Our family had a discussion, instigated by my husband the other night, which led us to realize that there are huge diferences even between British culture and the US. Boys are not circumcised as babies as standard practice in the UK whereas my husband says they are here in the US and you have to opt out in order to not have it done.

I hope this poll doesn't offend anyone, but my son was wondering when he gets a girlfriend, assuming she is in the US, whether she would think it strange that he is still "au-natural". It got my son (17) considering whether or not to have it done.

Depends - on what the parents decide.

There is no benefit to cutting off a boys foreskin..... this should only be done for medical reason and not when a boy is only 3 days old.... People think it is disgusting to to mutilate girls.... but it amounts to the same for boys...

My husband is Jewish and its there practise... but if we were to have a baby boy it will not be done....

Kezzie

Is your son NUTS? Unless you're Jewish there's no reason to remove that little piece of skin. I figure God put it there for a reason and if He didn't want us to have it it would drop off by itself

I don't have a son so thankfully I did not have to make that decision but I have heard it said some people decide based on the father's having had it done or not.... so father/son 'look alike' which makes it easier during the formative years....

Tell your son it will be of great benefit being "different", and not just because of his accent

To tell the truth, I think some American girls do find it "strange". I will refrain from commenting on whether that should affect his decision.....

I found it interesting that my husband for some reason thought that most American men were NOT circumcised.

My fiance' thought the same thing! I think it's because in his country, Albania, circumcision is something that really only the Muslim population does and the Christians don't. Since the majority of Americans are from some kind of Christian background, I guess he figured we didn't normally do it here.

As for me, I think my fiance' and I probably WILL circumsize any sons we will have (well, not US ourselves, of course, but a doctor ), but I think it's a decision that parents need to make together and that it's not a "should/shouldn't" issue.

Opt out in order NOT to have it done? Hmmmm...my son was born in 1995 (in Dallas) and I had to request it. Now, I regret that I did that because I only did it because his father insisted and only for "cosmetic" reasons. If I have any more sons I will NOT have them circumcised.

WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO CIRCUMSIZE A BOY???
WHY WOULD YOU REMOVE A WOMANS CLITORIS, SAME DIFFERENCE!!!
TAKE IT FROM SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT CIRCUMSIZED...

SIE ME

both religious and health reasons

Health? In this day and age?

There are no health reason to circumcised a healthy baby boy.... it is only nessisary if there is a problem with the skin being too tight and this is normaly only done on older children....

So please tell me what other health issues there are???

Kezzie

I really don't have an opinion, but it reminds me of a joke.

Doctor would save the skins from the operations in a big jar. Once the jar was full he hated to just toss them out so he took them to a leather worker and ask the guy to make something out of them.

A week later the doctor returns to the leather shop to see what the guy had made him.

He asks the leather worker if he had finished and the leather work said "yes and I think you will like what I made."

The leather worker goes into the backroom and comes out and hands the doctor a wallet.

The doctor says to the leather worker "out of that big jar of skins you only made me a wallet."

The leather worker says "yes, but when you rub real hard it it turns into a suitcase."

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWW

Male Circumcision Reduces Risk Of HIV Transmission From Women To Men

Review Shows Male Circumcision Protects Female Partners From HIV And Other STDs

A condom is much better than mutilating boys and sorry but we should not be doing this on the grounds that ours son's may sleep around and have unprotected sex....

Kezzie

Sie,

A little anatomical correction. The foreskin or prepuce is not equal to the clitoris. There is also a clitoral hood, a similar foreskin on a woman's anatomy, which has a similar function. Now there's debate as to the actual purpose of the foreskin, but many uncircumsised individuals report increased sensation during intercourse, as the skin which comprises the foreskin has many nerve endings called stretch receptors which are stimulated during rolling and unrolling of the skin over the hed of the penis and when extended. In other words, since the foreskin is an extension to the skin covering the shaft of the penis, the area of sensation during stimulation on an uncircumsised individual is larger. Furthermore, the foreskin does provide some protection to the head of the penis, and encourages mucous production, providing natural lubrication. The head of the penis, while very sensitive as well, is covered not with skin, but with a mucous membrane which can become irritated when subject to abrasion. Simple rubbing against underwear can, over time, cause the membrane on the tip of the penis to become a little more desensitised. The foreskin in this way acts much like finger nails in maintaining increased sensitivity to the fingertips. Naturally, there are others that disagree, but for the most part, many uncircumsised men claim that the foreskin prevents this membrane from becoming desensitised and as such provides for more stimulation.

