Circumcises and Uncut at babies birth ?

Question

Ive always wondered what the differences (other then the appearance) of the male p***s with being circumcised or not.

Why is it that at birth, they have to cut it or leave it on?

I mean, what are the benefits that the males gets with having a

circumcised p***s or a uncut one.

I wanna to know the pros and cons between the two.

Answer 1

Circumcision is the amputation of the f******n, not extra skin but an integral part of the p***s; measuring 15 square inches in an adult and accounting for over half the penile skin, lots of specialised nerve endings and the most sensitive parts of the p***s.

Circumcised males lose the gliding action as the f******n slides on itself during masturbation and s*x. They often have little or no movable skin left and are forced to m********e using lube or rubbing dry, without the loose skin. Newly circumcised adults usually go through some weeks of intense discomfort as the glans is constantly exposed to rubbing on clothing, until it develops a thicker keratin layer and becomes less sensitive.

Not one medical organisation in the world recommends routine infant circumcision anymore but the US is the last western nation still doing this to about 50% of its newborn males. They still don't generally use anaesthetic either. It's child abuse, pure and simple.

The p***s forms as one organ and at birth the f******n is usually fused to the glans like a fingernail to its finger. So there is no cavity for germs and dirt to collect in until it separates naturally later; sometimes not till puberty or later. Only the boy himself should retract it and then he can be taught to skin back and rinse with plain water regularly.

Misguided attempts to retract too early, often by doctors and nurses, are the main cause of damage to boys’ foreskins and the real main reason for childhood circumcisions.

To perform a neo-natal circumcision the circumciser has to rip the f******n away from the glans with forceps. Then the f******n is either cut away or clamped until it falls off. Both methods cause the baby extreme pain and his raw glans and wound sting every time he urinates. It's quite common for the raw edges of the cut f******n to fuse to the raw glans during the healing process, forming skin bridges or tags. These complications and other more serious ones are often not found till puberty and do not show up in complication statistics.

More serious complications, though not common are immediate. Some babies lose their p***s to infection, bleed profusely (often because they are haemophiliac) or even die each year.  

The claimed benefits of circumcision are a beat up (based on flawed studies) and don't really exist but medical authorities have worked out that the overall complication rate is higher than all the benefits claimed by the pro-cutting advocates. One by one the claims are disproved but the pro-cutting zealots come up with more and keep quoting the old ones despite the evidence against them. For example you have more chance of dying from a circumcision or losing your p***s from infection than from penile cancer. The rate of penile cancer is higher in the largely-circumcised USA than in European countries where less than 1% of the male population is circumcised. Plus circumcised men have been found to have penile cancer, mostly on the scar. (Remember this is a very rare disease in intact or circumcised men).

A very recent study in New Zealand followed a cohort of boys through life from birth to age 32. About 40% were circumcised. The intact males had a slightly lower rate of sexually transmitted infections than the circumcised but there was no significant difference.

Using surgery to mutilate the genitals instead of washing in a modern western society makes no sense. Normal intact male genitals are, if anything, easier to wash than female ones and the same substance, smegma collects in the genital folds of both sexes. A few intact males have problems with tight f******n but this is only a tiny proportion of intact males. The condition can now be almost always treated with simple stretching exercises, sometimes in combination with a steroid cream that speeds up the process. However doctors who do not value the preservation of the f******n often still trot out circumcision as a first-option treatment in the US and even some other countries.

I am circumcised and hate it. I wish I'd been given the chance to choose for myself. Intact men can choose to get cut at any time in their life, though most have no desire to do so. The internet has shown that many men resent being circumcised. It's just not something that most of us talk about a lot, even to our parents.

Answer 2

Purely cosmetic!  More and more are opting not to do it nowdays.  My 3 sons are circumsized due to fathers wish, but had it of been my decision they would not have been.  Contrary to popular belief the circumcized p***s require more care the first year.  Only about 1% maybe less of uncircumsized males require circumcision later in life.  I actually had s*x once with an uncircumcised man & I never knew he wasn't until after the fact...Sorry just had to throw that in there for those concerned about the way it looks

Answer 3

If the answers to your questions were complete and definitive, circumcision of male babies would be universal or would not be done at all.

The best time for a circumcision to be done is at birth as it does prevent UTI's at about 12 times more than for uncircumcised babies. That said, however, UTI's are not common and occur in only about 4% of boy babies under one year.

The conventional wisdom is that male circumcision has some modest benefits that barely outweigh the risks and hence the AAP does not recommend universal circumcision, suggesting instead that it should be a matter of parental choice.

