Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you weren't married would you be intimate with an uncircumcised man?
If it would bother you then go ahead and circumcise your baby when the time comes if it wouldn't bother you then dont circumcise him.
I personally wouldn't want to be intimate with an uncircumcised man.
I believe that your prejudice is unfounded. I think you are going on looks of the uncut, flaccid penis, which is NOT what we western women are used to seeing. It looks weird to us. It is a cultural thing. As far as my personal preference with regard to being intimate, I have always preferred uncut males but they were much harder (no pun intended) to find in my age group so most of my intimate experiences have been with circumcised men.
Even so. Once you get used to looking at a normal man's penis that has not been mutilated, it starts to look very normal and nice. Pretty soon, the circumcised ones start looking funny and unnatural.
Okay, this is directed to the original poster only. I hope you make a decision that you can live with either way. I obviously feel very passionately about this, hence the very fired up posts. You will have to take what EVERYONE has said here and do you own research (which is what I advocated in my first post) and make an informed decision that you are happy about. Congrats on your baby.
To everyone else: If you agreed and supported my stance, thanks so much. If not, well, I was just trying to save one more innocent boy's foreskin. I stand behind everything I wrote, but I am done. I'm just preaching to people who can't open their minds to see that they could be possibly wrong, so there is no point in continuing. I have better things to do.
You did a great job. No one wants to admit they might have caused their child unnecessary pain and trauma. If you make a genital mutilation decision you have to stand behind it since you can't go back and undo it. But at least be understanding about those tribes who mutilate their girl children. To criticize them is truly the pot calling the kettle, Black. If you really think circumscision is alright then BE THERE FOR IT. Don't just hand off your baby and cross your fngers. Take responsibility for the mutilation by being there to witness it. Anything else smacks of cowardice and a wish NOT TO KNOW.
Give me a break. The entire penis is not being "chopped off".
If you chopped off the tip of your index finger, yes, I would consider it imperfect but you could still use your finger & the pain would not be lifelong. You could go on living a perfectly fine life. Mutilated? No.
Some posts are bordering pure extremism.
Mutilation as stated by the American Heritage Medical Dictionary: "Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body" Using the term mutilation in regards to circumcision is extreme. The part of the penis that is removed is not essential for a normal life if it's kept on or removed.
I wasn't alluding to the whole penis being chopped off, just a small piece of it which may or may not be useful, but a piece of the whole nonetheless, and that was said in reply to the previous reply that "If completely removed, it isn't there to be anything. It cannot be imperfect or mutilated if it doesn't exist.. ", which *I* thought was a rather extreme statement itself. In my comparison, a finger (not the whole hand) being chopped off was (IMO) equal to a foreskin (not the whole penis) being chopped off, and yes- I agree that you would still be able to use your (hand), that you would not be in pain for the rest of your life, and that likely you would still be able to do everything with your (hand) that you wanted to. But to say that if it's been altered (is that a better word than mutilated?) that it then becomes perfect just didn't sound right to me.
And as far as the definition of "mutilation"... I agree that the foreskin may not be an essential body part, but it sure as heck is a conspicuous one, right? Otherwise, we wouldn't be using "how it looks" as a reason for altering it.
Nothing more valid or less valid than anyone else's point.
Rape, mutilation...maybe start calling child services then on people. Have them arrested & tried for rape of a minor. Maybe that will make you feel better all for the sake of a piece of foreskin. To use those terms so loosely is an insult to those who have actually been seriously harmed, traumatized & killed by a rapist or extreme tribal groups.
Guess what? There are far more serious & damaging things that can & do happen to infants & children every day other than circumcision. There are far worse things your child will come into contact with throughout their life. I am much more concerned about those things.
To hold such extreme hate towards those who do not agree with you on a topic such as this is quite concerning & scary.
Nothing more valid or less valid than anyone else's point.
Rape, mutilation...maybe start calling child services then on people. Have them arrested & tried for rape of a minor. Maybe that will make you feel better all for the sake of a piece of foreskin. To use those terms so loosely is an insult to those who have actually been seriously harmed, traumatized & killed by a rapist or extreme tribal groups.
