Posted on 05/19/2005 5:39:11 PM PDT by gobucks
My mother-in-law said, "you don't talk about stuff like this. You just do it." She was referring to the decision soon upon Mrs. Gb and me regarding whether or not to circumcise our son ... he's due in a couple of weeks. She was singing in unison with a lot of other voices. This experience has revealed, like so many other topics (like unmedicated child birth, breast feeding, etc etc) that circumcision is another hot topic in the culture war. Folks have strong feelings about it.
I'm looking for Freeper advice about this. The internet, as usual, is awash with all kinds of things about this, but as with my first 'Pregnant Wife' post, I am betting Freepers will have an exceptionally different outlook on the matter. Bottom line, what is wrong with NOT circumcising him?
Status: At first, it was a no brainer. "I want him to look like his Daddy" is what Mrs. Gb said. I did'nt really dwell on this topic too much myself ... it just didn't seem important, and I didn't like the way I felt when I DID think about it.
But then I started doing some research. Turns out this subject is quite interesting; several very interesting threads exist here too. Anyway, when I learned that no health studies exist that prove circumcised boys have 'healthier' results, ahem, than non-circumcised boys, it boiled down to religious reasons yea or nea, and hence posting this in the religion forum.
Now, a covenant is a very, very interesting word, seldom used, and rarely understood it seems.
Covenant is evidently the only kind of 'promise' God deals in .. he doesn't contract, or bargain, or 'deal' ... or promise even. He convenants, and initially, circumcision was the mark of the coventees. But w/ the advent of Christ, and the near rupture of the early church over the issue, it suddenly became optional.
I have learned that in Europe, circumcision is quite uncommon. I have no idea how or why it became so common here. But I have been deeply questioning just what is gained by having my son within a few moments of birth getting cut 'down there'.
Mrs Gb, was talking to a neighbor down the street who had to have her son's procedure repeated, (she told the story in minute detail) because the OB who tried it the first time evidently slipped or something.... well, needless to say, we are leaning strongly to skipping this 'procedure' and telling him when he is older that he appears different from me simply because people didn't know any better back in the old days.
The neighbor, predictably, wouldn't dream of NOT circumcising her boys ... but she wasn't really quick with an explanation as to why.
Well, that is it. I look forward to helpful replies...
Where's the evidence to back up all those claims?
I was simply referring to what I knew about it in Acts and Romans...; both make it pretty clear that it is not a 'preferred' pathway.
Two of my (formerly uncirc-ed) uncles had to have the procedure done in their 50s do "an emergent medical condition," which I assumed to be some sort of pre-cancerous indication.
In neither case was hygiene an issue --
Regards,
PS: Both my boys are snipped. Neither of them even yelped when it was done by my nice (and FAST) OB/GYN. My uncles were relieved to hear it.
That being said...my advice to anyone is always "do what you think best for YOUR kids."
Thanks!
Many thanks!
Hmmmm.....
We spoke to our parents about circumcision before ultimately deciding against it. Everything went along swimmingly for a while, but we now regret it.
If you don't circumcise, your son can experience fusion of the uncircumcised skin to the penis. Just this past year, my son wanted to bathe like a big boy (he's 5 years old); meaning, he wanted to bathe himself. He used to ask me to "check" his "winkie", and I worked with him on cleaning it. We thought everything was okay, but he apparently wasn't as concerned about "checking his winkie" as he was about playing in the tub.
End result, fusion problem. We are consulting with a pediatric urologist about having it done, but it's more dangerous now. He has to be put under anesthesia (which, while very common, is not without it's risks). He's going to feel the pain of it (YOUSA!) for at least 10 days, and the risk of infection is greater because he can reach for it.
My advice? Get it done while he's a little one, can't mess with it, and is far too young to remember the pain of it.
See posts 14 & 23, birth rates for circumcision practicing Muslims, Orthodox Jews and Americans versus their counterparts such as Chinese, Liberal Jews and Europeans. Some of the other claims must be tested to be appreciated. Now forgive me while I take a break to seduce Mrs. Vigilanteman.
Umm... okay :o)
WHooooosh. Ok. There's something I now HAVE to look into...hadn't heard of 'fusion'. Thanks for the report; I'll get back to you about it...
It has been my understanding that as far as circumcision and health are concerned it is more a matter of cleanliness than a real health issue. It is easier to keep clean.
On the religious aspect I'd say unless you are Jewish then the issue is just a matter of choice.
Sounds like you are leaning against circumcision and that sounds fine.
As far as aesthetics are concerned I say a circumcised member looks better.
My impression is that it is the American female is the one who is the perpetrator of this "tradition." When this looked like it might be an issue for us (it wasn't) my wife's sister who had had her little boy snipped was almost hysterical at the thought we wouldn't do the same. An RN (who had had her boy snipped) said that if the boy turns out to be gay, it will be more painful to have the circumcision done later (apparently the foreskin gets in the way of anal sex). If you want to make sure that your boy is already to engage in homosexual anal intercourse, you'll have him snipped. If not, you won't.
As his father, you have a duty to protect you son against this mutilation. Complications are apparently not that uncommon, if you include the loss of normal function of the tissue removed, the complication rate is 100%. Of course you might want to have the opportunity to turn your boy into a girl.
Okay, my network seems to be working now, but I cannot find any relevant reference in Galatians.
Please provide chapter and verse.
Depending on what your pediatrician tells you, the amount that you retract the foreskin can cause problems.
Some people presume you retract the foreskin all the way until the head of the penis pops out. I had two separate pediatricians tell me that wasn't necessary; that you only had to retract until it starts to crown, clean thoroughly, and let it go back to covering the penis.