About 75% of American males alive today have been circumcised and the rate of infant circumcision in hospital has remained steady at about 60% for the past thirty years. A further 10% of boys get circumcised outside of hospital in the first year or two of life.

Conventional wisdom says that circumcision makes cleanliness of the p***s easier; it significantly prevents infections and problems of the f******n like phimosis or paraphimosis; and it is socially acceptable for cultural, social and religious reasons.

Some will try to tell you that the vast majority of the world's males are uncircumcised. In the gross total that is true. However, that includes China, India and South America which accounts for 1/2 of the worlds population. There are actually a number of countries where the rate of male circumcision is higher than in the US. This includes Israel and most Middle Eastern countries as well as Indonesia but also the Phillipines and South Korea.

Put simply, regardless of your choice, your son will have company in his circumcision status wherever he may live.

Finally the only data that exists concerning pleasure for the male based on his circumcision status ia ALL ANECDOTAL! No circumcised male knows how it feels with a f******n and no uncircumcised male know what s*x is like sans f******n.

At the end of the day it is a matter of personal choice and is best decided between you and the baby's father.

Answer 4

despite what some believe it is not unhygenic to leave it on.  You would have to have the worst hygiene ever for it to be a problem.  As far as I can see there are no cons with leaving it on.  As for cutting it off- pain to the baby and mutilation.  The baby dosnt exactly consent to it.  Leave it alone I say.  If they want it done they can do it when they are older

EDIT: I live in New Zealand and have never heard of anyone being circumsized.  It is not a common thing to do over here.  And it is NOT unclean at all.  Boys do not get UTIs and infections from having a f******n.  Who ever said that is very mis informed

Answer 5

Just remember that when he is older, he can always have the surgery to have his f******n removed but there is no way to put it back on... Let him decide when he is older, you wouldn't have a breast reduction on an infant either.

Surgery is surgery is surgery

Answer 6

It came down to a personal decision with me and my husband. It does help with cleanliness issues with little boys and helping prevent UTI infections. Talk with your doctor and they can tell you the medical Pros and Cons. It is much easier for a baby to be circumsized than an older child. Friend had his done at 12 and said that it was a traumatic experience. My son only cried while he was tied down during the procedure and his was done the day after birth. Talk with your Significant Other and they can probably tell you if they want it done or not.  

Answer 7

People in the U.S. seem to believe that circumcision is necessary to prevent infection.  Don't they realize that most of the world does not circumcise as a regular practice?  It is totally cultural.  The studies showing that circumcised men are less prone to infection are not statistically significant.  Even the American Academy of Pediatrics states that circumcision should not be done as a routine procedure.  It is not necessary.  Supposedly, uncircumcised men are more sensitive and this makes s*x more pleasurable.

Answer 8

the f******n covers the glans, protecting it and keeping it moist and sensitive

it's cut at birth for religious reasons,it was done to harm sexuality in the early 1900's and reduce masturbation, we continue to try and jsutify but nothing holds up with time

it never needs done, it should be left till they can decide

the commonly claimed advantages are:

cleaner - saves a few seconds of cleaning

std reduction - this is often claimed however statistics never agree, out of developed countries america has the highest STD rate and the highest circumcision rate, even within same populations observational studies more often than not show no difference between cut and intact men

reduction of later problems- like removing an arm to prevent an ingrown toenail, the most common problem with the f******n is phimosis and can be treated with stretching techniques and cream, short of frostbite nothing requires amputation of the f******n although some doctors especially american doctors will recommend circumcision when it's not needed as they themselves don't have a f******n and see no value in it

circumcision became popular in america during victorian times FOR the harm it did, masturbation was considered bad, and circumcision was thought to reduce it

consider the risks of each, circumcision carries very real immediate risks, with benefits that even if they do exist don't matter until the person can decide for themselves

Answer 9

Here's some info on the con side....

First, only 50% of boys nationwide are circumcised. You may actually find that your son is in the minority in the locker room if you cut him. (I don't advocate making this decision on those grounds, but if you were leaning towards doing it because you don't want him to be "different", you should know that the boys will be pretty evenly split between cut and intact and noone will think intact is weird)

Second, it is VERY painful to an infant. Most doctors still don't use any anesthesia, those that do rarely offer adequate anesthesia because the only stuff that works is not safe enough to use in infants for such a "minor" procedure. Further, some of the pain meds offered to infants aren't even reccomended for use on babies! Further, some doctors argue that it has beenb done "for thousands of years" without anesthetic- what they neglect to tell you is that a medical circumcision can take over 15 minutes to complete. A Jewish ritual circumcision, by contrast, takes under 60 seconds to complete (and the bay is given wine) Here is some info on the pain.....