Guess what? There are far more serious & damaging things that can & do happen to infants & children every day other than circumcision. There are far worse things your child will come into contact with throughout their life. I am much more concerned about those things.
To hold such extreme hate towards those who do not agree with you on a topic such as this is quite concerning & scary.
You and the "extreme tribal group" are doing the same thing. Pot meet kettle.
You and the "extreme tribal group" are doing the same thing. Pot meet kettle.
Do you realize how adolescent that sounds? 'She hit me first', 'No I didn't, she hit ME first'.
At least those of us NOT against circumcision aren't using words like MUTILATION and IMPERFECT, etc..
Circumcision does not leave lasting trauma. MOST boys are circumcised. When you walk into your child's school, do you see pain and mutilation on the faces of all those little boys who have been circumcised? No, you see happy, well adjusted children. Do you see malnouishment from not nursing for 10 hours after the procedure was done 6 or 8 or 10 years before? No, you see healthy boys with hearty appetites.
When you talk with their mothers, do they sound to you like their children aren't perfect? No, they see their children as whole and as perfect as any other child.
So, I'm not understanding how circumcision is such a traumatic, life altering, mutilating act.
Do you realize how adolescent that sounds? 'She hit me first', 'No I didn't, she hit ME first'.
At least those of us NOT against circumcision aren't using words like MUTILATION and IMPERFECT, etc..
Circumcision does not leave lasting trauma. MOST boys are circumcised. When you walk into your child's school, do you see pain and mutilation on the faces of all those little boys who have been circumcised? No, you see happy, well adjusted children. Do you see malnouishment from not nursing for 10 hours after the procedure was done 6 or 8 or 10 years before? No, you see healthy boys with hearty appetites.
When you talk with their mothers, do they sound to you like their children aren't perfect? No, they see their children as whole and as perfect as any other child.
So, I'm not understanding how circumcision is such a traumatic, life altering, mutilating act.
I'm not understanding how you call tribal groups who do female circumscision "extreme". Where is the difference between you?
Last edited by laysayfair; 09-23-2008 at 07:56 PM..
Reason: typo
In fact none? One would know this only by researching every medical organization and their recommendations or lack thereof.
And have you found a medical organization that recommends routine infant circumcision? Please share it with us if you have.
The following medical organizations do NOT recommend routine infant circumcision. (I am not saying that they all oppose it, I am saying they deem it purely elective, though some of them do oppose it (ie Canada))
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)
American Medical Association (AMA)
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
British Medical Association (BMA)
General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom
Canadian Paediatric Society
Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP)
From the AMA policy statement:
Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice. The recent policy revision by the American Academy of Pediatrics also states that analgesia (anesthesia) should be provided for the procedure.
...
A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns.63-67 Studies from the 1980s suggested that the presentation of medical information on the potential advantages and disadvantages of circumcision had little influence on parents' decisions.64-66 This finding was recently confirmed.68 In another contemporary study, nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision.67,68 Major factors in parental decision-making are the father's circumcision status, opinions of family members and friends, a desire for conformity in their son's appearance, and the belief that the circumcised penis is easier to care for with respect to local hygiene.
Hopefully this will clear up for you the stance of all the major medical organizations that have an interest in circumcision. You can see that, according to the AMA, the main factors in parental decisions about circumcision are not based on medical factors, but social ones. Which, as it happens, also seems clear from reading this thread. Again, MY argument has been that given that there is not sufficient medical benefit to circumcision, why do it? The "cost" of circumcision outweighs the "benefit".
I'm not understanding how you call tribal groups who do female circumscision "extreme". Where is the difference between you?
I didn't.
Note:Female circumcision is done under unsanitary conditions with razor blades, broken glass, kitchen knives, and anything else that will cut, by NO ONE qualified as a doctor. It is also more extreme than male circumcision, meaning the cutting is far more extensive.
Male circumcision is done in a hospital, by a doctor, under SANITARY conditions with surgical instruments.
How can those two be compared?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
