Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Male Circumcision (Original Post) SHRED Jul 2012 OP
well that's one way to get over 100 replies.... unblock Jul 2012 #1
I hope this thread... SHRED Jul 2012 #4
I had a friend that did it at age 30, his pain and misery were a source of our teasing braddy Aug 2012 #27
My son and his wife chose it for their son because of locker room appearance. HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #2
Because it's a much worse operation in older kids and adults, that's why Warpy Jul 2012 #3
+1000 marybourg Jul 2012 #5
so female genital mutiliation is none of our business as well. thanks :-) nt msongs Jul 2012 #10
False equivalency, straw man argument Warpy Jul 2012 #18
I like your response. My bro-in-law had a miserable experience lumpy Jul 2012 #12
+ another 1000 COLGATE4 Jul 2012 #15
Couple of reasons--first, because parents are convinced that it's quicker and less painful-- Moonwalk Jul 2012 #6
My newborn son was in so much pain that he slept through the entire thing Nikia Aug 2012 #25
It's never right except for cases of infection or problems. Manifestor_of_Light Jul 2012 #7
HALF?? unblock Jul 2012 #8
Oh good. bemildred Jul 2012 #9
While I support parents who make the decision for religious reasons, I oppose cbayer Jul 2012 #11
I had five brothers, 3 cut, 3 not cut. bemildred Jul 2012 #13
my sons are not circumcised handmade34 Aug 2012 #28
Kids! So having a foreskin made him a socialist? LOL! cbayer Aug 2012 #31
I have to look for the link, but getting popular in Africa hollysmom Jul 2012 #14
I like being cut. Glad my folks decided that way. Nt xchrom Jul 2012 #16
Because their health advisors owned stock in KY Jelly, its parent company, Trillo Jul 2012 #17
facts SHRED Jul 2012 #19
I figured handmade34 Jul 2012 #20
Heard something about this subject on NPR one day last week - interesting Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #21
So unprotected sex is an option I guess? SHRED Jul 2012 #22
do you mean Reason instead of Option? as in: Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #23
THE FACTS BEHIND CIRCUMCISION SHRED Jul 2012 #24
Yahweh haz sad. nt valerief Aug 2012 #26
It was done to me, I couldn't walk for more than a year. No one could understand my speech either. braddy Aug 2012 #29
Where's the person with Confusious Aug 2012 #30
I dated a Jewish girl and she said Callmecrazy Aug 2012 #32
 

SHRED

(28,136 posts)
4. I hope this thread...
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:04 PM
Jul 2012

...will not get bogged down in "reasons why" or "why not" and keep it simple to my original question which is:

Why not let the person decide for themselves what is done to their penis?


---
 

braddy

(3,585 posts)
27. I had a friend that did it at age 30, his pain and misery were a source of our teasing
Mon Aug 6, 2012, 08:45 PM
Aug 2012

for a long while, it was so bad that we almost felt sorry for him.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
2. My son and his wife chose it for their son because of locker room appearance.
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 12:59 PM
Jul 2012

They didn't want the g'son to be seen by others as being different.

Not saying that's a good reason but it is one of the 'whys'


Warpy

(111,222 posts)
3. Because it's a much worse operation in older kids and adults, that's why
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:02 PM
Jul 2012

Parents make some decisions for their children. Circumcision is one of them and it's none of your business.

Warpy

(111,222 posts)
18. False equivalency, straw man argument
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 03:18 PM
Jul 2012

so take him out and play with him, he's all yours.

Shame.

lumpy

(13,704 posts)
12. I like your response. My bro-in-law had a miserable experience
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:30 PM
Jul 2012

when he had the operation as an adult.

Moonwalk

(2,322 posts)
6. Couple of reasons--first, because parents are convinced that it's quicker and less painful--
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:09 PM
Jul 2012

--to snip that little bit off a baby then for a grown man to have a larger bit snipped off later. And because it is painful, a grown man will know what's coming and have some anxiety about it. The baby doesn't know--a moment of pain, it's over and (again the presumption here) never think about it. Mind you, I don't' say this is true, just what is believed to be true by most parents and doctors. Thus, the parents are doing making one of those decisions for their kid as all parents do, one they think will save him pain and trouble later in life, and make things easier for him. Rather like having a kids tonsils taken out.

