Is it better to have your son?

Question

Is it better to have your son circumcised or not? Since I am a girl, I don't feel like I have a say at all, and I am leaving it up to my husband. He isn't and he seems to take really good care of it, so he shouldn't have to worry about having to do it later on. I have heard horror stories of men having to get it done much later on in their lives, and I don't want to put my son through that, but I have also heard of complications with it and they ended up losing the p***s. What do you think, and please don't be rude. I am curious as to what everyone thinks.

Answer 1

I wouldn't do it if I had a son, it's not necessary. A f******n is a normal part of the p***s. It's not as susceptible to infection or problems as some people say - but if something does arise, it can be dealt with at the time. Also it's easier to clean than a circumcision wound (the f******n is attached and you just wipe the outside). My boyfriend is intact and happy he wasn't circumcised.

Harriet

Answer 2

No, it is better to leave them intact.  The horror stories about men having to get in done later - usually they didn't really need it done at all.  Many doctors here in the US don't know much about the f******n so when there's a problem, they suggest cutting it off instead of treating it like they would in other countries - with medicine.  Men get the same types of infections as women, and they can be treated the same way.

And yes, complications from the surgery do happen, and more often than most people realize.  It doesn't have to be as drastic as losing the entire p***s (though that has happened) and the complications don't always arise immediately - the boy has his whole life ahead of him and some of the problems aren't apparent until puberty or later.

And as for your nephew - one of the biggest cause of problems in intact boys is that the parents do TOO MUCH cleaning, not that they don't clean it enough.  All you need to do when the child is small is wipe the outside, just like a finger.  Never pull that skin back, as that causes tears in the skin that can get infected....which will lead to a doctor telling the parents that the boy needs to be circ'ed.

In a child, the f******n is attached to the head of the p***s just like your fingernails are attached to your fingers - imagine the pain and infections you would get if you repeatedly pulled your fingernails up to clean underneath!  The skin usually separates by puberty, but not always.  Once the skin is retractable, all the boy needs to do is retract and clean it with water and maybe some mild soap.

Answer 3

I have 3 sons and all were cicumcised within 48 hrs of birth. But, this is something that is totally up to you and your husband. As long as you take good care of it after it is done, there shouldn't be any complications. Good luck!

Answer 4

You mention being a Christian; read your Bible, Christians aren't supposed to be circumcised, according to the Apostle Paul.

In any event, this report alone should be evidence that baby boys shouldn't be circumcised;

From Medical News Today, 09 JUN 2008:

Newborn Circumcision:  The Controversy Revisited

"    The jury is still out, but the take home message was that circumcision is not without its complications and one of these complications is death."

"     It appears to be a risky procedure with truly little medical indication in the newborn period."

--Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA)

www.urotoday.com

Yes, death can result from this, catastrophic infections, such as MRSA, drug-resistant staph and strep, gangrene and more.

To my knowledge, a f******n never killed anyone, but circumcision has killed thousands and also caused many other complications.

In my case, the loss of sensitivity was much greater than average, due to the nerve damage from infant circumcision, and I was unable to reach o****m in normal s*x.    I hate my parents (deceased) and the medical profession as a whole for mutilating me.     I've had problems in all my adult life because of this, depression, and anger.

I feel that I was violated; tied down, sexually assaulted and abused, mutilated, as a helpless infant for absolutely no reason.    My own father was intact (uncircumcised).     Yes, there are psychological implications because of male genital mutilation, but the doctors won't warn you about this, nor many other of the complications resulting.

Doctor make money from circumcisions, they are biased in general as a very large percentage of them belong to the minority religions that try to impose this practice on everyone.     Doctors usually won't offer alternatives to circumcision for a minor problem with the f******n, which, like any other body part can have a problem.    

Circumcision is never necessary or desirable.   80% of the men in the world are intact, and certainly their genitals work just fine, as witnessed by the birthrates in those countries that don't as a rule mutilate baby boys.

I am biased against circumcision; I am a victim of it.  It ruined my life and my s*x life.     Do you want to risk your son's future well-being?

You are very smart in asking for this advice.    In the old days, one of the reasons that circumcision became so widespread in the US was that doctors were the only ones to ask, the internet didn't exist.

Did you know that roughly 10% of circumcisions require additional surgeries to attempt to repair damage resulting from the first one?

They suppress this information so as not to discourage people from circumcision.

Should you decide to leave your son intact and whole, there's one thing you should know; NEVER retract the f******n of an infant or toddler and NEVER allow any "health care professional" to do it either.

This premature, forcible retraction damages the f******n opening, destroying the elasticity and causes phimosis, due to the scarring.

I know of parents who posted a sign by their newborn stating;

Do not circumcise, do not retract; we'll sue.