And that's not even speaking of the frenulum, which is partially removed during circumcision

Ok, back to the sea....

[size=1]

great answer,,also religion will play a part

Just something to add to the topic.....

Medical, ethical and legal issues

* Circumcision has become a human rights issue, as many people consider it an unnecessary medical procedure done to children without their consent, removing a healthy part of their body, causing them pain and exposing them to unnecessary risks.
* Female circumcision has been almost universally seen as child abuse, and is forbidden in almost all parts of the world. Why, they ask, is male circumcision not seen the same way?
* The legal right of parents to decide to have their son circumcised is being challenged. They have rights in law to make decisions about treatment of their child for minor illness, but do they have the right to request an operation on a healthy child?
o It is lawful for a doctor to circumcise an infant, so long as the circumcision is performed expertly and reflects current 'best practice', it is believed to be in the child's best interest, and parents who request circumcision are fully informed, and formally consent to the operation.
* It seems possible that a man may be able to take legal action against his parent(s) for requesting and consenting to circumcision, but it is our understanding that this has not been tested in law yet.

Taken from here http://www.cyh.sa.gov.au/HealthTopics/Heal...304&id=1793


Kezzie

Absolutely, definitely not, unless there is some sort of medical need to do so.

For the record, as an American women, I prefer my men (man, now) uncircumsized. And the uncirc'd men I've been with were both of the opinion that the hygiene argument (which I've heard a lot) only applies to men who don't know proper hygiene. Neither of them ever had any of the hygiene issues that I've heard women complain about with uncirc'd men.

No, or at least not until an age where the boy can make a decision for himself.

Eew, no circumcision. I like 'em the way the good lord made 'em. (Too bawdy?)
I'm Jewish, so all the men in my family are circumcised, but if I had a son I would not circumcise him. Hygiene is something we have the ability to handle now, and risk of AIDS transmission, which I've also read before has been reduced through circumsision, is something I hope I can teach a son of mine to avoid. That alone is not a big enough issue (or makes a big enough difference) to justify mutilating the human body.

IMO, it's like how some religions forbid eating pork. This is probably because of the parasites that used to be found in them which we now can avoid. Outdated.

Just wash!

if i ever have a son he will be circumcised. for health and religious reasons.

my friend did not circumcize her son and when he was a baby she was not pulling the skin back far enough and he was getting infections.

her husband was not circumcised either and at age 40 she had to get a hystroectomy...

my father was not circumcised and my mom also was very young when she had her hystroectomy....

makes me wonder if this is from uncircumcised men carry bacteria and causing these woman to have hystr. at young age.

Hmmm... I wasn't aware we had eradicated disease and illness from the planet as of yet...

you know.....i had a best friend who was not and he hated himself for never having it done...he told me it use to get infected, and the first year of him having sex it use to tear and bleed....i just think it would be a little more sanitary and less painful if it was done...

Yes, I do recall reading somewhere recently that circumcision recduces cervicle (sp?) cancer... I was trying to imagine how something done to him could help her but now it makes sense.... thanks!

I vote for "depends"

Back in Indonesia, circumcised is only done by Muslims and they did it when their sons reach certain age (I think around 10-11, not sure though), not when they were babies. It's religious thing I guess, so the non-Muslims usually don't do that. Oh, and the parents also throw big parties for the boys, so it's kinda fun for them... Parents there also usually pierce girls' ears when they were babies. And this one is not religious thing so almost everyone does that. While here, I heard girls do that themselves if they want to.

There is some medical evidence that circumcised is good for genital hygiene, but it's not that important so that it's a must-be-done deal. I think it depends on the parents, there is no harm in doing that and no significant harm if you don't. Oh, and please don't make this into legal/human right issues... we have enough troubles already with other stuff ... Men suing their parents for cutting their parts is just what we need...

i worked at a hospital for a while in the emergency room... there was a woman who came in with a SEVERE vaginal infection... she had been treated for this same infection for a long time... come to find out, the infection was gettting RE-INFECTED because her husband was NOT circumsized... and apparently he was not cleaning the head area of the penis as he should have been...

i had my son circumsized when he was born... simply for the fact that men CAN tend to become lazy... lol...
i wouldn't wish that kind of infection on anyone... that poor woman was in an extreme mess!