Second is that those males who might have problems (painful erections, etc.) won't have to suffer through those problems before getting the operation. Which means that some parents (doctors) see it a little like a shot against a disease. Rather than dealing with the problem when (if) it becomes a problem, they prevent any chance of the problem happening altogether. Again, this is the parents being parents. Parents make decisions for kids while they're kids that they think will make life easier for them later on. They fear if they wait, the teen or adult will have to go through some pain and suffering. So rather than a lot of problems later, a little snip now and no one has to worry.

Neither of which makes me in favor of circumcising babies rather than letting grown men decide, but it does explain some of the parent/doctor reasoning for doing it on babies. Of course, the other main reason is if the parents are Jewish/Islamic, then this carries a measure of superstition. Unless the baby is circumcised, they aren't really part of the tribe and/or recognized by god. As devout Catholic parents would be unhappy if their baby couldn't be baptized, so devout Jewish/Islamic parents wouldn't be happy if the baby couldn't be circumcised. In this instance, there is no rational reason for doing it, it's connected to a strong belief system. Any uncircumcised male is not going to be recognized by god as one of his chosen people. So you want that baby to be circumcised quick as possible so that there is that connection between the kid and god.

Nikia

(11,411 posts)
25. My newborn son was in so much pain that he slept through the entire thing
Mon Aug 6, 2012, 08:16 PM
Aug 2012

I am just saying that it doesn't suggest a pain response.

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
7. It's never right except for cases of infection or problems.
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:10 PM
Jul 2012

No parent has the right to chop off half the very sensitive skin of their child's penis. The foreskin is there for a very good reason.

And I'm a female, BTW.

Just because millions of people do something does not make it right.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
11. While I support parents who make the decision for religious reasons, I oppose
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:27 PM
Jul 2012

circumcision for other reasons.

So I chose not to circumcise my sons. One of them is angry about it and thinks my decision was wrong. He is now an adult, but states he was ridiculed as an adolescent and had significant problems with girls and their reactions when he became sexually active.

We were in the south, where the majority of boys were being circumcised. My son feels I used him as a sacrificial lamb for a cause that I felt was important. That is true. Was I right or wrong?

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
13. I had five brothers, 3 cut, 3 not cut.
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:41 PM
Jul 2012

We never much cared one way or another. I put a stop to it with my sons once I understood the issue, not because I think it's important, but because it clearly is not. You were right.

handmade34

(22,756 posts)
28. my sons are not circumcised
Mon Aug 6, 2012, 08:49 PM
Aug 2012

and my oldest's complaint is that growing up I taught him to be a socialist and now he is trying to make it in a capitalistic world

was I right or wrong?? being a parent is so humbling

(neither one has ever complained to me about the foreskin!)

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
31. Kids! So having a foreskin made him a socialist? LOL!
Mon Aug 6, 2012, 09:14 PM
Aug 2012

It is humbling, but if I had to do it again, I would make the same decision.

It was not easy, but nothing about raising them was.

hollysmom

(5,946 posts)
14. I have to look for the link, but getting popular in Africa
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 02:05 PM
Jul 2012

for reducing the chance of passing on HIV.

I can't recall exactly, think it was in Salon.

Slow computer here, so may not be back too soon.

 

SHRED

(28,136 posts)
19. facts
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 03:29 PM
Jul 2012

No national or international medical association recommends routine circumcision.

Only the USA circumcises the majority of newborn boys without medical or religious reason.

Medicalized circumcision began during the 1800s to prevent masturbation, which was believed to cause disease.

Today's parents are learning that the foreskin is a normal, protective, functioning organ.

Today's parents realize circumcision harms and has unnecessary risks.

