?