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/

http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2... (note in this one that even infants offered pain meds for the procedure showed signs of post traumatic stress!)

You should also know that studies have shown that the most sensitive parts of the male anatomy of ON the f******n- NOT the head of the p***s. By cutting off the f******n, you remove a mans most errogenous genital tissue. Here is a study about that.... (note that other studies found no difference, but they neglected to test the sensitivty of the f******n- they only tested the glans p***s of intact and cut men and didn't pay any attention to the f******n at all) http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchte...

You should know that infant boys are EASIER to care for when they are intact. The f******n does not retract until late childhood or even puberty, so you do nothing special, just wipe the outside of his p***s clean and leave it alone. In a cut boy he will be extremely sensitive for a few weeks because the head of the p***s is raw and exposed (they have to tear the f******n off of the head in infants, it is naturally fused). During this time you will need to keep it VERY clean and may need to cover the wound with vaseline and guaze. Furthermore, to prevent painful and bleeding erections later in life, doctors are now commonly leaving more skin behind- in a cut boy this means you may have to push the left over skin back at every diaper change and clean beneath it to prevent it from readhereing or infecting. The very thing that mother's think they avoid by circumcising! In short-

Intact = wipe like a finger, NEVER retract

Cut= vaseline, clean thoroughly, push back remaining skin to prevent adhesions etc (the last step perhaps for several months or years)

Here is an excellent tutorial on the basics of intact care and circumcision....

http://www.lactivistintactivist.com/?pag...

Another factor in your decision is that circumcised boys experience a 12% increase in their risk of MRSA infection. MRSA is commonly picked up in hospitals (where circumcision is performed in non-sterile conditions) and has been known to kill adults. I wouldn't want to deal with it in an infant. Also, 12% is a BIG risk, the risk of a boy "needing" a circ later in life is WELL below that- under 1%. http://www.nocirc.org/publish/12-Answers...

The so called "benefits" of circumcision are generally trumped up. A big one now is that it "prevents" AIDS. All the studies showing "benefits" like this have been poorly designed and inconclusive. Also, for every study that finds a "benefit" there are more studies that find no benefit. http://www.icgi.org/

It is rather eye-opening to see how circumcision first became popular in the US to begin with. It was virtually unknown in this country until the 20th century. This slideshow takes you through the rise of circumcision.... http://youtube.com/watch?v=f4unKTMpBGA

Finally, you should watch a video or two of the procedure so you are fully informed of what your infant will go through. I will warn you that these are graphic. If you can't handle watching them as an adult, why would you expect your infant son to endure them?

There are two main methods for circumcision here is one of each-

Gomco Clamp- note that the father is in the room, and the doctor claims to have used anesthesia (although whether or not he did is debateable, and he is dissmissive about the whole idea) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Plastibell- I include this because some parents will have you believe it is "painless" or "requires no cutting/blood" I'll let you judge for yourself.....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qaqQ5Glro84

Answer 10

There's no good reason to do it at birth (or at any age unless it becomes needed, which is rare), it's just done for reasons of tradition and culture. No benefits to being circumcised.

Harriet

Answer 11

There is only one good reason for a baby boy to be circumcised and that is the parents religeous beliefs.

Answer 12

There really are no medical benefits to circumcision. Some  people do if for religious reasons (Jews and Muslims), but for Christians and everyone else, there is really no reason to circumcised a baby.

It's mainly done because doctors in the US used to believe that circumcision was healthier (no longer the belief) and hospitals used to routinely circumcised every male right after birth. Now, even though there are no medical reasons to do it, people in the US are used to the appearance of a circumcised p***s and think that it looks more normal and most parents want their son to look like daddy, so they have him circumcised. A lot of parents now are choosing not to do it because we now know that it hurts the baby and that there may be potential drawbacks to circumcision (like loss of sensitivity). The rate of circumcision among newborns in the US in 2007 was 56%.

I was circumcised when I was a baby, but probably won't have that done to my son. I see no reason to do it other than looks and to be honest in anywhere else in the world an uncut p***s probably looks more normal. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  

Answer 13

One main reason that i've heard about, is that If you are circumisized it makes it easier to clean and helps prevent infections.

Answer 14

There are no real medical benefits to doing. Some people do it for religion and others because they think it looks better.

At the end of the day, circumcision is medically unnecessary and it's hurting the baby for no reason so I'm against it.