Circumcision denies a male's right to genital integrity and choice for his own body.

http://www.nocirc.org/

&feature=related

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
21. Heard something about this subject on NPR one day last week - interesting
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:33 PM
Jul 2012

Clean-Cut: Study Finds Circumcision Helps Prevent HIV and Other Infections
The first microbiome study of the penis offers some clues as to why removing foreskin cuts the risk of HIV infection in circumcised men

What's Next for AIDS: New Approaches for Tackling HIV in the Developing World The surprise success this summer of a clinical trial on an antiretroviral-based vaginal microbicide provides new traction for efforts to combat AIDS in the developing world. Here are some new directions to expect for treatment and prevention of this widespread killer »August 25, 2010.

CUTTING HIV RISK: A new study suggests that bacterial changes following circumcision could help protect circumcised men from HIV infection. Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/LUTHERHILL

The World Health Organization declared three years ago that circumcision should be part of any strategy to prevent HIV infection in men. The organization based its recommendation on three randomized clinical trials in Africa that found the incidence of HIV was 60 percent lower in men who were circumcised. Although this "research evidence is compelling," wrote the WHO panel assigned to the topic, there was little evidence explaining how circumcision might reduce a man's risk of acquiring HIV.

Now comes an answer in a new study, published in the January 6 issue of PLoS ONE, which found that there are gross changes in the penis's microbiome following circumcision, suggesting that shifts in the bacterial environment could account, in part, for the differences in HIV infection. Families of anaerobic bacteria, which are unable to grow in the presence of oxygen, are abundant before circumcision but nearly disappear after the procedure. The researchers suspect that in uncircumcised men, these bacteria may provoke inflammation in the genitalia, thereby improving the chances that immune cells will be in the vicinity for HIV viruses to infect.

"We never knew that there were that many anaerobic bacteria on the uncircumcised penis before [this study]," says Ronald Gray, a reproductive epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and one of the lead authors on the current study. According to a 2006 survey, 56.1 percent of boys in the U.S. are circumcised. In its recommendation, the WHO panel stated that circumcision efforts would be most beneficial in parts of the world where less than 20 percent of boys are circumcised.

Gray, who is also working with one of the three randomized clinical trials on which WHO based its recommendation, adds that, "If we can show that these anaerobic bacteria are associated with HIV, then one could develop microbicides—antiseptics or targeted antibiotics —that might provide protection."

more at link:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
23. do you mean Reason instead of Option? as in:
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 11:45 PM
Jul 2012

Unprotected sex is a good reason to have boy babies circumcised.



"We never knew that there were that many anaerobic bacteria on the uncircumcised penis before .... If we can show that these anaerobic bacteria are associated with HIV, then one could develop microbicides—antiseptics or targeted antibiotics —that might provide protection."
In its recommendation, the WHO panel stated that circumcision efforts would be most beneficial in parts of the world where less than 20 percent of boys are circumcised.

 

SHRED

(28,136 posts)
24. THE FACTS BEHIND CIRCUMCISION
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:13 AM
Jul 2012

Newborn male circumcision is the most common surgical procedure performed in the U.S. It's a common misconception that there are tangible health benefits to male circumcision, but the truth is no medical society in the world recommends it. This invasive procedure carries serious health risks, including infection, hemorrhage, surgical mishap, and death, as well many ethical considerations.

Yet, despite these risks, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are developing public health recommendations that could mislead more parents into agreeing to circumcision for their newborn baby boys. Intact America is demanding that these organizations issue a truthful statement on the risks and harms of newborn male circumcision.

Get the facts behind circumcision below, then take our interactive quiz and test your knowledge!

Myth – Circumcising baby boys is a safe and harmless procedure.
Fact – Surgically removing part of a baby boy's penis causes pain, creates immediate health risks and can lead to serious complications. Risks include infection, hemorrhage, scarring, difficulty urinating, loss of part or all of the penis, and even death. Circumcision complications can and do occur in even the best clinical settings.

Myth – Circumcision is just a little snip.
Fact – Surgical removal of the foreskin involves immobilizing the baby by strapping him face-up onto a molded plastic board. In one common method, the doctor then inserts a metal instrument under the foreskin to forcibly separate it from the glans, slits the foreskin, and inserts a circumcision device. The foreskin is crushed and then cut off. The amount of skin removed in a typical infant circumcision is the equivalent of 15 square inches in an adult male.

