Should parents have the right to have their infant son circumcised? (private school, economy)

[notyouraveragebear]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

In uncircumcised men Langerhans cells—immune cells that are primary targets for HIV transmission—"are more richly concentrated near the surface of the foreskin," says Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md. Without the keratin barrier, HIV can easily access these cells in the foreskin. Following infection, Langerhans cells not only serve as reservoirs for replicating virus, but also transport the virus to nearby lymph nodes where HIV spreads to other immune cells."

If this is a reason for getting men circumcised, then we must also circumcise females because they also have Langerhans cells on their genitalia. Oh, and while we're at it, let's also cut off every person's mouth and anus because Langerhans cells are found in these areas, too.

As for the African studies on HIV transmission in circ versus uncut men, I wonder if the availability and usage of condoms are the same there as it is for those in the US. Also, how long was this study? I didn't see a time period in the article. Maybe the circumcised were in the healing stages and didn't have sex as much as the uncut men, therefore less opportunity to catch HIV?

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

And neither do those who are circumcised. But as I look around me and around the world, it seems that circumcised men are doing just fine in the sexual satisfaction department. So, this argument about whether or not non-circumcised men have superior sexual stimulation is pretty much nonsense.

Is it true circumcised men need lube to masturbate? Or experience friction problems? That must suck. I also hear the head of the shaft dries out, kind of like what happens when you leave a snail out in the sun. The foreskin was supposedly to be left intact to protect the head of the penis.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Is it true circumcised men need lube to masturbate? Or experience friction problems? That must suck. I also hear the head of the shaft dries out, kind of like what happens when you leave a snail out in the sun. The foreskin was supposedly to be left intact to protect the head of the penis.

Are you really this immature? You expect me to know about the maturbation needs/tendancies of other men? You expect me to discuss my own on this forum?

I've already stated in this thread that I think male circumcision in the U.S. has more to do with tradition and aesthetics. That doesn't make it wrong. Having fathered sons, I can say that doctors in U.S. hospitals will advise parents to have their infant sons circumcised due to health risks, no matter how small the risk may be. But I think most have it done because they want their sons to look like the father and not have to worry about locker room teasing as they get into school. If you had a son of your own (and I strongly suspect you don't), then you'd understand that fathers are conscious about not putting their own sons in position to become the target of bullies and teasing. And the reality is that most U.S. males are circumcised. Still, we function just fine sexually.

Yes, the foreskin is natural, but men function fine without it. It's not the same as female circumcision. By your logic, we shouldn't have the right to pierce the ears of our daughters. After all, ear piercing is unnatural and strictly cosmetic.

I respect that you are glad to be uncircumcised and would not have such a procedure performed on your own son. That would be your right as a father. But you could do better to appreciate the opposite view. When you go on ranting about your perceived superior sexual stimulation and refer to the U.S. as the "Land of the Bald Penises," you only come across as an immature jerk.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

Are you really this immature? You expect me to know about the maturbation needs/tendancies of other men? You expect me to discuss my own on this forum?

I've already stated in this thread that I think male circumcision in the U.S. has more to do with tradition and aesthetics. That doesn't make it wrong. Having fathered sons, I can say that doctors in U.S. hospitals will advise parents to have their infant sons circumcised due to health risks, no matter how small the risk may be. But I think most have it done because they want their sons to look like the father and not have to worry about locker room teasing as they get into school. If you had a son of your own (and I strongly suspect you don't), then you'd understand that fathers are conscious about not putting their own sons in position to become the target of bullies and teasing. And the reality is that most U.S. males are circumcised. Still, we function just fine sexually.

Yes, the foreskin is natural, but men function fine without it. It's not the same as female circumcision. By your logic, we shouldn't have the right to pierce the ears of our daughters. After all, ear piercing is unnatural and strictly cosmetic.

I respect that you are glad to be uncircumcised and would not have such a procedure performed on your own son. That would be your right as a father. But you could do better to appreciate the opposite view. When you go on ranting about your perceived superior sexual stimulation and refer to the U.S. as the "Land of the Bald Penises," you only come across as an immature jerk.

Maybe, I guess I didn't realise I felt as strongly as I did though, it's still deciding something for someone which should be their decision in my eyes. But we'll agree to disagree.

That's a banal reason. In high school growing up we didn't even see other boys' penises in the change-rooms. We had separate showers/change-rooms. The circumcision rate in the US is declining, so maybe by the time boys today come of age it will be close to 50/50 or even less. Eventually the teasing might go the other way. The AMA generally recommends against the procedure, although individual doctors might give their own advice.

No I don't think parents should pierce girls ears. It should be a decision left up to them when they're old enough. What use do 5 year old girls have for wearing earrings anyway?