Well, we did as we were instructed, and the fusion problem first occurred when my son was 18 months old. It was discovered when a different pediatrician retracted him completely and he howled in pain. The foreskin swelled and was red for two days (my poor baby). Still, the fusion problem had already started.
We were able to overcome it by gently retracting a little further everyday, several times, while my son was the in bathtub and the skin slowly separated again. It was an unpleasant process though; a few times, the head of the penis would pop up, but the foreskin wouldn't settle back into position. It had to be eased back, after several minutes in the bath, and hurt him like heck. As a mother, it made me queasy, because I didn't want him to have any unpleasant memories, particularly concerning that part of his anatomy!
From that point on, I made it my business to "check the winkie" to ensure fusion did not come back.
Like I said, once he got on his own, things changed. Now he can hardly retract at all. It's going to have to be cut.
On the other hand, you have my grandfather, who lived to 92 years old, never had a problem with it, and was uncircumcised. It really does depend on the individual.
I'm pregnant myself (3 months along). If this is a boy, he will definitely be circumcised.
Perhaps it's just my experience with my two sons, but boys are just not clean creatures. Unless they have neatnick tendencies, they just don't clean themselves very well--anywhere.
BTW, both of my sons are circumcised.
Modern circumcision is a form of genital mutilation.
It is the equivalent for males of the barbaric procedures in Africa where little girls have their clitoris and vulva (the vaginal lips) cut off.
You are quite correct that the commandment of God to Abraham involved a much milder form of circumcision than what is generally practiced today. See Michaelangelo's statue of David, who has a very noticeable foreskin, and yet was circumcised. Modern circumcision is a "teaching of men" that Christ condemned in the Pharisees, not a commandment of God.
There is no medical reason to circumcise. 80% of the world's males (essentially everyone who is not Muslim, Jewish, Black African, or American), do not get circumcised. Why is America in the company of those backwards groups? Should we really be emulating Zambia, Sudan, and Yemen, or countries like Sweden, Japan, New Zealand, Italy, Korea, and Ireland?
Circumcising your son, besides mutilating his sexual organ, also opens him up to the possibility of complications arising from the procedure. Medical literature notes such complications as death from hemmoraghing, destruction of the penis necessitating a sex change from degloving of the organ (loss of skin), and blood infections. Circumcision is done without anesthetic - an operation of the most sensitive part of the body with no pain-killer. Generally, the baby shrieks in the most terrifying pain for about 15 minutes during this procedure and must be restrained by being tied down.
Circumcision permanently scars the male penis and reduces its sexual functioning and ability to experience pleasure, since it makes what is left harder, tighter, and less sensitive, aside from removing a large portion of the penis with much of the nerve endings (the foreskin and frenulum). It also inhibits female pleasure during sex, very frequently preventing female orgasm, something noted as a "benefit" as long ago as 1000 years by medieval Rabbi Moses Maimenodes in his "Guide for the Perplexed".
The main reason so many American males are circumcised is because quack doctors at the turn of the century pushed it as a "cure" for masturbation in order to prevent blindness and drying out of the brain. This ridiculous belief caught on and spread like wildfire, helped along by the belief of the US Army Medical Corps that circumcision would prevent veneral diseases. I would trust you don't believe this sort of nonsense, especially given America's prominent place as one of the countries with the most rampant incidence of VD, despite near universal circumcision.
It is also noteworthy that the growth of circumcision among males correlates well to the explosion of divorce in this country since 1900, and America's sky-high divorce rate, generally twice the level of the rest of the civilized west. Sexual dissatisfaction is at the root of many a divorce.
Several recent medical articles have touched on the circumcision topic.
Laumann, Masi, and Zuckerman, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (1997, 277:10527, "Circumcision in the United States: Prevelance, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice") found that circumcised men were more likely to masturbate, engage in heterosexual anal and oral sex, and to engage in homosexual acts. --- Is that what you want your son to grow up tending towards?
O'Hara and O'Hara, in the British Journal of Urology International (1/99, Vol 83, Supplement 1, pp 79-84, "The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner"), found that around 90% of women who had experience with both circumcised and natural men preferred and found sex more enjoyable with natural men. --- What do you want your future daughter-in-law to experience?
The referenced study also goes into great detail about the major functions played by the prepuce during intercourse.
Some women don't know what is good for them.
I would prefer it that way. I think a cut penis is ugly but then my mother says I'm not normal anyway :o)
Orthodox Jewish women have a much lower rate of cervix cancer than those married to uncircumcised men.
Orthodox Jewish women ware married to men who are generally faithful. The major factor in cervical cancer is the presence of other venereal diseases, such as herpes.
Cervical cancer rates in non-circumcising nations like Sweden and Norway are far lower than the rate in the US.
While there is little difference among circumcised and uncircumcised men in reports of satisfaction with intercourse
Citation?
women have a much higher rate of satisfaction when they have sex with circumcised men
Citation?
Some of the most dissatisfied women in the world are here in the circumcised US. You certainly don't here about French, Germans, Italians, and Chinese women bitching about their husbands being unable to have intercourse in a way that gives them pleasure.
Circumcision is a whole lot less painful when done in infancy
BS. Anytime a knife cuts off part of your penis, it is incredibly painful. Infants have to be physically restrained in order to allow circumcision to take place.
because circumcised men maintain better erections, longer erections and better and longer contact between the most sensitive part of the penis and the most sensitive part of his partner's vagina
Actually, many circumcised men are premature ejaculators. Surveys show circumcised men generally cannot last as long as uncircumcised, by a factor of about 33%.
Why do you think those who practice circumcision generally more fecund than those who do not?
Who would these fecund people be? Chinese? Indians? Russians? Germans? 80% of the world is uncircumcised.
I dare say you are totally unqualified to speak on uncircumcised sex since you have obviously never experienced it. Find a woman who has had both, ask her, then get back to us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.