Myth – Circumcision is routinely recommended and endorsed by doctors and other health professionals.
Fact – No professional medical association in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world recommends routine circumcision as medically necessary. In fact, leaving boys intact is now the norm in the U.S., with circumcision rates well below 40%.

Myth – The baby does not feel any pain during circumcision.
Fact – Circumcision is painful. Babies are sensitive to pain, just like older children and adults. The analgesics used for circumcision only decrease pain; they do not eliminate it. Further, the open wound left by the removal of the foreskin will continue to cause the baby pain and discomfort for the 7-10 days it takes to heal.

Myth – If I don't circumcise my son, he will be ridiculed.
Fact – Times have changed and so has people's understanding of circumcision. Today, although the popularity of circumcision varies across geographical areas, more than 60% of all baby boys born in the U.S. will leave the hospital intact. Most medically advanced nations do not practice child circumcision. Three quarters of the world's men are intact.

Myth – A boy should be circumcised to look like his father.
Fact – Children differ from their parents in many ways, including eye and hair color, body type, and (of course) size and sexual development. If a child asks why his penis looks different from that of his circumcised father (or brother), parents can say, "Daddy (or brother) had a part of his penis removed when he was a baby; now we know it’s not necessary and we decided not to let anyone do that to you."

Myth – Routine circumcision of baby boys cannot be compared to Female Genital Mutilation.
Fact – Rationales offered in cultures that promote female genital cutting – hygiene, disease prevention, improved appearance of the genitalia, and social acceptance – are similar to those offered in cultures that promote male circumcision. Whatever the rationale, forced removal of healthy genital tissue from any child – male or female – is unethical. Boys have the same right as girls to an intact body, and to be spared this inhumane, unnecessary surgery.

Myth – To oppose male circumcision is religious and cultural bigotry.
Fact – Many who oppose the permanent alteration of children's genitals do so because they believe in universal human rights. All children – regardless of their ethnicity or culture – have the right to be protected from bodily harm.

Myth – Circumcising newborn baby boys produces health benefits later in life.
Fact – There is NO link between circumcision and better health. In fact, cutting a baby boy's genitals creates immediate health risks. The foreskin is actually an important and functional body part, protecting the head of the penis from injury and providing moisture and lubrication. Circumcision also diminishes sexual pleasure later in life.

Myth – Male circumcision helps prevent HIV.
Fact – Claims that circumcision prevents HIV have repeatedly been proven to be exaggerated or false. Only abstinence or safe sex, including the use of condoms, can prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

http://www.intactamerica.org/learnmore

 

braddy

(3,585 posts)
29. It was done to me, I couldn't walk for more than a year. No one could understand my speech either.
Mon Aug 6, 2012, 09:01 PM
Aug 2012

Last edited Mon Aug 6, 2012, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Confusious

(8,317 posts)
30. Where's the person with
Mon Aug 6, 2012, 09:14 PM
Aug 2012

The aw, not this shit again image when you need them?

As for your other posts, studies have found it prevents the spread of STDs.

So much for the health argument.

http://www.livescience.com/16375-male-circumcision-funding-health-hiv-prevention.html

"Hopkins doctors Ronald Gray and Aaron Tobian said the increasing efforts to defund or outright ban infant male circumcision are unfounded, harmful and "ethically questionable.""

So much for the doctor argument. (That would be John Hopkins, a noted medical school)

The sex argument, well, I'll take a little less sensitivity for less of a chance of catching an STD. Besides, considering the past, I could spare the sensitivity. Beside which, when you're that young, there are many, many studies that prove the child can adapt.

Doctors or some guy on the Internet, who to believe..... I think the doctors.

Callmecrazy

(3,065 posts)
32. I dated a Jewish girl and she said
Mon Aug 6, 2012, 09:26 PM
Aug 2012

If I hadn't been circumcised we would have never had sex (I'm Roman Catholic) because I would have been considered unclean.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Health»Male Circumcision