I do appreciate the opposite view, why it's held, but I still see it as something that is imposed on people, a permanent physical modification of the body, that is unethical in this day and age without sufficient justification (in my eyes). I've said my piece.

[Cav Scout wife]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

If I convert to Judaism when my uncircumcised son in 15, do I have the "right" to have him circumcised if he doesn't want it done?

If I think women should be chaste or not enjoy sex, do I have the "right" to have my daughter's clitoris removed (not in a barbaric way, but done by a trained surgeon under anesthesia)?

Is your son converting as well? IF not, no worries, but if he is, then a hatafat dam brit is preformed (basically a pin prick of the head of the penis to show the covenant).

You can NOT compare cutting off the whole gland to snipping a bit of skin. FGM is when the cut the whole cl*t off; while male circ is the foreskin, not the same at all.

Originally Posted by notyouraveragebear

LOL, really? They actually said they were glad you're cut? For every sex partner of yours to know the difference between cut and uncut, either you live in an area with a large number of uncut men or these women were highly promiscuous and studious of their partners' penises.

I tell my hubby daily I'm glad he's cut. We wouldn't be together if he were "intact".

Originally Posted by hammertime33

I feel very sorry for men who have to put up with this feeling, thinking it's normal that their gl*ns be like a dried up sandpaper raisin, for their entire life.

Not all circ'd men look or feel like that. Being that I have a fairly intimate relationship with my husband and his penis, I can say without a doubt that his is very soft, and not like sandpaper AT ALL, nor is it like a raisin.

Originally Posted by grmasterb

That'll get a fatwah placed on you.

I'm an outspoken American Jewish woman, I already have one, lol!

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I might suggest that keratinization doesn't affect guys who use soap with a moisturizer, or the vast majority of circumcised men whether they do this or not, as I haven't had any problems in going on 30 years.

Exactly! "It puts the lotion on the skin..." Hubby has no problems either.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Ask your great great great grandfather what he thinks of this whole movement and he'll tell you it's poppycock.

G-grandpa was snipped.



As for the original post, yes if we would have had a son, he would have been snipped; as per our faith, by a mohel in the ceremony of bris on the 8th day.

[Roaddog]

There are many things in this world to be concerned about but a Baby's penis is not one of them that should be high on anyone's list.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by notyouraveragebear

If this is a reason for getting men circumcised, then we must also circumcise females because they also have Langerhans cells on their genitalia. Oh, and while we're at it, let's also cut off every person's mouth and anus because Langerhans cells are found in these areas, too.

If the risks of having it done, risks of NOT having it done, practicality, cost, and other harms/benefits are equal to those of male circumcision, sure

Originally Posted by notyouraveragebear

As for the African studies on HIV transmission in circ versus uncut men, I wonder if the availability and usage of condoms are the same there as it is for those in the US. Also, how long was this study? I didn't see a time period in the article. Maybe the circumcised were in the healing stages and didn't have sex as much as the uncut men, therefore less opportunity to catch HIV?

I guess that's possible, but this argument doesn't much depend on these studies. They are only examples. I believe the following link was posted earlier by someone else, but I'd suggest it for you (and others) as well. Here's a quote from the site:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) male circumcision policy states that while there are potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision, the data are insufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. Since 2005, however, 3 randomized trials have evaluated male circumcision for prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The trials found that circumcision decreases human immunodeficiency virus acquisition by 53% to 60%, herpes simplex virus type 2 acquisition by 28% to 34%, and human papillomavirus prevalence by 32% to 35% in men. Among female partners of circumcised men, bacterial vaginosis was reduced by 40%, and Trichomonas vaginalis infection was reduced by 48%. Genital ulcer disease was also reduced among males and their female partners. These findings are also supported by observational studies conducted in the United States..."

Science-Based Medicine » The case for neonatal circumcision

[stan4]

It is a purely cosmetic procedure.

Next you'll be having your 12 year old getting a boob job bc the kids at school are making fun of her flat chest. Fantastic.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Is it true circumcised men need lube to masturbate? Or experience friction problems? That must suck.

No, no, and nothing about it is unpleasant

Originally Posted by Trimac20

I also hear the head of the shaft dries out, kind of like what happens when you leave a snail out in the sun. The foreskin was supposedly to be left intact to protect the head of the penis.

The only thing I've noticed personally (quite!), is drying on occasion in a section just below the head. I've never experienced any sort of pain associated with any of this at any time.

As it turns out, imo, the protective purpose of the foreskin pales in comparison to the risks it poses.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by stan4

It is a purely cosmetic procedure.

Next you'll be having your 12 year old getting a boob job bc the kids at school are making fun of her flat chest. Fantastic.

Cosmetic is what it's become.