For information about the infant f******n, you can go to the NOCIRC site.    NOCIRC was founded by Marilyn Milos, a nurse who saw the savage brutality of circumcision and refused to be a party to it.

Your nephew quite probably developed problems because some person or persons forced his f******n back prematurely---infants' penises don't require cleaning under the f******n; it's fused to the glans, and generally isn't retracted until about the age of 8 or so.

Please, for your son's sake, leave him as nature made him.    

Natural and normal is better than scarred, mutilated and partial.

A f******n is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

If God had intended me to have a f******n, I would have been born with one.

Answer 5

I have an 8  month old and we had  it done in the hospital the dat after he was born.  They use numbing medicine and it only hurts them for a minute, and it really should be done.  Everyone does it nowadasys I though.  I live in Ohio and it's the mothers decision here, I am the one who had to sign off on it when I was admitted.  I am also in nursing school and on my externships have been to may retirement homes and they usually make us students do the crappy jobs which include changing and bathing some of the older men, most o whom are uncircumsized.  It's nasty, smelly and painful looking bc if you don't take care of it right and clean it properly they can get very infected and swell up.  Also, most people do have it done so do you want him to be embarrassed about it when hes older?  I would get it done sooner rather than later bc the longer you wait the more painful it will be for him!

Answer 6

You should definitely not circumcise.  Circumcision is on the decline.  The pro-circumcisers in the USA have created a lot of myths about how unclean the normal intact p***s is and how it is more prone to HIV and UTI's.  This assertion is based on flawed research:

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

All medical associations agree that even if there was a small disease-preventative benefit to circumcision - it still wouldn't be worth it - due to the risk of complications (2-10% - which is far greater than the supposed protective benefit percentage) and also the damaging effect circumcision has on sexuality and p***s sensitivity.

Circumcised men lose one of the most sensitive parts of the p***s.  The f******n has many sensitive nerves on its underside (http://www.enotalone.com/776-1.html ) and these are stimulated by the skin moving up and down like so:

http://geocities.com/painfulquestioning/...

This gliding action of the skin is important in s*x because it provides a cushion and it means that the man doesn't have to thrust as hard to achieve pleasure - which means he will be more in tune with his sexual partner as nature intended:

http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F...

So - it is far from just a piece of useless skin.

If you are going to have an intact boy - taking care of him couldn't be easier.  Do not pull the f******n back - ever!  That is incorrect advice from doctors in the USA with no experience of the intact p***s.  Forcible retraction of the f******n can cause adhesions and non-retractable scar tissue.  The f******n separates naturally from the glans and this happens when it happens.  The average age of being able to retract it without force is 10 - it could be sooner than this or later.  A quick wipe over the p***s with water is sufficient - do not use soap near the p***s as it can inflame it.  And really that is it - far less than caring for a circumcised boy where you have to tend to the wound all the time and stop the f******n fusing to prevent skin bridges.  Having your boy circumcised is just creating future problems.  Why make things difficult for ourselves by trying to improve on perfection?

Answer 7

No, it's not better.  It's best to value him as a whole individual and leave him intact, as nature intended him to be.  It is NOT commanded in the Bible for Christians, and in fact, there is quite a stern admonition against it in the New Testament.

There are not that many men who have had to get it done later in life.  As for it being more painful, that's not true.  It's just that the adult male remembers the pain, while most infants don't (there has been some evidence that they do actually remember it).

Over 80% of the world's males are intact, so for anyone telling you that "everyone does it", those people don't have a clue.  Even in the US right now only about 50% of males are being circumsized, and that rate is steadily declining.

What I think is that no parent should have the right to choose to remove a part of their child's body.  This is a very personal thing, and the owner of the p***s should be the ONLY person who gets to decide if it stays or goes.  No medical authority recommends circumcision anymore, which is why it's not covered under insurance, whether private or public.

Would you want someone to remove a part of your body without your consent?  I certainly wouldn't.

Edited: I wanted to add a couple of other things regarding the whole "it's more painful for him if he has to get it done as an adult" argument.

Imagine for a moment that you had breast cancer and had to have a masectomy.  Very painful surgery, so I'm told.  Well, all that could have been prevented if the doctors had removed your b*****s as an infant, right?  Do you see my logic here?  We shouldn't be removing body parts because they "might" cause us problems later in life.  If we do have problems, we can deal with them when they arise.  This goes for other issues, too.  Removing tonsils, the appendix, etc. prevents problems later in life, but we don't subject our children to unnecessary surgeries until there's a problem.

Edited again: Please read this link.  http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/patric...

I know it's rare for this to happen, but I can't stop crying over it.