Yes, that is a not infrequent problem with uncircumcised men. That said, the majority of uncircumsised men do not have the problem.

Wow this adds a whole new dimension... now I'm on the fence.

As a sufferer of infections.



I thought cervical cancer was caused by HPV? Perhaps foreskin helps spread HPV?

Men? Lazy? Yeah right

Ok are there any guys out there who got circumsized later in their sexual lives and can tell us if there is any pleasure difference?

A close friend of mine did. He says it hurts a lot less.

I belive it should be removed. its nasty and causes infections if not removed.
our boys will be..

I thought cutting the foreskin was just standard practice right after the kid is born. Anyway , I was kind of shocked to know when I first met my hubby that he hadn't been, and it's been the best "zoom, zoom " ever...
As far as cleanliness, just wash it every day..

I chose depends. If someone is Jewish, or some other religion that has this for a good reason, then I have no place in questioning it.

Outside of that, it's the decision of the parents. My fiance and I have discussed this and we decided, after researching the pros and cons of circumcision, not to have our future sons circumsized. But our decision isn't gonna make me tell other parents/future parents that they're wrong in any way. All I'll say is read up a lot on the subject before you decide.

I say whattever.. a girl in the us shouldn't care it works all the same.. Only thing is a kid at 17 I strongly strongly suggest not to do it.. unless they are a young kid it is very painful and they don't deserve to go through that.. PLus the scarring can be bad later on .. As far as infections go .. then make your kid take a bath and clean himself.. holy geez.. is it that hard? Tell him .. if you dont clean it .. it will fall off.. they will clean.

My sons were not done at birth but did need to be later. I am glad I did not do it at birth because when they could have it done they were given general anaesthetic.

It is up to the parent but it is not routine by any means to circ a baby at birth anymore.

I had a friend in his 20s who decided to get circ'd. He said it was the best thing he had ever done. His feeling improved by 100%.

I did not have it done to my son, he is now 12 and he is just fine, I have found that more and more parents are not having it done to thier baby boys.

I'll remember that.

this is not a black and white issue... and ppl can try to color it that way, but it just isnt...

there are benefits of circumcision... but there are also risks...

it is not an OPT OUT here in america... it is still a surgical procedure that a parent has to sign a separate consent for for a circumcision... infants are given a local anesthetic in most places (not all)...

even with proper hygeine, there can still be repetitive infections... and yes, keeping the foreskin does mean a higher incidence of spreading STDs (and even folks who *think* they are in a monogomous relationship can be affected)... and cervical cancer is caused by HPV... there is also a higher risk of penile cancer for boys who remain uncircumcized

with circumcision, there can be a decreased sensation... some scarring... and there can be bleeding, which would be corrected before leaving the hospital

i work in a neonatal intensive care unit... i see circumcisions frequently... parents are not pushed into it... they are given the risks and benefits and make their own decisions...

i have also worked in a same day surgery unit... and have seen boys from the age of 3 to 65 getting circumcisions done for a variety of health reasons... none of them were ever just cosmetic...

dont judge others for the decisions they make... you just dont know what all goes into their choices

The 'health' I was referring to was with respect to hygiene.

If someone has an STD, or other transmittable disease for that matter, circumcision is not going to reduce the likelihood of transmission. Only a condom can 'help' with that.

I am completely undecided on this issue.....

Parents decision according to their beliefs.
I vote yes for health reasons because that's what I plan to have done on my son if/when I have one someday.

a priest who has been performing circumcisions has been saving the "extras" for years. finally he goes to a leathermaker and asks him to make something out of all of them to commorate his 20 years of doing this. after a month, the leathermaker brings him a wallet. a wallet, exclaims the priest. all of them and it just makes a wallet? yes, replies the leathermaker, but if you rub it right it turns into a suitcase.

yes, for medical and hygene purposes

Speaking as someone who had it done as a baby I would say yes. Cosmetically I think most American women would prefer it that way. In the end it really boils down to the preference of the parents.

Hey Welcome to 4 days ago