Hehe, perhaps I should have added, “in person”. I’ve seen pictures of both! 
not that I’m ever going to have kids, but if I did, I wouldn’t.
and I am.
it’s one of those things that seem so… unnecessary.
Congratulations–that’s wonderful!
I had both of my sons (11 and8) cut and if I had more I’d do it again.
I checked “other” because the medical part being (slightly) favourable was a plus but also because, maybe it’s a coincidence, almost all my cousins/nephews who didn’t get cut had to get it done later in life. Here in Peru, at least in upper / upper-middle class it’s still common but declining.
My wife says she’s prefers the cut look.
Question for the ladies (maybe TMI): are blowjobs “different” if given to cut or uncut guys?
Born in Utah in the early 60s, I can’t remember any non-circumcised boys in gym, but here in Japan it’s not the norm. My friend, who had a boy about the same time Beta-chan was born, had it done so he would look like his father.
When we had our youngest, my wife asked me what I thought, and I couldn’t think of any good reason to whack it off, so we didn’t ask for it. It’s the norm here not too, so the doctor didn’t bring it up, although they will do on request.
No.
Except when the guy is flaccid there’s the brief experience of a smoother “feel” because there’s no cut ridge.
Once semi- or completely erect, no difference at all.
I did not notice any difference, no.
No. It’s not the norm in the UK and non-medical circumcision isn’t covered under the NHS. It just wouldn’t have been a consideration at all.
No, unless it was necessary for the infants life.
I had my son circumcised. My mother was a charge nurse in an ambulatory surgical center for 20 years. She was forever amazed at how many men, young and old came in to have the procedure done. All of them had reasons, medical and personal, that they felt warranted the pain and embarrasment of having it done as adults.
I clearly remember my pediatrician coming into my recovery room to explain the procedure and have the consent signed. He told me that he would anesthetize, by injection, the penis before the procedure, but if I didn’t want my baby to have the anesthetic, the he refused to do it. He also told me that, if in the future, I had another son, and another doctor would be circumcising, that I should insist on anesthetic. He said some doctors had the impression that babies wouldn’t remember the pain and therefore it wasn’t worth the time and risk of an anestheic injection. Sadists.
Jeez. We object to female circumcisions because it often involves removing the clitoris itself, not just the clitorial hood which would be the actual equivalent of a male circumcision. If people made a practice of cutting off the baby boy’s glans, then people would be equally outraged.
I voted other. If I have sons, the decision will be their father’s. I don’t feel strongly either way, certainly not as strongly as a man (probably) would, so I have no problems abiding by a hypothetical husband’s wishes.
I voted yes for social reasons. It’s something I hold no strong opinions on. I’m circumcised myself. If my partner held strong opinions one way or the other I’d go with his decision.
I assume so because my ex is Canadian and was presumably exposed to Canadian penises rather than American ones.
Both of my sons are circumcised. I did the research and felt the medical benefits tipped the scales towards doing so and the (largely emotion-based) counterarguments didn’t really resonate with me. Had the risks been greater or whatever, I could have gone the other way as I don’t feel exceptionally strongly about it but I’ve no second thoughts about the decision I made.
There are several types of female circumcision. One of them only involves removing the clitoral hood. But I wager Westerners would still find that barbaric.
I guess I’ll have to look at statistics.
Yes, for “other” reasons - mostly health. Also for religious reasons, to a (much) lesser extent.
I’ve seen more than a few adult men where I work have to get circumcised because of trouble with their foreskin. I’ve never seen a man have trouble with his penis due to lack OF foreskin (I’m not saying it’s not possible, I’m just saying I haven’t seen it personally).
I voted no, the nebulous benefits don’t seem worth a surgical procedure. I think it’s just become a habit in American medicine.
For me, the “but he might have to have it done when he’s older and it’s not so easy” argument doesn’t hold a lot of water. There are a lot of medical procedures that would probably be easier if you did them on an infant than a grown adult, and yet we don’t do them preemptively just in case the person has some unusual medical condition in the future.
Nope. No reason, much like piercing I think most people these days do it for cosmetic reasons, because they don’t want their little boy to worry about looking different. If I had a son he’d look just like his daddy: uncut.
Think about his future when hes older. Whats gonna happen when his gf sees that? I mean I freaked out when I seen one that wasn’t. And its not just for cosmetic reasons, they do it because they are less likely to get infections there.