Answer 8

I would never lop off a perfectly healthy part of my son's genitals because he MIGHT have a problem later. I'm quite happy with my son not being mutilated unnecessarily. It's brutal and can lead to sexual disfunction in later life (not that amazing that cutting off part of your genitals can do that eh?).

Are you American? In Britain it is never done unless medically necessary. (Apart from for religious reasons but don't even get me going on that...)

Answer 9

I would definitely advise you not to circumcise. It is unnessecary, painful, and not without serious risks. Here is some information, with links, to help you make your decision....

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

Co

Answer 10

It's better not to do it and I sure wish it had never been done to me.

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.

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 11

I left it up to my husband too and he was adamant about having it done.  We did it and my son is 6 and a half months old.  I never felt guilty about having it done, and don't think it's a problem at all.  There have been some studies done that show that circumcised men don't contract HIV and/or STDs are readily as men that are uncircumcised.  So talk to your pediatrician and weigh the benefits and risks associated with it.  I have friends who have had it done and friends who haven't, so it really is a personal decision.

good luck

Answer 12

There's no reason to circumcise him.  It's extremely rare for a boy or man to actually NEED to be circumcised.  How old was your nephew when he was circumcised?  It was probably done unnecessarily.  You should NEVER clean under a baby or child's f******n until it's retractable and the boy pulls it back himself, usually not before the age of five and possibly not until he's a teenager.  Forcing the f******n back can CAUSE infections, as well as other problems.

Both of my sons are intact and have never had an infection.  I don't imagine that they ever will, but if they do the infection can be treated easily enough.  How many women get vaginal infections?  

Here's some good information:

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.o...

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

Complications from circumcision, including a baby who did, in fact, lose his entire p***s:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.ht...

Another botched circ (I hope this doctor lost his license to practice medicine):

http://www.genitalintegrity.net/blouch/2...

As for "having" to get it done later, there are treatments for all of the usual excuses doctors give for circumcising.  

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

Answer 13

it would be  better for a son

Answer 14

Given that your husband isn't circumcised, and that you have no religious requirements, I don't think you should even consider circumcising! The chances of a problem happening are slim — despite what happened to your nephew. For example, I haven't been circumcised and I've never had any problems.

Here are some other facts I suggest you consider:

- According to a Gov't study, only HALF of baby boys are being circumcised in the US nowadays (compared to 80% a few decades ago) and worldwide only 20% are.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_1...

- Circumcision is now seen as medically unnecessary. The AAP does not recommend routine circumcision anymore. They say "it is not essential to the child's current wellbeing."

- The f******n is not just a useless flap of skin. It holds many protective, sensory and sexual functions, and since the invention of the shower, its real easy to keep clean.

http://www.noharmm.org/mothering.htm



- An baby's uncircumcised p***s requires NO special attention. You don't need to clean under the f******n after every diaper change! He'll discover his f******n whenever he's ready (which won't be retractable until the age of 5-10) and then its a case of simply educating him about his own personal hygiene.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Care.html

I think you should leave your son’s p***s intact — He’ll be a bit of perfection when he’s born so 'if it aint broke dont fix it'!

Answer 15

I have never heard of anyone losing a p***s, except Mr. Bobbit.   That's a first.

Sometimes, some type of infection can set in (at any age) and warrant a circumcision.  I remember a 6 year old boy having his done when I was young, and remember the adults talking about how much pain he was in.

My son was done and he's been fine.  It's a personal decision, and for some folks, a religious decision.

Answer 16

I have 3 sons. none are circumcised. all are taught how to care for themselves. none have had any problems whatsoever.

i know a lot of ppl in the US freak out about it being not done; saying that it's "cleaner" to have it done, but honestly most of Europe is not circumcised and you don't hear about any rampant infection going around because of it. lol most of what you hear is over exaggeration.

my suggestion would be to google it (circumcision) and do some factual research about it. talk it over w/your husband and decide together what is right for you two.

edit:

i'm in texas too!

Answer 17

I am having a baby boy this month and I don't intend to get it done. I think that if boys are born with it like that, well that's the way god intended it to be. I don't want to inflict pain on to my son.. But that's my personal choice.

Answer 18

my son isnt. i am. my sons mother wanted him circumcised, but i didnt..soo in the end he wasnt. and later in life when hes a little older i will teach him about being clean and everything.

Answer 19

personally, i wouldnt if i had a son.

id teach him, or daddy would, how to be clean.

i think its unnecessary pain for cosmetics.

Answer 20

Don't do it. There is absolutely no reason other than aesthetic purposes. We had our son circumcised and I felt guilty for quite a while. I left the decision up to my husband and he decided to have it done. If you have a GOOD pediatrician, they will tell you how to take care of it. You don't have to pull back the skin etc.